![]()
The SeaWeb/Mellman Group Landmark Poll on US Public Attitudes Toward the
Oceans
In 1996, SeaWeb commission the Washington, D.C.-based polling company The
Mellman Group to conduct a major public opinion poll on U.S. public attitudes
toward the ocean and ocean issues. Combined with a series of focus groups
conducted the previous year, this collaboration provides the first and most
comprehensive overview of the way in which the American public views the marine
environment.
It is important to note that the SeaWeb campaign is not a direct response to
the results of the public opinion poll. The poll is critically important to
informing the campaign but is only one of several tools used to determine the
salience of our communications. The research has given us a strong sense of what
will work to engage the public in this issue, but the public still requires
educating before acknowledging a problem.
If you would like a copy of the public opinion poll, please contact us at:
SeaWeb
Public Opinion Poll
1731 Connecticut Ave. NW
4th
Floor
Washington, D.C. 20009
seaweb@seaweb.org
1. About the
Mellman Group, Inc. (furnished by Mellman)
2. The
Mellman Group's introduction and notes on Focus Group participants
3.
Focus
Group Findings:
4. The
Mellman Group's introduction and notes on the Public Opinion
Survey
5. Public
Opinion Survey Results:
The Mellman Group's introduction and notes on
focus group participants
The Mellman Group conducted eight focus
groups on behalf of The Marine Conservation Initiative on November 7, 9, 14, and
15, 1995. Two groups were held in St. Louis, MO, two groups in San Diego, CA,
two groups in Boston, MA, and two groups in Pensacola, FL. With the exception of
Boston, each group was composed of activists who were involved in some form of
social, political, or community activity and considered themselves to be strong
environmentalists. In Boston, one focus group consisted of activists who
considered themselves environmentalists while the other group was comprised of
individuals who believed economic development was more important than
environmental protection. Participants were selected to represent a range of
demographic backgrounds. (see
graph)
The intent of focus groups is to seek insight and direction
rather than quantitatively precise or absolute measures. Because the number of
individuals participating in these groups is limited, this research must be
considered in a qualitative frame of reference. The following biases are
inherent in this type of study and are stated here to remind the reader that the
data presented cannot be projected to any larger universe of
individuals.
1. Focus group participants tend to be risk takers and may
be somewhat more assertive and opinionated than non-participants.
2.
Participants "self-select" themselves. That is, they are people who are
available on the night the groups were scheduled and were willing to
participate.
3. People in groups may respond differently to a question in
a group setting than if asked that same question individually. They may follow
the lead of a strong speaker or someone they perceive as an
'expert.'
Further, this report cannot accurately detail the wealth of
information in the non-verbal area. It also cannot report the subtle area of
"peer pressure" -- the willingness to avoid making a particular response because
of fear of what others might think or quickly change a response when others in
the group appear to oppose a particular position.
(top
of document)
Focus Group
Findings:
Participants React Emotionally
And Intellectually To The Ocean
Respondents' initial reactions to the
word "ocean" include both emotional images and factual information. They were
quick to articulate the facts that they knew, such as " 70% of the earth is
ocean. It affects the land and all the atmosphere," and it is a "source of a
great number of living things."
Powerful emotional images were also used
by participants, although distinct gender differences were apparent. Men saw the
ocean as mysterious, powerful, and something to be explored. Women, on the other
hand, viewed the ocean as beautiful, serene, and peaceful.
These and
other positive associations with the ocean can be traced, in part, to
participants' fond memories of vacations and childhood. Many participants
revealed their ideal vacation destination to be a place on or near the ocean,
such as Hawaii or Mexico. They recalled feeling small and insignificant as a
child looking out on the vast ocean, combing the beach for seashells, looking
for jellyfish, and being captivated by the majestic beauty of the ocean.
Respondents also knew that the ocean plays a significant role in our
everyday lives, bearing on everything from weather, to our livelihood, to our
food and water supply. They understood that the oceans are a vital resource,
interconnected with all living things.
(top
of document)
Most Participants Need To
Be Prompted To Admit That The Oceans Are In Trouble
It was only when
they were asked to think of the negative things associated with the ocean that
participants brought up pollution, overfishing, and endangered species. In
contrast, participants immediately expressed knowledge of destruction and
devastation when speaking of rainforests. While the media has succeeded in
heightening awareness and concern, the same inroads have not been made with the
ocean. As we suspected, we have a large task ahead to generate awareness and
activism.
