Communicating the Future of Energy Use: Qualitative Insights into the Efforts of Environmental Groups in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore

ABSTRACT

As Southeast Asia faces the energy challenge, environmental groups are key in facilitating discussions on energy use. However, limited research on the communication strategies of environmental groups in the region has hampered evaluation of the efficacy of extant communication efforts. We conducted online focus group discussions with 26 environmental groups in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore to examine their communication goals, use of communication channels, and the range of public engagement activities. Results indicated that the groups conducted dialogical public engagement activities and used digital media platforms frequently. We offer recommendations for environmental groups who wish to expand their scope of communication outreach.

KEYWORDS:

• Environmental groups
• communication strategies
• public communication of science
• energy use
• focus group discussions

As a region identified to be vulnerable to the effects of climate change and set to face the challenges of meeting rising energy demands (Prakash, 2018), governments and environmental groups in Southeast Asia have implemented policies and carried out outreach programs to emphasize the importance of introducing renewable energy sources into their countries’ energy mix. For instance, the Indonesian government envisions renewable energy to supply 31 percent of the country’s energy use by 2050 (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2018). Representatives of Greenpeace (2019) held a demonstration to implore the government to act on the policy. Similarly, the Malaysian government targeted for renewable energy to comprise a 7.8 percent share of the country’s installed capacity by 2020 (IRENA, 2018). To help spread the message on adopting clean energy, Power Shift Malaysia (2014), a youth-led climate change movement, organized workshops to train youths on green campaigning. Due to the limited natural resources that the country has, the Singapore government is focused on generating one gigawatt-peak of solar energy beyond 2020 (IRENA, 2018). Speak for Climate (2019) is one of the environmental groups that led the public to urge the government to align the economic sectors more closely with the commitment to reduce carbon emissions. Among the many outreach activities implemented in Southeast Asia, the efforts identified showcase different forms that advocacy for the adoption of renewable energy take.

Environmental communication scholars have mapped out models to characterize such public communication strategies undertaken by environmental groups, such as the communicating environmental information model and the ecological model of the communication process (Jurin et al., 2010)–both of which focus on the transmission of messages and dynamics of interactions among various stakeholders in environmental communication. However, there are fewer models characterizing and differentiating the forms public engagement activities take. Hestres (2014), for example, borrowed from the literature on Internet-mediated advocacy to assess the communication and advocacy practices of two climate change advocacy campaigns. Here, we instead draw on the dominant science communication models: namely, the deficit, dialogical, and participatory models of communication (Bucchi, 2008). This approach takes into consideration the close relation of energy-related communication to scientific research and extant literature that foregrounds energy issues as an exemplar of science communication (e.g., Claessens, 2012). This further allows for future comparative analyses between the practices of environmental groups and scientific organizations on energy-related issues.

The distinctions among the deficit, dialogical, and participatory models of communication inform the theoretical understanding of the public communication of science (Bucchi, 2008). The deficit model is characterized by a one-way transfer of science content from experts to a presumably scientifically illiterate public. Raising interest and heightening trust in science are the common goals of deficit-style public engagement activities. In contrast, the dialogical model acknowledges that the public possesses the requisite knowledge and competency to enhance experts’ understanding of science. Accordingly, the goals of dialogical-style public engagement activities include gaining lay knowledge to complement science knowledge and gathering input to inform policymaking. Finally, the participatory model focuses on the co-production of knowledge by experts and non-experts through deliberations, discussions, and critiques. Activities in this category primarily seek to critically reflect on science and resolve an issue (Metcalfe & Riedlinger, 2019). The introduction of the participatory model marks a shift away from the expert-public configuration in the previous two models to one in which companies, civil society, and citizens can establish themselves as legitimate sources of information (Bucchi, 2008). Collectively, these models map out the predominant approaches to analyzing public communication of science.

The current research takes a qualitative approach to examine the communication strategies of environmental groups in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. We focus on Southeast Asia because it has been argued that the region’s failure to adopt clean energy would impede efforts to curb climate change (Taylor, 2019) and its reliance on fossil fuels is believed to fuel carbon emission (Prakash, 2018). We focus our attention on the abovementioned countries as their geographical proximity can expose them to similar risks resulting from climate change, such as rising sea levels (Dasgupta, 2018). Yet, differences in each country’s operational conditions for tackling the energy crisis can shape environmental groups’ communication strategies.

