Blue Habits: Motivating lasting pro-ocean behaviors among...

Page | ii

Blue Habits: Motivating lasting pro-ocean behaviors among Oceanic Society’s nature travelers and beyond Nicole M. Ardoin, Mele Wheaton, Carly Sponarski, Noelle Wyman Roth Graduate School of Education & Woods Institute for the Environment Stanford University

Nicole M. Ardoin, Mele Wheaton, Carly C. Sponarski, & Noelle Wyman Roth Graduate School of Education & Woods Institute for the Environment Stanford University

Final Report

Page | ii

Acknowledgements The research team thanks the Oceanic Society staff and naturalists, especially Rod Mast, Brian Hutchinson, Wayne Sentman, Kathi Koontz; we appreciate their guidance on and assistance with this project. Thank you to those who assisted with data collection: Jose Urteaga, Susie Claxton, Thomas Evans, Jenna Forsyth, Meghan Goyer, Angela Harris, Michael Harris, Greg Hawkins, Kevin Kelly, Joe Kerr, Phil Nicholas, Indira Phukan, Bryan Quintanilla, Scott Roth, David Seelig, Jenn Thomsen, Rachel Tripathy, Sarah Truebe, and Michael Veronin. Thank you to Maddie Gardner, Cody Karutz, Becky Niemiec, and Jose Urteaga from EDUC 332 for their thoughtful observations of the tours as well as for their class report on conservation messaging. Finally, we appreciate the time and generosity of the whale-watching tourists who participated in the survey portion of this study. Their perspectives form the core of this report.

Page | ii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ i

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. ii

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. iv

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6

Methods ............................................................................................................................... 6 Sampling Protocol ..........................................................................................................................6 Analysis .........................................................................................................................................7

Open-ended questions .......................................................................................................................... 7 Closed-ended questions ........................................................................................................................ 7

Research Findings ................................................................................................................ 12

Results A: Getting to Know the Oceanic Society’s Whale-Watching Tourists ......................... 13 Gender and Age ........................................................................................................................... 13 Education ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Residency..................................................................................................................................... 16 Prior Whale-Watching Experiences ............................................................................................... 17

Results B: Memories, Experiences, and Learning While on the Tour ..................................... 19 Tour Memories ............................................................................................................................ 19

Favorite part of the trip ...................................................................................................................... 19 Least favorite part of the trip .............................................................................................................. 20 Most vivid memory ............................................................................................................................. 21

Environmental Curiosity of Tourists .............................................................................................. 22 Level of Engagement .................................................................................................................... 23 Learning While Whale Watching ................................................................................................... 23

Learning about Marine Life ................................................................................................................. 24 Learning about Marine Conservation ................................................................................................. 26

After the Tour .............................................................................................................................. 28 Impact of the Tour .............................................................................................................................. 28 Sharing Experiences with People ........................................................................................................ 29 Tourists’ Role in Conservation ............................................................................................................ 30

Results C: Motivations for Attending the Whale-Watching Tour ........................................... 31

Results D: Changes in Tourists Between Pre-, Post-, and Delayed Post-Tour ......................... 34 Environmental Knowledge ............................................................................................................ 34 Environmental Attitudes .............................................................................................................. 37 Environmentally Related Behaviors .............................................................................................. 40

Personal Behaviors .............................................................................................................................. 41 Advocacy Behaviors ............................................................................................................................ 41

Page | ii

Results E: Blue Habits Messaging and Commitment ............................................................. 44 Blue Habits Videos ....................................................................................................................... 44 Blue Habits Commitments ............................................................................................................ 44

Discussion and Future Directions ......................................................................................... 46 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 46 Future Directions.......................................................................................................................... 47

References .......................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix I: Project Personnel .............................................................................................. 49

Appendix II: Pre-Tour Survey Answers ................................................................................. 51

Appendix III: Post-Tour Survey Answers ............................................................................... 59

Appendix IV: Delayed Post-Tour Survey Answers ................................................................. 66

Page | ii

Executive Summary Blue Habits: Motivating lasting pro-ocean behaviors among Oceanic Society’s nature travelers and beyond is a research study developed to support Oceanic Society’s Blue Habits initiative, which encourages tourists to adopt ocean-friendly behaviors following participation in whale-watching tours. The study was designed through a partnership with Oceanic Society executive-level management and with researchers at the Graduate School of Education/Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. Based on research on relevant and related behaviors, the program works to transform tourists’ spikes in interest and caring about the ocean into tangible long-term pro-environmental behaviors. This report describes results from a yearlong study to understand the Oceanic Society’s whale-watching community and what types of interventions could effectively support the behavioral objectives of the Blue Habits program. Primary findings from this study include:

• Demographics: The most common age range of Oceanic Society whale-watching tourists in our study was 30 to 39 years old, and many of the tourists stated having graduate degrees. The majority of tourists in our sample were from California, and they reported that it was their first experience on a whale-watching tour.