After some discussion, participants acknowledged the cause and
effect relationship between our dependence on the oceans' resources and our
exploitation of these resources. They accepted that the oceans are not infinite,
and that human action can and is destroying them (see
graph). Respondents accepted the connection between the condition of the
oceans and our every day lives. They expressed a holistic view that without the
oceans, life would cease to exist, therefore we need to protect them now. As one
participant said, "..ecological systems and the ocean are interdependent on one
another and if you take out just one piece of the chain, you know, this one link
could destroy the whole chain. I don't think people realize how fragile those
ecosystems are."
In terms of priorities, coastal participants placed
ocean protection much higher on their list of concerns than those inland (see
graph). Having daily contact with the ocean gave those respondents a more
intrinsic connection to the water and a stronger desire to protect it, while
"out of sight, out of mind" represented the way inland respondents reacted to
the problem. Inland participants displayed less concern for the condition of the
oceans, and believed their actions had less of an effect on the ocean
environment than coastal participants. They had difficulty accepting the fact
that their actions could directly affect the ocean when they lived so far from
it.
Some non-environmentalists, in contrast, saw the oceans as vast and
plentiful, with the ability to replenish themselves. They believed that no
matter what we do to the oceans, mother nature will ensure their continued
prosperity. These participants did not want to accept that anything as vast as
the ocean could be harmed or destroyed. Perhaps one of the most vivid images
from the groups was a response to this argument that analogized ocean pollution
to putting a drop of food coloring into water and watching the whole jar change
color.
(top
of document)
Medicinal Value, Overfishing
and Seafood Contamination Are the Most Powerful Reasons for Ocean
Protection
Virtually every message we tested increased respondents'
concern about the oceans. Three messages proved most salient: raising
participants consciousness about the potential benefits from the oceans'
unexplored resources; the harm caused by overfishing, and the danger to human
health caused by contaminated seafood. Across the groups, it was evident that
some combination of these concepts will be most successful in capturing the
public's attention and motivating them to change their own behavior and mobilize
them to action.
Participants found the description of the ocean as "the
last frontier" to be intriguing. The concept that the ocean is virtually our
last unexplored territory played upon respondents' sense of adventure. The
endless possibilities that lie in the oceans' vast resources peaked
participants' curiosity. Coupled with the idea that the oceans hold enormous
potential medicinal value, this proved to be a compelling reason for
participants to want to protect the oceans. The possibility that a cure for AIDS
or cancer exists somewhere beneath the waters elicited the fear that we are
slowly destroying an essential resource, and with it, hope for the future.
Participants were aware that the rainforests are the home to a vast array of
medicinal resources and pointed to this as a reason for their support of
environmental protection. The same case is equally potent for oceans and should
be emphasized in our educational efforts.
When the specific problems our
oceans face were discussed, the issue of overfishing was believed to be one of
the most critical. One participant passionately described it as "rape of the
oceans." Respondents were aware that fisheries around the country are rapidly
being depleted, and that an enormous amount of by-catch fish are discarded and
destroyed. They expressed the belief that overfishing is a disruption to the
ecosystem, and if you pull one species out of the link, you will break the
entire food chain. Participants agreed that overfishing pushes species into
extinction, and this reality was cause for widespread concern. Each species is
seen as an integral part of the entire marine environment, and therefore needs
to be protected.
In addition, respondents were quick to point out the
obvious -- once the fish are gone, fisherman will be out of business. In all
groups respondents explained that we will be better off in the future
economically if we control overfishing now. The industry is believed to be in
danger, and participants agreed that the situation will only get worse, unless
the proper controls are instituted immediately. Boston participants offered
fishfarming and international regulations as possible solutions to the fisheries
crisis. They cited examples where fishfarms had been developed on small scales,
and felt this approach should be researched and expanded.
The dangers of
seafood contamination were also a cause for serious concern among participants.
