![]() The topic of marine plastics gained public attention in the United Kingdom in the last decade, with the airing of Blue Planet II, a nature documentary series on marine life produced by the BBC, being reportedly one turning point (Hunt, 2017). Therefore to address plastic pollution, alongside the implementation of environmentally conscious policy and infrastructure, conservationists must also promote pro-environmental behaviors surrounding the consumption and disposal of plastics (Steg & Vlek, 2009). Marine litter, particularly plastic debris, is an emerging and critical environmental issue (Hartley et al., 2018), occurring as a result of human actions (Pahl, Wyles, & Thompson, 2017). However, the potential for Blue Planet II to have an impact at a wider societal level, namely through influencing policy, remains unexplored. Our results support the hypothesis that, due to the complexities of human behavior, exposure to a single documentary is unlikely to lead to a distinct increase in individual pro-environmental actions. ![]() Although environmental knowledge was found to be positively influenced by Blue Planet II, this did not translate into a behavioral change among participants. We investigated the effectiveness of Blue Planet II as a behavior change intervention by conducting randomized control trials and used revealed preferences to measure plastic consumption behaviors. The documentary series Blue Planet II has been praised for driving changes in consumer behaviors by raising awareness about this issue, yet there is little evidence that directly links the documentary to viewers' plastic consumption. Those spectacular bottlenose dolphins that have a starring role throughout this series? They too may be dying because of plastic ingestion.The global scale of the ocean plastics crisis demands a collective change in plastic consumption behaviors. Those rare albatross chicks viewers first meet in “Big Blue”? Their siblings are dying because they swallowed hundreds of plastic bits. The final hour (“Our Blue Planet”) is a parting shot at worldwide environmental destruction. That sets up a line that Attenborough does say with conviction: “Unless the flow of plastics is reduced, marine life will be poisoned for many years to come.” They’ve ingested granulated plastic that’s re-expressed in the milk they feed their young. The fourth hour (“Big Blue”) travels far from land to the most remote places on the planet, where the scourge of plastic has claimed the lives of pilot whales. The third episode on coral reefs, for example, glances at their worldwide destruction because of rising temperatures, then goes into greater detail in the final hour. “II,” for example, is shorter by a couple of hours, and also seems slighter in scope, covering six ecosystems compared with the eight covered in “I.” The pictures are still spectacular, but further enhanced by various advances in technology.īy clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.Įach hour is a Cassandra in its own unique way. The differences, however, are significant, also sobering. Still magnificent, still hypnotic, “II” even offers an added bonus with a stirring score by Hans Zimmer that matches music to the magic. MY SAY The original “The Blue Planet” was the crowning achievement of the nature documentary genre, and its successor isn’t about to cede the crown. Four years in production, “II” went to every ocean, and continent, while production teams spent 6,000 diving hours recording what the producers say are various “firsts” - including the first submersible dive 3,280 feet in the waters off Antarctica. WHAT IT’S ABOUT This is the next installment of the BBC’s (and BBC America’s) ongoing “Planet Earth” series, but as the name also indicates, these seven hours also essentially comprise the sequel to “The Blue Planet,” the jewel of BBC’s Natural History unit that aired in the early 2000s.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |