288
R. Rosemary and D. Evensen
hearing about the extent to which those goals are being achieved, and how the public
is receiving information on how they can contribute to the achievement of those
goals.
Our study relies on a content analysis of Indonesia news items (articles and
opinion pieces) available from SI online news (http://aceh.tribunnews.com/). We
included articles in Bahasa Indonesia, with the keyword strings: ekologi, emisi, iklim,
lingkungan hidup (In English: ecology, emission, climate change, and environment),
and the following keywords in English—green and illegal logging. The time period
for data collection was news/articles between 2007 and 2018, since the initiative
launched in the year 2007. Duplicate articles and articles that did not include any
discussion about Aceh Green Vision (AGV), environmental, or climate change were
excluded from the final set following an initial reading.
We included 16 codes for distinct forms of efficacy information related to local and
global issues. We based our codes on Feldman et al.’s (2017) six codes for efficacy
information (negative and positive each for the following: self-efficacy, response
efficacy, and external efficacy). We turned these six codes into 12 by coding each
separately in relation to whether the topic being covered was a global environmental
issue or a local environmental issue (e.g. we included ‘self-efficacy—positive—
local’ and ‘self-efficacy—positive—global’ in the place of their single code for ‘selfefficacy—positive’). Furthermore, we added a set of codes for ‘group efficacy’, which
is a form of societal efficacy in addition to the ‘external efficacy’ measured by
Feldman et al. and Hart and Feldman (Feldman et al. 2017; Hart and Feldman 2014).
‘Group efficacy’ refers to actions that groups of people (any collective more than one
person) can take to protect the environment or reduce environmental risks. Thus, we
added four additional codes to the 12 we already had: (1) group efficacy—positive—
local, (2) group efficacy—positive—global, (3) group efficacy—negative—local,
and (4) group efficacy—negative—global. For this content analysis, we coded and
presented only for the type of efficacy information that was the most prominent in
each article. The coding and definition are summarised in Table 14.1.
Results
This content analysis is the first to examine systematically how a local newspaper
in Indonesia covers important and alarming environmental issues, such as environmental risk and climate change, which were exemplified in this study in the work
of and responses to the AGV’s initiative. Our results resonate with previous studies
about efficacy information on contentious environmental issues (Feldman et al. 2017;
Hart and Feldman 2014).
Overall, the sample was slightly more negative than positive in terms of efficacy
information, with 68 positive efficacy and 84 negative efficacy articles (Table 14.2).
The overall valence is particularly attributable to 2017–2018, as the coverage became
far more negative in these final two years. Of the 88 articles published in 2011–2016,
the ratio of positive to negative efficacy information was 47/41; of the 64 articles
R. Rosemary and D. Evensen
hearing about the extent to which those goals are being achieved, and how the public
is receiving information on how they can contribute to the achievement of those
goals.
Our study relies on a content analysis of Indonesia news items (articles and
opinion pieces) available from SI online news (http://aceh.tribunnews.com/). We
included articles in Bahasa Indonesia, with the keyword strings: ekologi, emisi, iklim,
lingkungan hidup (In English: ecology, emission, climate change, and environment),
and the following keywords in English—green and illegal logging. The time period
for data collection was news/articles between 2007 and 2018, since the initiative
launched in the year 2007. Duplicate articles and articles that did not include any
discussion about Aceh Green Vision (AGV), environmental, or climate change were
excluded from the final set following an initial reading.
We included 16 codes for distinct forms of efficacy information related to local and
global issues. We based our codes on Feldman et al.’s (2017) six codes for efficacy
information (negative and positive each for the following: self-efficacy, response
efficacy, and external efficacy). We turned these six codes into 12 by coding each
separately in relation to whether the topic being covered was a global environmental
issue or a local environmental issue (e.g. we included ‘self-efficacy—positive—
local’ and ‘self-efficacy—positive—global’ in the place of their single code for ‘selfefficacy—positive’). Furthermore, we added a set of codes for ‘group efficacy’, which
is a form of societal efficacy in addition to the ‘external efficacy’ measured by
Feldman et al. and Hart and Feldman (Feldman et al. 2017; Hart and Feldman 2014).
‘Group efficacy’ refers to actions that groups of people (any collective more than one
person) can take to protect the environment or reduce environmental risks. Thus, we
added four additional codes to the 12 we already had: (1) group efficacy—positive—
local, (2) group efficacy—positive—global, (3) group efficacy—negative—local,
and (4) group efficacy—negative—global. For this content analysis, we coded and
presented only for the type of efficacy information that was the most prominent in
each article. The coding and definition are summarised in Table 14.1.
Results
This content analysis is the first to examine systematically how a local newspaper
in Indonesia covers important and alarming environmental issues, such as environmental risk and climate change, which were exemplified in this study in the work
of and responses to the AGV’s initiative. Our results resonate with previous studies
about efficacy information on contentious environmental issues (Feldman et al. 2017;
Hart and Feldman 2014).
Overall, the sample was slightly more negative than positive in terms of efficacy
information, with 68 positive efficacy and 84 negative efficacy articles (Table 14.2).
The overall valence is particularly attributable to 2017–2018, as the coverage became
far more negative in these final two years. Of the 88 articles published in 2011–2016,
the ratio of positive to negative efficacy information was 47/41; of the 64 articles