• Tour Experience: Overall, tourists reported a high level of agreement that their tour was enjoyable, engaging, and exciting. They also highly agreed that staff answered their questions.

• Favorite Part: Tourists stated their favorite part of the tour was seeing the wildlife; this was the part of the tour that they most frequently discussed with other people after the tour.

• Environmental Attitudes: Tourists reported a significant positive change in their environmental attitudes during the tour.

• Marine Animal Knowledge: Tourists’ knowledge about marine animals significantly increased immediately following the tour; however, according to three-month follow-up measures, their knowledge returned to baseline pre-tour levels.

• Conservation Learning: Tourists agreed that they learned new information on the tour; also, they agreed they learned about conservation, although to a lesser degree. Tourists slightly agreed that, because of the tour, they had a better understanding of marine conservation and they felt more strongly about marine life conservation.

• Learning about Topics Related to Marine Conservation: The marine conservation topic about which tourists reported learning the most was marine debris. An almost equal number of tourists reported not learning anything new about marine conservation, although more than one-third of these tourists stated that they already knew a lot about conservation or that they worked in conservation.

• Improving Conservation Learning: To improve learning about marine conservation, tourists suggested that the Oceanic Society might consider providing additional interpretive materials, including post-trip educational resources.

• Blue Habits Commitment: A majority of tourists committed to undertaking pro-ocean behaviors immediately at the end of the whale-watching tour. These commitments were primarily related to reusing water bottles. At the time of our follow-up measure, however,

Page | ii

only a small number of tourists had remembered their commitment and successfully reported following through with the action. We see an opportunity, therefore, for post-trip interventions, which would reinforce and support these commitments.

• Environmental Behavior: Tourists reported undertaking private sphere environmental behaviors, such as conserving resources, recycling, or buying ‘green’ products. Their reporting of undertaking these behaviors remained the same at the pre-tour and three-month follow-up time points.

Page | 6

Introduction Blue Habits is a new Oceanic Society initiative designed to motivate whale-watching tourists to adopt ocean-friendly behaviors after participating in whale-watching tours. Blue Habits: Motivating lasting pro-ocean behaviors among Oceanic Society’s nature travelers and beyond is a complementary research study designed to collect baseline and supportive data to enhance the efficacy of the Blue Habits initiative. The study was developed through a partnership with Oceanic Society executive managers and researchers at the Graduate School of Education/Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. Based on research on relevant behaviors, the program works to transform tourists’ spikes in interest and caring about the ocean into tangible long-term pro-environmental behaviors. The Blue Habits research initiative has two phases. The first phase includes the following three goals: (1) to gather naturalists’ experiences and perspectives on conservation messaging on the whale-watching tours; (2) to better understand the Oceanic Society community in terms of demographics, trip motivations, trip experience, environmental attitudes, and baseline environmental behaviors; and (3) to understand the types of interventions that might effectively support behavioral objectives of Blue Habits and conduct initial behavioral tests. The first goal of understanding naturalists’ experiences and perspectives was addressed through conducting a focus group with Oceanic Society naturalists and observations during the whale-watching tours. Key findings from the focus group were reported to Oceanic Society in December 2014; key findings from the field observations were reported to Oceanic Society in the third quarter report in August 2015. This report presents the results from goals 2 and 3 in Phase 1 of the program, conducted between January 2015 and March 2016. The second phase includes developing and implementing behavioral messaging and interventions. We are currently searching for funding to proceed with Phase 2.

Methods Sampling Protocol We conducted pre- and post-tour surveys on 22 whale-watching tours embarking from Half Moon Bay and San Francisco, California, between April and July 2015. The surveys were distributed to tourists immediately before and after the whale-watching excursion. We sent a delayed post-tour survey to tourists three months after they attended the whale-watching tour between August and October 2015. We implemented the pre- and post-tour on-board surveys on paper and then transferred the data to an electronic format (Excel and SPSS); for the follow-up surveys, we used Qualtrics, an online survey platform. In total, we collected 416 pre-trip surveys, 401 post-trip surveys, and 79 delayed post-tour surveys.