Coastal participants had been exposed to warnings about contaminated seafood and
were aware that seafood beds were repeatedly being shut down. When respondents
heard from others that doctors asked women to avoid seafood during pregnancy,
many expressed shock and frustration. The potential dangers to human health
caused by contaminated seafood seemed to be an issue that everybody could
understand, and therefore, an effective message.
(top
of document)
Other Ways Into The Issue
Met Generally Positive, But Less Enthusiastic, Responses
Other
messages tested in the focus groups elicited mixed reactions from participants.
While inland participants expressed frustration over coastal overdevelopment,
coastal participants admitted their desire to reside near the ocean. Inland
respondents claimed that coastal development took away from animals' natural
habitats, caused too much pollution, and should be limited. Participants from
coastal areas did not disagree on these points, however they felt that people
should be able to live where they want. Many of these respondents noted that
they lived in coastal areas because they enjoyed living near the water and
seeing the ocean every day, and were not willing to give that
up.
Although the discussion of coral reefs conjured up beautiful images,
few discussants were aware of their integral relationship to the ocean
environment. A few respondents described the fragility of the coral reefs,
explaining how the touch of a hand can kill this precious ecosystem. One
participant pointed out that "people that snorkel...don't realize that you
shouldn't even stand on them because you kill them when you stand on them. You
break them and them and they take a long time to grow." Once participants
realized how the coral reefs help to maintain a balance in the ocean
environment, provide oxygen, and are home to hundreds of living organisms, they
began to understand the importance of preserving them. While coral reefs seemed
fascinating to participants, their destruction was not in and of itself one of
the most convincing reasons to protect the oceans. It was difficult for
participants to relate to these ecosystems since they had little, if any,
contact with coral reefs.
The discussion of pelagics elicited
stereotypical responses across the board. Tuna and swordfish were viewed as food
and were not seen as something that needed protection. Whales, dolphins, and
seals, on the other hand, were seen as threatened, and participants expressed
concern and compassion for these animals. Opinions about protecting sharks were
more ambiguous. They are generally not seen as food, or as cute and cuddly
creatures. However, when participants heard how sharks are being senselessly
exploited and killed, their level of concern rises a great deal.
Focus
group participants were shown an excerpt from a video produced by The American
Oceans Campaign. This medium proved to a be very effective communication tool
because it captured participants' attention, used powerful images to move them
emotionally, raised their concern for the condition of the oceans, and peaked
their own, personal interest in finding solutions. Participants were captivated
by the images of the polluted waters and those of the suffering animals, which
led to an unleashing of emotions. They expressed frustration, anger and disgust
in the senseless destruction of this valuable resource as well as serious
disappointment in what they feel man has done out of greed.
(top
of document)
Rejection Of Personal
Responsibility Was The Prime Impediment To Action
Respondents were
not only hesitant to take personal responsibility for ocean pollution, but
firmly believed that they did not engage in any behavior that ultimately harms
the ocean. Instead, discussants tended to hold business and government
accountable for the condition of the oceans. Respondents saw corporations, whom
they accused of ocean dumping, as largely responsible for marine pollution. They
were also quick to place blame on other countries, accusing Japan and Russia of
exploiting the ocean for financial benefit. They expressed a need for more
international regulations to keep foreign countries from polluting our waters.
They saw ocean protection as a global problem, and believed the United States
had taken the lead in protecting this precious resource.
This
transference of blame was most evident when participants were shown a graph
labeling the sources of marine pollution. The majority of participants were
reluctant to believe that individuals were largely responsible for the condition
of the oceans. Reactions to the figures, which cited land runoff as the major
cause of marine pollution (44%), ranged from surprise, but eventual acceptance,
to complete refusal to believe the numbers. The men were more cynical than the
women, and many of the men could not even be persuaded to accept the figures
which were presented as fact.
Some participants were eventually willing
to accept responsibility, but were unsure of how they could personally make a
difference. They expressed feeling helpless; that they were only one person and
that individuals, corporations, and governments would continue to pollute and
negate their efforts.
(top
of document)
Mobilization Requires
Education And A Meaningful Plan Of Action
Education was an underlying
theme throughout the focus groups. Participants repeatedly expressed that
education was essential to effectively mobilize the public to action. They
believed that the public at large does not know that the oceans are in danger
and does not understand the problems. This is something that we will need to
explore in greater depth when we conduct the survey. Respondents agree that
education must start with our youth. They cited smoking and recycling as
examples of how teaching children at an early age produces results. They felt
that when you grow up with certain priorities, you carry those priorities into
adulthood and they affect everything you do. If we teach children to respect our
oceans when they are young, we will be creating a more proactive generation for
the future.