Notwithstanding the agenda that each environmental group has for public communication on energy, critical reviews highlighted various operational conditions that have challenged their efforts. Although Malaysia’s bioenergy sector is supported by a network of governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Rashidi et al. (2022) argued that an inadequate level of inter-organizational collaboration has impeded the country’s adoption of bioenergy. Further, Rahman (2020) argued that some Malaysian environmental NGOs were hindered by their inexperience in public communication and a lack of authenticity in their engagements. Over in Indonesia, some NGOs questioned the government’s commitment to adopting renewable energy based on beliefs that the government prioritized coal over renewable energy (Setyawati, 2020). Representatives from Singapore’s environmental groups reported that beyond providing initial feedback, opportunities for shaping policymaking in the later stages were limited (Teo & Amir, 2021). The situation in Singapore is similar to Malaysia’s in the sense that more can be done about the government-environmental group nexus to push for stronger energy reform. While some environmental groups were limited by organizational-level factors, others were challenged by political situations. From direct engagements with the public to inter-organizational collaborations, the existing efforts in the public communication of energy revealed various intra- and inter-organizational challenges. Based on such similarities and differences, we explore further nuances in the communication strategies of environmental groups.

To the best of our knowledge, communication research has not examined how environmental groups in Southeast Asia engage in public communication about energy-related issues. This exploratory study thus aims to provide a basis for future research on energy-related communication from the perspective of environmental stakeholders in Southeast Asia by providing an overview of the communication strategies employed by environmental groups. Guided by current theoretical approaches to examining public communication of science, this study compares the communication goals, channels of communication, and types of public engagement activities across the environmental groups representing the three countries. Therefore, we ask the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the communication goals of environmental groups across Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore?

RQ2: How do the environmental groups across Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore use various channels of communication to achieve their communication goals?

RQ3: What types of public engagement activities are conducted by the environmental groups across Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore?

Methods

Data collection

We conducted three online focus group discussions (FGDs) with 26 representatives of environmental groups from Indonesia (n = 10), Malaysia (n = 9), and Singapore (n = 7). FGDs allow us to elicit in-depth insights and afford high ecological validity with the natural flow of conversation (Carey & Asbury, 2016). Online FGDs further provide the benefits of face-to-face FGDs while enabling greater flexibility in participant recruitment across geographical boundaries (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2017).

Sampling and recruitment

To be eligible for the FGD, prospective participants had to hold either senior communication positions or be part of the main committee of their environmental groups. We began the recruitment by identifying eligible participants from a range of active environmental groups through purposive sampling. We shortlisted participants based on their publicly available credentials. If the shortlisted participants were unable to join the FGD, we recruited more participants through snowball sampling within each organization. The Indonesian and the Malaysian FGDs comprised one member from each of the environmental groups represented; the Singaporean FGD comprised seven members from the six groups represented. We obtained informed consent from all the participants. All data collection procedures were approved by the university’s institutional review board.

Moderation and guide

Three experienced moderators conducted the online FGDs. The FGDs were conducted in English, Bahasa Melayu, and Bahasa Indonesia, in Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia respectively. We present a detailed breakdown of the participants’ demographic information and the focus group moderation process in the Supplemental Material.

The key questions in the moderator’s guide sought to examine the communication strategies of environmental groups (e.g., How do you usually convey your environmental organization’s messages to your audience?). We present the full list of questions in the Supplemental Material.

Analysis

The research team recorded the online FGD sessions and transcribed them verbatim. The transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 Plus and were independently analyzed by two coders. The coders first employed a deductive coding process that was guided by initial themes identified by the research team; these initial themes were informed by existing literature. Subsequently, the coders employed an inductive coding process to identify emergent codes.

Results

In this section, we focus on presenting the key results. We provide a comprehensive overview of the results in Tables S1 to S4 in the Supplemental Material.

RQ1: communication goals

Environmental groups frequently reported the goal of achieving cognitive change. They aimed to raise awareness of energy-related issues at the individual and national levels–including topics such as personal energy consumption and the energy mix of the country (I2¹, M9, S7), influence public opinion through information sharing (e.g., I2), and create educational materials (e.g., M7, S3).

The Singaporean and Indonesian groups also highlighted behavioral change, with the intended outcomes of encouraging climate-related volunteerism (S1) and environmentally conscious actions (I4)–such as individual action for “energy saving, energy consumption” (S7). The Malaysian groups did not mention behavioral change.

We observed that the environmental groups in Singapore placed a stronger focus on contributing to policy change through focus group discussions (S1) and closed-door discussions (S4) with relevant stakeholders as compared to the other two countries. The Singaporean groups also suggested that these discussions served the purpose of providing feedback to inform the government’s decisions on climate policies. The dissent-oriented approach taken by the Malaysian groups (i.e. M2, M9) in staging protest and petitions afforded their interactions with policymakers more public visibility than Singapore’s.

There were scarce mentions by all the environmental groups of communication efforts that centered on attitudinal change. However, among the few mentions, participants primarily focused on goals such as raising the public’s prioritization of energy matters (I10, M9). For example, M9 specifically mentioned that their organization focused on sharing narratives that emphasized how energy use causes the “degradation of our environment.”

RQ2: communication channels

The Indonesian and Malaysian groups gave distinctive accounts of how they used face-to-face channels to enact cognitive change. M8 recounted organizing trips to sites afflicted by energy-related activities for the public to obtain a first-hand understanding of the impact of various processes of power generation on locals. The Indonesian groups shared that they organized events for journalists (I4) and academics (I8) to jointly “explore the energy issue” or to convey information that “can be material for campaign or investigation [sic]”. I4 also reported collaborations with other environmental groups. In contrast, the Singaporean groups reported using face-to-face channels such as focus group discussions in their attempts to impact policy (S1, S6). S1 asserted that to enable the development of “better climate policies”, the most effective method has been “working directly with policymakers”.

All environmental groups reported using social media channels, such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and the Internet to achieve cognitive change. For example, several participants mentioned using social media channels and their organizations’ websites to share information on relevant energy matters (e.g., I8, M9, S6) and for environmental education (I2). S5 cited creating conversation threads on Slack and Discord² to discuss matters on energy use. The Singaporean groups also acknowledged the possibility of building communities on such channels. The accounts by the Singaporean and Malaysian groups that their educational programs continued via virtual workshops (S7) and online programs (M2) during the COVID-19 pandemic displayed how the use of digital communication channels helped these groups to sustain their outreach during a period when movement was restricted.

The Malaysian and Indonesian groups also mentioned using traditional media channels for effecting cognitive change. I4 stated that their organization released information to media personnel, such as journalists, when conducting campaigns about renewable energy. While the Singaporean groups did not mention the use of traditional media, they cited the use of collaterals, such as “flipcharts” (S7), educational toolkits (S3), and handbooks (S2) to share energy-saving tips.

RQ3: public engagement activities

Finally, RQ3 asked what types of public engagement activities the environmental groups conducted. We identified seven types of public engagement activities, which we categorized into either deficit-style or dialogical-style public engagement activities. We present these public engagement activities in Table S3 in the Supplemental Material but focus the discussion here on differences in deficit-style and dialogical-style public engagement activities. We present the definitions of each public engagement activity in Table S4 in the Supplemental Material.

Deficit-style public engagement activities comprised one-way education outreach and media outreach. One-way education outreach refers to initiatives aimed at raising understanding of energy issues. The Malaysian and Singaporean groups noted developing online modules (M2, M7) and educational materials that presented advice (S7) for reducing energy consumption for students. Conversely, the Indonesian groups mentioned tailoring educational content for members of the public; such content was disseminated via their organizations’ websites (I8). Their approach of targeting the general public and using their organizations’ websites for public education revealed a difference in target audience and communication strategy from those for educational institutions.