Page | 7

Analysis

Open-ended questions

The three surveys included a variety of open-ended or free-response items. For each response, we coded the text using emic codes, deriving from the data and tourists’ own words. We marked tourists’ responses as “presence” or “absence” for each code. We coded in Microsoft Excel, and then we subsequently assigned numeric codes in SPSS V.23.

Closed-ended questions

All three surveys (pre-tour, post-tour, and three-month delayed) included closed-ended items related to topics such as demographics, tour participation, and environmental curiosity. Some items were representative of broader constructs based on prior research, such as level of engagement and motivations (Ballantyne, Packer, & Falk, 2011). These constructs were calculated by combining several items to create an overarching topic conceptual element. We tested four constructs in the study: (a) motivations (20 items); (b) marine animal and conservation knowledge (4 items); (c) environmentally related behaviors (12 items); and (d) environmental attitudes (7 items). We used SPSS V.23 statistical software to analyze all of the closed-ended items. All of these items used a 7-point scale, with response categories ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. We calculated frequencies and percentages for all closed-ended items (see Appendix II - IV). In addition, we conducted statistical comparisons on the constructs. See Table 1 for the more general topics; see Table 2 for the survey constructs.

Page | 8

Table 1. The survey location (pre-, post-, or delayed post-tour survey) for general topics.

Closed-ended questions Pre-Tour Post-Tour Delayed Post-Tour

Demographics X X X1

Level of environmental curiosity

X

Level of engagement X

Impact of tour X 1 Only the gender demographic was asked in the delayed post-tour survey.

For the questions comprising a construct, we calculated the average response in addition to the frequency and percentage of each response category (e.g., strongly disagree). There were two types of 7-point scales: unipolar and bipolar scales. Unipolar scales started at a “0” or “1” endpoint and continued to a final state (i.e., they were unidirectional), such as 1 = "does not describe me” to 7 = “describes me perfectly.” Bipolar scales included a “neither” option in the middle with two final states, such as 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree” on either side. For questions with a bipolar scale, we recoded responses from -3 = “strongly disagree” to +3 = “strongly agree” in order to highlight the average response more easily. A negative average response, for example, represents a disagreement with a statement, whereas a positive average response represents agreement. Table 2. The survey location (pre-, post-, or delayed post-tour survey) for constructs.

Closed-Ended Constructs

Number of Concepts within a Construct

Pre-Tour Post-Tour Delayed Post-

Tour

Motivations 4 X

Knowledge 1 X X X

Environmental attitudes

3 X X

Environmentally related behavior 3 X X

As constructs are comprised of multiple conceptual elements, we conducted principal component analysis (PCA) on each of the four constructs to determine the number of factors. We then verified the internal consistency of the constructs using Cronbach’s alpha (Vaske, 2008). The Cronbach’s alpha for all seven constructs was above an acceptable alpha value (α > .60). Three of the four constructs included more than one concept. We found four concepts within motivations: (a) discovery and learning (α = .85); (b) restoration (α = .89); (c) enjoyment (α = .76); and (d) social contact (α = .87). Knowledge was a single construct (α = .80). Environmental attitudes had three concepts: (a) environmental attitudes (pre-tour α = .74 and post-tour α = .82); (b) efficacy (pre-tour α = .73 and post-tour α = .82); and (c) awareness of consequences (pre-tour α = .81 and post-tour α = .89). The environmentally related behaviors construct had three concepts: (a) personal behaviors (pre-tour α = .85 and delayed post-tour α = .74); (b) public behaviors (pre-tour and delayed post-tour α = .74); and (c) transportation behaviors (this included only one item).

Page | 9

The mean of the items within each of the 11 concepts was calculated and is referred to as a “construct scale” (i.e., knowledge scale) in the Findings section. The construct scales were used in statistical analyses, such as t-tests. Cluster analysis, an analysis that groups people together, was conducted on the motivation concepts to see whether patterns existed in, for example, the types of motivations that brought people to the whale-watching tours.

Motivations for Coming on the Tour The 20-item motivation scale was categorized into four concepts.