In developing a strategy for activism, focus group
participants agreed that efforts need to be both personalized and localized.
Mobilization needs to start small, on the local level, where citizens can feel a
personal connection and see the results of their actions. Local beach clean-ups
were given as one example of the ways people can do their part on the local
level. Once a local effort was proven successful, then it could be expanded to a
larger scale. Participants seemed willing to change their behavior and activate
on behalf of the issue, and said they would feel a strong sense of personal
satisfaction knowing they were doing their part to protect the oceans.
One of the most significant findings from the focus groups is that no
single medium will push Americans to care more about the oceans. As we have seen
in the successful rainforest model, a multitude of vehicles were necessary to
ingrain the message in the public's mind-set. While none of the participants had
ever been to the rainforest, the constant barrage of images has increased the
saliency of the rainforest as a priority for environmental activism.
Participants traced their knowledge of the rainforests to everything from
television, to newspapers, to documentaries, to movies, to National Geographic,
to The Discovery Channel, to museums, and to organizations like Greenpeace. It
is this repetitive, constant exposure that has made the rainforest issue so
prevalent in people's minds. The fact that the oceans are so accessible to most
Americans, should make it easier to increase public awareness about this
resource.
(top
of document)
The Mellman Group's
introduction and notes on the public opinion survey
This memorandum
is based on a survey of 1300 adults nationwide, including a base sample of 900
adults and an oversample of 400 Americans residing in coastal communities.
Telephone interviewing was conducted from May 10 through May 15, 1996. The
statistical margin of error for the base sample as a whole is plus or minus 3.3
percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the
coastal oversample is plus or minus 4.9%. The margin of error for subgroups is
larger. (see
graph)
(top
of document)
Public Opinion Survey
Results:
While Oceans Are Not Currently
A Top Priority, This Is An Issue Waiting To Be Made
Destruction of
our oceans is an issue waiting to be made. Even though the condition of the
ocean is not now a top of mind issue, public awareness of the precarious
condition of the oceans and their importance to us is quite high. Indeed, the
data indicate that the oceans have the potential to become a powerful political
issue.
At present, a strong latent, but not manifest, concern exists for
the oceans. When asked to rate the most important environmental problems, the
largest number of Americans cite toxic waste (33% most important), along with
air pollution (31% most important) and water pollution (26% most important).
Oceans being destroyed ranks lower on the list, with only 14% saying it is one
of the two most important environmental problems (see
graph).
At the same time though, most of the public attitudes
required to create a major issue are in place. A plurality of Americans (49%)
say the condition of the ocean is very important to them personally (see
graph). This number is even larger in coastal communities, where nearly
two-thirds (64%) say the condition of the ocean is very important to them
personally (see
graph). Another 29% say it is somewhat important, while only 5% say it is
not too important, and only 1% answer not important at all. Among coastal
environmentalists, 73% say the condition of the ocean is very important to them.
But understanding of the ocean's significance transcends traditional
environmental categories, with 45% of those who do not consider themselves
environmentalists and who do not live on the coast, saying the ocean's condition
is very important (see
graph).
Over half (53%) of Americans think the environment has gotten
worse over the past few years, and slightly more (58%) say the condition of the
ocean has deteriorated (see
graph). Only a very small number (6%) think the condition of the ocean has
gotten better, and less than a quarter (24%) believe it has stayed the same.
Those in the Pacific region are most likely to believe the ocean is in trouble
(67%), as well as those residing in the West South Central region (65%).
Residents of the Northeast, on the otherhand, are the least likely to say the
ocean is deteriorating (47%). While people who live near the coast are more
likely to be concerned about the health of the ocean and have greater awareness
about ocean issues, they are not more likely than those inland to report the
condition of the ocean worsening. Among people who live within five miles of the
ocean, 56% believe the ocean is getting worse. In contrast, among people who
live five to thirty miles from the ocean, 63% say its condition is worsening,
and 58% of those who live over thirty miles from the ocean think the condition
of the ocean is getting worse.