Dialogical-style public engagement activities included educational programs that involved exchanges of ideas and stakeholder consultations. Such educational programs were centered on sharing first-hand experiences and holding collaborative discussions, which is different from the didactic nature of knowledge-sharing involved in the deficit-style of public engagement. The Malaysian participants mentioned organizing site visits for members of the public to observe the locations affected by energy issues. M8 elaborated that such visits enabled interactions with people “affected by dams” and “the aluminum smelting plant”. The Singaporean participants highlighted initiatives that facilitated energy use discussions through roadshows (S2) and workshops (S3). Besides communicating with the public, multiple groups mentioned that they engaged in consultations with organizational stakeholders. The Indonesian and Malaysian groups primarily engaged experts knowledgeable about energy-related issues to obtain alternative and more informed perspectives (I8, M6). The Singaporean groups predominantly reached out to policymakers and governmental-linked organizations to influence policies that would determine the development of energy-use matters (S1, S6).

Discussion

This study made several noteworthy findings. First, the data shows that the environmental groups seldom employed the participatory model of public communication; this was reflected through the environmental groups’ public engagement activities. However, even though environmental groups employed some dialogical-style public engagement activities, there appeared to be an underutilization of these activities to fulfil goals outside of cognitive change. Second, there was a prevalent use of digital media platforms. We discuss the implications for communication on energy use.

While there are multiple accounts of deficit- and dialogical-style public engagement activities, there is limited evidence of activities that reflect the participatory model of communication. Despite the accounts of site visits, there are no strong narratives on how the Malaysian environmental groups drew upon the observers’ and locals’ experiences to co-construct knowledge and solutions for emergent energy issues. Similarly, the Singaporean groups appear to fulfil the goals for influencing policy by only targeting policymakers; most of these activities involved engaging in dialogues with governmental stakeholders rather than facilitating the development of public discourse and participation with citizens. This observation is reflective of Teo and Amir’s (2021) statement that opportunities for in-depth exchanges between environmental groups and the government were limited. The Malaysian and Indonesian groups also appear to have limited their outreach to experts when seeking new perspectives; engaging the lay public to gain an understanding of their perspectives is seemingly absent in the groups’ approaches. The observation for Malaysia is similar to our earlier point on the lack of collaborations with relevant stakeholders to address the country’s energy issue. As this study did not find strong evidence for participatory-style activities, we were unable to establish how the strategies for participatory-style activities would be reflective of the operational conditions that the environmental groups face.

The value of the participatory approach to environmental communication lies in the exchange of environmental knowledge and wisdom, as informed by people’s lived experiences, values, and political orientations (Jarreau et al., 2017). Similarly, Heiskanen (2006) asserted that citizen representatives should be involved in the governance of environmental science for the improvement of environmental literacy. Thus, there appears to be an unfulfilled opportunity for the environmental groups to be mediators between decision makers and the public.

In addition, although participants across the three countries referred to dialogical-style activities that could potentially facilitate a two-way transmission of knowledge, many of these environmental groups appeared to utilize them to fulfil cognitive goals that were largely informational (e.g., education) or consultative (e.g., influencing public opinion).

Prior research in environmental communication has acknowledged the difficulty of realizing what could be construed as “true dialogue” (Davis et al., 2018, p. 433)–or two-way symmetrical communication–and argued that current modes of dialogical-style activities are no more than one-way transmissions of information for influencing public opinion (Brulle, 2010). Notably, the strength of dialogical-style activities is the capability to find agreement between both lay and expert perspectives through consultation and negotiation (Bucchi, 2008). However, given the range of dialogical-style activities highlighted by the participants–including educational programs and consultations with experts or civil institutions–there appears to be an unfulfilled opportunity for these environmental groups to leverage on the benefits of true dialogue.

Comparatively, the environmental groups appear to show greater innovation in their deficit-style public engagement activities. Currently, the use of digital platforms to carry out deficit-style activities shows that environmental groups have incorporated the use of new media into their outreach. The readiness of the environmental groups in Singapore in maintaining online discussions on Slack and Discord highlights the potential for adopting other increasingly common digital platforms, such as podcasting, for carrying out dialogical-style public engagement activities. In the same way that participatory communication captures the public’s knowledge by stimulating their immersion in an issue, building strong online communities can capture the public’s unique voices to spur further deliberations. The growing emphasis on the dialogical and participatory models of communication will call for more strategic use of complementary digital media to bolster citizens’ involvement in shaping the agenda of communication on energy use.