Learning and Discovery Construct

a) To discover new things b) To be better informed c) To expand my interests d) To be mentally stimulated e) To explore the unknown

Enjoyment Construct

a) To be pleasantly occupied b) To feel happy and satisfied c) To have fun d) To be entertained e) To enjoy myself

Social Context Construct

a) To build friendship with new people b) To interact with others c) To meet new people d) To spend quality time with family and friends e) To develop closer friendships

Restoration Construct

a) To recover from the stress and tension of everyday life b) To find some peace and tranquility c) To get away from the responsibilities of everyday life d) To relax physically e) To relax mentally

All motivation items were measured on a 7-point scale ranging from “not important” (1) to “moderately important” (4) to “extremely important” (7).

Page | 10

Knowledge Construct The four survey items defining the environmental science knowledge scale were the following:

a) Marine animals b) Plastic ocean pollution c) Sustainable seafood d) Climate change impacts

All four knowledge items were measured on a 7-point scale ranging from “nothing” (1) to “expert” (7), as in, “I know nothing about this,” to “I am an expert.”

Environmental Attitudes Construct The environmental attitudes construct was divided into three concepts based on the PCA: (a) environmental responsibility scale, (b) self-efficacy scale, and (c) awareness of consequences scale. The following three survey items were used to describe the environmental responsibility scale:

a) I am personally responsible for helping protect the marine environment. b) We have the responsibility to leave healthy ecosystems for future generations. c) I want to help conserve the environment.

The two survey items used to describe the self-efficacy scale were the following:

a) My actions can improve the marine environment. b) I have the ability to conserve resources.

The two survey items used to describe the awareness of consequences scale were the following:

a) I know actions I can take to help protect oceans. b) I understand the impact my actions have on the environment.

All seven environmental attitude items were measured on a 7-point agreement scale ranging from “not at all” (1) to “completely” (7).

Page | 11

Environmental Behaviors Construct Environmentally related behaviors were divided into three categories based on research by Stern (2000) and Monroe (2003), as well as findings from the PCA: (1) personal behavior scale, (2) advocacy behavior scale, and (3) transportation behavior scale. The personal behavior scale was based on eight items:

a) Conserve water in your home and garden. b) Recycle (bottles, cans, paper). c) Pick up litter. d) Use reusable shopping bags. e) Talk to others about the importance of the environment. f) Purchase environmentally friendly products. g) Read or listen to information about the environment. h) Conserve energy in your home.

The advocacy behavior scale was based on two items:

a) Participate in a community cleanup. b) Do volunteer work for a group that helps the environment.

The transportation scale was based on one item:

a) Take alternative forms of transportation (other than personal vehicles). All 10 behavior items were measured on a 7-point scale ranging from “never” (1) to “sometimes” (4) to “always” (7). In regard to Figures and Tables, note the following reporting styles:

• The title appears below Figures and above Tables. • For open-ended questions, the frequency often exceeds the total sample size (n) because

respondents reported more than one item for the question. • Some graphs report frequency; some report percentage.

Page | 12

Research Findings The following section provides the findings, which we divide into five main result sections.

Results A: Getting to know the Oceanic Society’s whale-watching tourists Results B: Memories, experiences, and learning while on the tour Results C: Motivations for attending the whale-watching tour Results D: Changes in tourists between pre-, post-, and delayed post-tour Results E: Blue Habits messaging and commitment

Page | 13

Results A: Getting to Know the Oceanic Society’s Whale-Watching Tourists

This section contains demographic information about the whale-watching tourists who completed the pre- or post-tour surveys on either the Half Moon Bay or Farallon Islands whale-watching tours. We tested for differences in demographics between the two tour locations and found no significant differences in the Half Moon Bay and Farallon Islands samples. For this reason, we combined the two populations for subsequent analysis (i.e., Total).

Gender and Age

Figure 1. The percentage of female and male tourists who attended the Half Moon Bay and Farallon Islands whale-watching trips.

A total of 256 (60%) women and 171 (40%) men participated in the study. More females than males completed surveys in both the Half Moon Bay and Farallon Island tours (Figure 1). There was no significant difference between the number of female and male tourists who participated in the survey on the two tours (χ2 = .727, df = 1, p = .394).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Male

Female

Percentage

Total (n=427) Half Moon Bay (n=228) Farallon Islands (n=199)

Page | 14

The Half Moon Bay and Farallon Islands tours had tourists in similar age brackets, and the two tours were not significantly different in terms of tourists’ age groupings (χ2 = 2.80, df = 7, p = .903). The age bracket with the highest amount of tourists was 30-39 years of age (23%, n = 89), with 50-59 (20%, n = 78) being the next highest (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The percentage of tourists in each category for the Half Moon Bay and Farallon Islands whale-watching trips.

0 5 10 15 20 25

80-89 years

70-79 years

60-69 years

50-59 years

40-49 years

30-39 years

25-29 years

18-24 years

Percentage


Page | 15

Education In terms of the tourists’ level of education, the majority of tourists reported having a graduate degree (52%, n = 204). As with the gender and age demographics, there was no significant difference in education level (χ2 = 4.87, df = 3, p = .182) between the Half Moon Bay and Farallon Island (Figure X) tourists.

Figure 3. The percentage of tourists’ different education levels on the Half Moon Bay and Farallon Islands whale-watching trips.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Graduate Degree

College Degree

Associates Degree

High School

Percentage


Page | 16

Residency The vast majority of tourists reported that their current residence is in the United States (91%, n = 361). Of those currently living in the United States, 85% (n = 292) stated they reside in California (χ2 = 4.87, df = 3, p = .182; Figure 4a). There was a significant difference between the tourists living in California and those who reported that they live outside of the state (χ2 = 41.62, df = 25, p = .02; Figure 4b). This pattern was observed among tourists on both the Half Moon Bay and Farallon Island tours.

(a) The location of tourists worldwide.

(b) The location of US resident tourists by state.

Figure 4. The percentage of tourists from (a) worldwide locations, and (b) US locations who attended the Half Moon Bay and Farallon Islands whale-watching trips.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Oceania

Asia

Europe

South America

Canada

USA

Percentage


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Outside of California

California

Percentage


Page | 17

Prior Whale-Watching Experiences A little less than half of the total tourists at had been on at least one whale-watching tour before (48% across both tours, n = 200). There was no significant difference between the two locations in the number of times that tourists had attended a whale-watching tour (χ2 = 3.51, df = 4, p = .48; Figure 5b). In terms of group composition, 46% (n = 190) of tourists attended the tour with another adult, and there was no significant difference in the types of groups attending the tours between Half Moon Bay and the Farallon Islands (χ2 = 3.75, df = 3, p = .29; Figure 6).

(a) Percentage of tourists who had participated in a whale-watching tour before this one.

(b) Number of times tourists had participated in whale-watching tours prior to this one.

Figure 5. Tourists’ attendance on prior whale-watching tours as a percentage in relation to (a) whether tourists had been on a whale-watching tour before, and (b) if so, the number of times.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

At least one prior whale-watching tour

Percentage


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Greater than 10 Times

4-10 Times

2-3 Times

Percentage


Page | 18

Figure 6. Types of groups participating in the Half Moon Bay and Farallon Islands whale-watching tours.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Family Group

Two or More Adults

One Other Adult

Came Alone

Percentage


Page | 19

Results B: Memories, Experiences, and Learning While on the Tour

In this section, we describe the coded responses from the open-ended or free-response questions in the surveys. For each response, we coded the text using emic codes, deriving from the data and tourists’ own words. Tourists’ responses were marked as “presence” or “absence” for each code.

Tour Memories This section describes the responses from three questions related to tourists’ memories of the whale-watching tour. We asked respondents about their most and least favorite parts of the whale-watching tour as well as their most vivid memory.

Favorite part of the trip

Figure 7. The frequency of coded responses to the post-tour survey question, “What was your favorite part of the whale-watching tour?”

By far, the marine animal viewing was the tourists’ favorite part of the whale-watching tours: 318 (95%) of tourists mentioned this aspect of the experience as being their favorite (Figure 7). The experience of being out on the boat on the ocean was also mentioned frequently.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Picking up marine debris

Returning to shore

All aspects

Socializing with people

Weather

Interpretation

Being out on a boat

Marine wildlife

Frequency


Page | 20

Least favorite part of the trip

Figure 8. The frequency of coded responses to the question, “What was your least favorite part of the whale-watching tour?” Eighty people (18%) of all passengers reported nothing in regard to their least favorite part of the trip (Figure 8). The top four least favorite parts were aspects of the trip that cannot be controlled, such as seasickness, rough ocean/bad weather, and too few animal viewings.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

None

Passenger interactions

Tour logistics

Time spent with wildlife

General comforts

Smell

Not enough interpretation

Seeing marine debris

Crowding on boat

Kelp flies

Length of trip

Rough ocean

Not enough wildlife

Poor weather

Seasickness

Frequency


Page | 21

Most vivid memory

Figure 9. The frequency of coded responses to the question, “What are your most vivid memories from the Oceanic Society whale-watching tour?”

