Evaluating+timelines


 * Climate Change is hazardous to your health ||
 * Smoking ||
 * Asbestos ||
 * DDT ||
 * Climate Change ||
 * Evaluating timelines ||
 * Current attitudes towards climate change ||
 * Progressing attitudes towards climate change ||
 * References ||



**Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change **

There are certain markers which characterise the stages of change in this model. 53.  In the graphs I developed, these stages were imposed beside the stages I defined, based on analysis of the characteristics of the events in each timeline. In the TTM model, key markers are as follows:

//Precontemplation // - uninformed, ignorant of problem, unmotivated, resistant or in denial //Contemplation // - Desire to change, weighing pros and cons, ambivalent, immobilised by conflicting emotions //Preparation // - Pros of change outweigh cons, possible earlier attempts to change already made, experimenting with small changes, gathering information about change //Action // - Actual change begins, taking direct action toward achieving goal, half way through process of change, relapse most likely at this point //Maintenance // - achieved and maintaining a new behaviour (> 6 months), relapse remains possible but less likely (NB this stage not included in my graph)

Considering these stages and our graphs, it is clear that for smoking, asbestos and DDT, a significant percentage of population is engaged in the ‘Action’ stage. In the case of asbestos and DDT, widespread bans on the use of these substances places them in the ‘Maintenance’ stage, however, as a significant number of countries continue to manufacture and/or use asbestos, the graph cannot show global populations to be stable in the ‘Maintenance’ stage. As smoking remains available, legal and active worldwide, it is only individuals who could be said to have reached the ‘Maintenance’ stage. Clearly, it remains a significant health issue around the world.

**Consistent influences and patterns seen in all examples. **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">While these simplified graphs do not detail the many and sometimes significant transitions which occurred through time for each example, they do offer insight into some key trends. It is clear from the timelines and the summary graphs, that all three examples show a period of ignorance before concerns were raised about the activity’s safety. We can also consistently see evidence of significant conflict over the assertion that the activity was harmful to human health. In each case, denial of risks to health occurred repeatedly.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Other consistencies include:
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Scientific and medical research began to raise concerns some time before the dangers of the product were widely recognised.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Persons in authority developed knowledge of the dangers of use/contact long before the broader public became aware.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">The journey from ignorance about the dangers of the product to widespread awareness of those dangers - and according cessation or reduction in use of the product - was not linear. That is to say, societal attitudes followed a see-saw pattern where evidence and concern reduced confidence and usage before PR and defensive tactics from manufacturers recovered - and often increased - consumption.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Manufacturers or authorities supporting the continued of use of that product actively worked to influence attitudes and convince the public that the product was benign to health. This included strategies which fought back against criticism and concern with their own ‘research’ or PR, offering scientific evidence of the ‘benign’ - and ‘beneficial’ - nature of the product.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">The threat of litigation was also likely to have caused manufacturers to take on a defensive stance.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">The influence of one or more ‘champions of the cause’, who dedicated themselves to bringing the dangers of an action to the attention of the public and action by authorities. This is often at significant personal cost. Two examples of this are Bernie Banton - the Australian former asbestos worker who contracted mesothelioma and asbestosis before dedicating the remainder of his life calling his former employer to account through the legal system and media; and Rachel Carson, a naturalist and author whose book ‘Silent Spring’ alerted the public to the dangers of pesticides including DDT and is credited with launching the environmental movement in a public space.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">The most effective tools in progressing awareness of the dangers of each example, were evidence, combined with public will. Evidence was largely presented in the form of scientific and medical data. Public will came into force after documented examples of health effects began to mount and affect individuals directly.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">There are also challenges to consider amongst these examples, such as the difficulty of processing abstracts. It is likely for each example, that the lack of a direct or immediate correlation between the act of smoking, using asbestos or DDT, and injury to one’s health made the duration of attitudinal change much longer. When presented with statistics to warn of danger, the threat can, to a degree, remain intangible to those at risk. How do you translate a health warning into a relatable message, when the negative effects may not manifest for years, decades - and possibly ever? This challenge is even greater for climate change, as scientists are faced with the burden of proving direct connections between environmental activity (‘nature’) and unseen but steadily rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Points of difference amongst examples **
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Smoking stands out from other examples because the motivations behind its uptake and continued use are unique. Most commonly peer group pressure, a family history of smoking and the tobacco industry’s concerted campaign of allure without consequence, leads to smoking, followed by addiction. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; vertical-align: super;">54. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;"> These motivations have no doubt played a significant role in the see-saw pattern of awareness and action to reduce the number of humans harming their health through cigarettes.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Another possible difference with the example of smoking is that of knowingly self-destructive behaviour. Though it does not take into account the unconscious act of addiction, injurious behaviour through smoking also implies a wilful act - and with asbestos, DDT and to some extent climate change, end users were, in many cases, simply unaware of the harm they inflicted upon themselves and others.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">A further point of difference in the three examples relates to outcomes. In the case of asbestos and DDT, use is now widely banned. This is not the case for smoking.