Most Americans believe the ocean is in
trouble. Not even one percent of those surveyed report the condition of the
ocean as excellent, and only 20% say it in good condition. Two-thirds (67%) view
the condition of the ocean negatively. Over half (52%) view the destruction of
the ocean as a very serious threat to the quality of life today, whereas an even
greater number (63%) see it as a very serious threat ten years from now (see
graph).
Americans are nearly unanimous in believing that the threat
to the ocean stems from human activity. Only 10% believe the oceans are so vast
and plentiful, there is little humans can do to destroy them. By contrast, 82%
said the oceans are threatened by human activity. Americans recognize that
humans are a threat to the ocean (see
graph).
All this latent concern about oceans can be translated into
significant political action. In a country where the majority of the public
often wants the federal government out of their lives, 85% believe that the
government needs to do more to help protect the ocean (see
graph). In response to a question measuring single issue voting, nearly a
quarter (23%) say they would vote against a candidate they agreed with on most
issues and were of the same political party, if they disagreed with that
candidate's position on protecting the ocean. These numbers are similar to those
for abortion, making protecting the oceans potentially as salient an issue (see
graph). A final and striking indication of interest in the ocean is that an
overwhelming number (72%) believe funding for ocean exploration is a more
important priority than funding for space exploration (17%) (see
graph).
(top
of document)
Americans Believe The
Ocean's Problems Stem From Many Sources, But Oil Companies Are Seen As A Prime
Culprit
The publicity around oil spills in the ocean has undoubtedly
led to the perception that these accidents account for the majority of the
ocean's pollution (see
graph). In fact, 81% of Americans believe that oil spills are a very serious
problem. This is followed by chemical runoff from large corporate farms (75%
very serious), improperly treated water from towns near the coast (69%) (see
graph), contaminated seafood (65%) and trash, oil, and chemical runoff from
streets (65%). In contrast, people believe the least serious ocean problems are
air pollution from cars and industry
(40%), and the killing of sharks
(30%).
(top
of document)
Oil, The Plate, And The
Critters Are Key Ways Into The Issue
Chronic oil dumping in the ocean
most clearly communicates that the oceans are in trouble, and makes people very
angry. People see the fact that 3.25 million tons of oil enters the world's
oceans each year as a strong indicator that the oceans are in trouble (71%
"great deal of trouble"). This statement also makes a plurality (40%) feel very
angry. Other meaningful indicators that the oceans are in trouble include
overfishing and the loss of critical species (61% great deal), beaches being
closed 5000 times in the last decade (60% great deal), and marine mammals being
destroyed (58% great deal). Surprisingly, what makes people the most angry is
shark finning, or cutting the fins off living sharks and then throwing the
sharks back in the water to die (42% say it makes them extremely angry) (see
graph).
Another avenue into the ocean issue is contaminated seafood.
More education is needed on this issue, however. Currently, less than one-fifth
of Americans don't eat fish or seafood (19% rarely or never), and taste is the
primary reason (see
graph). By comparison, virtually the same number (21%) eat fish or seafood
several times a week. Many people do not know that the government classifies
certain species as overfished or contaminated. Although more people believe that
the government issues seafood contamination warnings (54%) than classifies
species as overfished (37%), a large number do not know that the government does
either. If they did know, however, a majority (62%) would be at least much less
likely not to eat fish that was classified as overfished, and almost everyone
(90%) would decline contaminated seafood.
In addition to these
substantive issues, the notion of preserving the ocean for future generations is
an important thematic. Over three-quarters, (84%) of Americans strongly agree
that we have a responsibility to protect the ocean for future generations, and
82% strongly agree that the destruction of the ocean is a threat to the health
of future generations.
Lastly, the scientific community may have a
different opinion than the public on which issues are most important to the
health of the oceans, however the public really does not care what scientists
think. Over half (61%) believe that citizens and scientists disagree on which
are the most important problems facing the oceans, and a plurality (42%) say
that government should focus on citizens concerns over those of scientists
(37%). Instead of trying to re-educate the public, the ocean community should
focus its attention on those problems that citizens already believe to be the
most serious, like oil spills or waste water runoff.
