The New England Aquarium unveiled its Live Blue Initiative recently. The initiative uses some of the same communication approaches I’ve seen in successful energy efficiency programs.
Like the energy use stickers from my Twitter post this week, the Live Blue site attempts to connect our environmental choices with their effects. The site asks visitors to click on an image of a sea creature to select an area of the ocean; once they select these places, they can commit to taking environmental actions. For example, when I click on the image of a rare dolphin from the New Zealand coast, I learn that “living blue” can help this species of dolphin survive.
Inviting people to make commitments can be a very successful approach for environmental outreach. But what is “living blue” – and how does it make a difference? The site suggests environmentally friendly choices, but doesn’t connect these actions with their results. I know using fewer plastic bags is a good idea, since many of them become unhealthy appetizers for animals in the ocean. But if I’m deciding between bringing reusable bags to the store and not buying oysters, how do I know what to choose? If I didn’t read environmental news, I wouldn’t know oysters are going extinct.
I’m already supportive of the New England Aquarium’s work, so I’m interested in learning more about “living blue.” But there are many people who are not sure why they should recycle. If the New England Aquarium wants site visitors to understand that their choices have environmental consequences, the site should make the connection between the “living blue” actions and their potential benefits – especially the benefits that are clearly and directly relevant to website visitors.
Kat Friedrich 