Similar to tourists’ favorite part of the trip, tourists’ most vivid memory was animal viewing (96%, n = 77; Figure 9). The scenery was the second most recalled vivid memory, although the frequency was much less than animal viewing.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Picking up marine debris

Everything about the trip

Trip length

Interpretation

Seasickness

Social interactions

Beautiful weather

The scenery

Animal viewing

Frequency


Page | 22

Environmental Curiosity of Tourists In the pre-tour survey responses, tourists indicated that they had a high level of environmental curiosity (Figure 10). A majority of tourists reported that they were interested in learning about environmental issues (61%, n = 247); they also reported that they often think about whether their actions might harm the natural world (55%, n = 222). However, a much smaller percentage reported that they actively seek out information related to marine conservation (24%, n = 98).

Figure 10. The mean response by all tourists to the question, “Rate how well the following statements describe you.” These items are on a 7-point scale from 1 = "does not describe me” to 7 = “describes me perfectly.”

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I actively seek out information about marineconservation.

I enjoy spending my leisure time observing animals.

I enjoy watching TV documentaries about wildlife.

I often think about whether my actions harm the naturalworld.

I am interested in learning about environmental issues.

Farallon Islands & Half Moon Bay

Page | 23

Level of Engagement In general, the level of engagement reported by tourists was positive (Table 3). Survey questions representing the level of engagement were categorized into reflective engagement and experiential engagement (Ballantyne et al., 2011). Table 3 depicts the mean responses; frequencies and percentages are reported in Appendix III. On average, tourists moderately to strongly agreed that the naturalists addressed their questions (mean = 2.29, n = 385). Tourists reported “neutral” to “slight” agreement when asked whether they found themselves reflecting on new ideas about animals (mean = .86, n = 394) and whether they learned something new about environmental issues (mean = .88, n = 394). Table 3. The mean response by all tourists to the following post-tour survey question: “To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements about your whale-watching experience today?” The items were categorized in two ways: (a) reflective forms of engagement, and (b) experiential forms of engagement.

n Mean Standard Deviation Level of Agreement

Reflective Engagement‡ 296 1.36 ±.89 Slight to Moderate Agreement

I felt an emotional connection with the animals I saw. 394 1.27 ± 1.33 Slight to Moderate Agreement

I found myself reflecting on new ideas about animals. 394 .86 ± 1.27 Neutral to Slight Agreement

The staff answered my questions. 385 2.29 ± .87 Moderate to Strong Agreement

I discussed new information with my companions. 392 1.20 ± 1.32 Slight to Moderate Agreement

I experienced something surprising. 395 1.67 ± 1.33 Neutral to Slight Agreement

I learned something new about environmental issues. 394 .88 ± 1.51 Neutral to Slight Agreement

Experiential Engagement‡ 396 2.21 ±.85 Moderate to Strong Agreement

The experience was engaging. 395 2.13 ± .94 Moderate to Strong Agreement

It was exciting to see live marine life. 394 2.53 ± .77 Moderate to Strong Agreement

I got a good view of the marine life. 394 2.31 ± .99 Moderate to Strong Agreement

There was plenty of activity to see. 396 1.82 ± 1.38 Slight to Moderate Agreement

I felt a sense of wonder or awe. 395 2.05 ± 1.16 Moderate to Strong Agreement

I had an enjoyable experience. 397 2.42 ± .83 Moderate to Strong Agreement

‡ The level of engagement items are on a 7-point scale from -3= "strongly disagree” to 0 = “neutral” to 3 = “strongly agree”

Learning While Whale Watching In the delayed post-tour survey, we asked tourists open-questions about what they learned about marine life and marine conservation. In addition, they were asked what could be improved on the whale-watching tour to enhance learning about marine life and conservation.