(top
of document)
A Personal Action Agenda
Has The Widest Appeal
Americans are most likely to engage in personal
action that will help protect the ocean and least likely to lobby. Of all the
actions we tested, those that involve personal action are rated by the largest
number as something they are "almost certain" to do. Roughly half (49%) say they
would be almost certain to recycle used motor oil and 42% say they would be
almost certain to pick up litter at the beach. Only 10% say they would be almost
certain to attend council or state legislative meetings on ocean
issues.
These personal actions are not only the most appealing, they are
also believed to be the most effective. Nearly three-quarters (70%) think that
recycling used motor oil would be very effective in stopping ocean protection.
Almost two-thirds (63%) believe that picking up litter at the beach would be a
very effective action.
(Who do
people trust for information on ocean issues?)
There Is A Significant Group Of Potential Ocean Activists Waiting To Take
Action
A cluster analysis of our data reveal five underlying segments
within the American public:
Ocean Activists (20%) -- These people
are willing to do almost anything to help the ocean. They will take personal
action, support the adoption of tougher ocean laws, and join a community ocean
organization. Relative to other clusters, these people are almost certain to
take personal action, join organizations, and lobby. Practically everyone in
this group, (88%) is almost certain to get involved in efforts to clean bays and
harbors, and 81% are almost certain to contact politicians to urge action on
ocean issues. Demographically, these people are strong environmentalists (44%),
regularly recycle (65%), more Democratic (42% Democrat, 27% Republican), more
female (55% female, 45% male) and less educated (47% HS or
less).
Activist Non-joiners (16%) -- These Americans are willing
to take personal action, and support the adoption of tougher ocean laws, but are
not eager to join organizations. Among the actions that this members of this
category are almost certain to engage in are recycling used motor oil (93%),
picking up litter at the beach (95%), and only eating fish caught in an
environmentally safe manner (86%). This group is comprised of an overwhelming
number of females (63%) and whites (88%), and includes baby boomers (26%), and
well-educated adults (34% college grads +).
Anti-Regulation/Pro-Personal Action (19%) -- This group is
willing to take personal action, somewhat willing to join an organization, but
does not support the adoption of new laws and regulations to protect the ocean.
The majority (73%) are almost certain to recycle used motor oil and a similar
number (67%) would pick up litter at the beach. Only a small number (15%) would
support the creation of marine sanctuaries where no human activity would be
permitted, and an even smaller group (10%) would be willing to pay higher water
bills to build better sewage plants. This category is made up of older (21%
50-59 yr olds , 25% 60+), political centrists (moderates 24%).
Muddled Masses (27%) -- These people are categorized by a lack of
any fervent consistency. They are willing to take some personal actions but not
others. They are not willing to join organizations. This group would be most
likely to recycle motor oil (33%) and pick up litter at the beach (25%), however
these numbers are significantly smaller than among the previous groups. Even
fewer, (13%) would support laws restricting development near bays, or
regulations to limit development along coastlines (11%). These people do not
want to join an organization. Only 1% say they would join a local environmental
organization, and 0% report willingness to join a national environmental
organization. Demographically, this group is made up of more males (55%), adults
without college education (41% HS or less), conservatives (41%), and a plurality
who regularly recycle (59%).
Aquatic Apathetics (16%) -- These
Americans are unwilling to be involved in any effort. The name says it all with
this group. There is a slight chance of getting them to recycle motor oil (29%
almost certain), but only 3% say they would inquire whether seafood is
contaminated before they bought it. Not even 1% of people in this group would
join an organization, or support regulations to limit development along
coastlines. This group is overwhelmingly male (56%), conservative (56%) and
Republican (46%).
In sum, the field is ripe for the ocean community to
take action. Americans are ready and willing to accept the fact that the oceans
are in danger. They are also ready and willing to do something about it. Indeed,
the pre-requisites are in place for ocean issues to become a significant public
issue. Concern is high, but information is low. In addition, there is a large
group of potential activists willing to take in this issue if properly
mobilized.
(top
of document)
Home Page |
What's
Hot? | What is
SeaWeb? | Info
Center | Dr. Sylvia
Earle | SeaMedia
| Links &
Resources
© 1996 SeaWeb