Using digital platforms for dialogical and participatory approaches can also help environmental groups circumvent several barriers associated with hosting in-person group events focused on dialogue or collaboration; such in-person events can be cost- and labor-intensive to organize (e.g., Pellegrini, 2008) and are often limited by geographical boundaries. Hence, one economically viable method for environmental groups to engage in dialogical- or participatory-style communication is to leverage their existing infrastructure for reaching relevant public groups. Currently, environmental groups widely use online platforms–such as online modules and materials on organizations’ websites–to conduct deficit-style communication. Environmental groups can thus reallocate their existing resources and shift the focus of their online activities from deficit- to dialogical- or participatory-style communication.

Additionally, we see evidence of groups organizing dialogical-style activities with the lay public, such as site visits to areas affected by energy-related issues. Environmental groups can accordingly convert existing in-person campaigns from a dialogical to participatory model by incorporating various collaborative and deliberative activities, such as workshops that involve citizen stakeholders in energy-policy planning after site visits (Walker, 2007).

Based on the conclusions that we can make of the status of public communication in the three countries examined, we propose several directions for environmental groups that wish to complement their current approaches for public outreach with participatory public engagement activities. As an overarching aim of the participatory model is to influence the direction of research and policy (Bucchi, 2008), environmental groups can begin by creating opportunities for public input to co-identify an aspect of an energy issue that would benefit from collaborations between civil groups and the public and co-define the goals of the public engagement activities with the public. To draw citizens into shaping the political discourse of environmental communication, Brulle (2010) suggested that practitioners actively involve citizens in the process of policy- and decision-making. The participatory approach that the Irish Citizen’s Assembly took when soliciting citizens’ suggestions for strategies to lower Ireland’s rate of carbon emission provides a suitable frame of reference for involving the public in policy decisions (Devaney et al., 2020).

Not discounting the necessity of maintaining deficit-style communication within some communities at earlier phases of an emerging issue, we suggest that environmental groups proactively consider the possibility of moving their public engagement activities across the models of public communication as an issue matures within the social discourse to accommodate a wider range of activities. For instance, considering the development of deficit-style (e.g., online modules) and dialogical-style (e.g., workshops) public engagement activities within the environmental groups’ education efforts, the participatory model can be incorporated by opening the space for interest groups, corporations, and citizens to co-develop an agenda for public education or collaborations with educational institutes to deepen the public’s knowledge on energy-related issues.

Limitations and future research

Ultimately, this research serves as a starting point for researchers interested in examining environmental communication practices in Southeast Asia. Given the exploratory nature of this study, we did not include closer evaluations of the successes or limitations of environmental groups’ communication strategies. Future research can seek to focus on case study analyses of specific campaigns alongside nuanced appraisals of the benefits and drawbacks of deficit, dialogical, and participatory approaches to environmental communication. At the outset of this research, we also suggested that the varying political responses to climate change and energy use may influence the communication strategies employed by environmental groups. While our results were unable to substantiate any potential differences stemming from the countries’ policies, future research may conduct a more in-depth analysis of how environmental groups’ communication strategies shift alongside their country’s history of environmental advocacy, energy use, and climate policies. Regardless, the results of this study provide a general view of the status of energy-related communication undertaken by environmental groups across three countries in Southeast Asia.

As countries in Southeast Asia continue in their quest to tackle the energy crisis, carbon emission, and climate change, it would be worthwhile for environmental groups to engage various stakeholders through a range of public engagement activities, including those informed by the dialogical and participatory models, to bring about more dynamic information-sharing, facilitate stronger co-identification of future environmental goals, and weave richer narratives of expert-citizen collaborations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This project is funded by the Singapore National Research Foundation (NRF) under the Nuclear Safety Research and Education Programme (NSREP). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NRF.

Notes

1 “I” represents a participant from Indonesia, “M” a participant from Malaysia, and “S” a participant from Singapore. Further, a number distinguishes participants from each country. For example, “I2” refers to the second representative from among the 10 from Indonesia.

2 Slack and Discord are instant messaging tools with text, voice, and video capabilities typically used by businesses and gaming communities respectively (Lacher & Biehl, 2019).