Page | 24

Learning about Marine Life

Tourists reported learning about a variety of topics. The most frequently reported topic related to biological and ecological information of the species being observed (Figure 11a).1 The most frequently suggested improvement to help tourists learn more about marine life was to include additional, bigger, and more varied teaching materials on board such as visual displays (18%, n = 12; Figure 11b). Tourists suggested that the onboard materials might include information about whale history, environmental impacts, feeding habits, and species that could be encountered. Increased number of naturalists (docents) was suggested as well (10%, n = 7). A number of tourists asked for more pre- and post-tour materials; a few suggested that the Oceanic Society provide additional educational opportunities off board, such as in schools or through providing classes at the Marine Mammal Center. One participant suggested offering a supplemental virtual experience.

1Specific examples included learning that some whales are social and some are not; there are different kinds of sea lions; whales swim close to shore to protect babies; whale mothers and calves travel together, while males travel separately; humpback whales’ tails are unique and serve as a “fingerprint;” and seabirds provide services for marine life survival. Note that these descriptions are written in the tourists’ language. It is interesting to consider the language that tourists use when recalling what they learned (e.g., “different types” versus “species”).

Page | 25

(a) What did you learn about marine life on the whale-watching tour?

(b) How could the whale-watching experience be improved so that people learn more about marine life?

Figure 11. Percentage of responses coded to the questions, (a) “What did you learn about marine life on the whale-watching tour?” and (b) “How could the whale-watching experience be improved so that people learn more about marine life?”

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Do not rememberDid not learn/Nothing new

Ocean temperature changesInterpretation

New experiencesAnimal relationships

Animal adaptationAnimal reproduction

Animal behaviorLife on the Farallons

Ocean & coastal environmentAnimal relationships

Wildlife diversityHuman impacts

Feeding behaviorAnimal migration

Animal characteristics

Frequency


0 5 10 15 20

UnsureNothing

Structured interpretationActivities onboard

More marketingSuggest other activities off board

Observation of marine lifePre-tour materials

Post-tour materialsMore docents

Onboard materials

Frequency


Page | 26

Learning about Marine Conservation

In the delayed post-tour surveys, tourists recalled several different marine conservation topics discussed while on the tour (Figure 12a). The most frequently recalled topic was marine debris, particularly with regard to balloons (23%, n = 17). Other topics discussed related to general human impacts on the marine environment, such as needing to keep oceans clean and the ways in which individual action can affect marine life (16%, n = 12). One participant specifically described the importance of being careful with regard to our seafood-selection practices in order to conserve marine animals. A few of the tourists remarked that they learned about the distance required of boats to prevent encroachment on the wildlife (4%, n = 3). When asked how to improve marine conservation learning on the tour, tourists most frequently mentioned the possibility of providing and using interpretive materials (44%, n = 27; Figure 12b). Respondents also suggested supplying post-tour materials as an opportunity to enhance learning related to marine conservation (11%, n = 7).

Page | 27

(a) What did you learn about marine conservation on the whale-watching tour?

(b) How could the whale-watching experience be improved so that people learn more about marine conservation?

Figure 12. The frequency of coded responses to the question, (a) “What did you learn about marine conservation on the whale watching tour?” and (b) “How could the whale-watching experience be improved so that people learn more about marine conservation?”

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Do not remember

Did not learn/Nothing new

Current research

Impacts of climate change

Responsibility of boats around wildlife

Marine sanctuary

Balance of life

Human responsibility toward environment

Marine debris

Frequency


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Nothing new

Do not know

Observation of marine life

More docents

Marketing

Pre-tour materials

Off-boat opportunities

Marine debris pick up

Post-tour materials

Interpretive materials

Frequency


Page | 28

After the Tour In the delayed post-tour survey, we asked tourists to recall several aspects of the tour, specifically in regard to the impact of the tour, their most vivid memories, what they learned, and what they thought could be improved. We queried what they shared with others and if their feelings or thoughts related to their role in marine conservation had changed since participating in the tour. In addition, we asked matching questions from other surveys, such as level of knowledge, environmental attitudes, and environmental behavior.

Impact of the Tour

Tourists’ level of perceived impact of the whale-watching tour was, on average, slight to moderate (Table 4). The impact items with which tourists agreed most strongly related to learning new information (mean = 1.85, n = 397). Tourists were in “slight” to “moderate” agreement that the experience made them more interested in marine animals (mean = 1.43, n = 397) and that the experience made marine animal conservation more meaningful (mean = 1.47, n = 396). Table 4 depicts the mean responses; frequencies and percentages are reported in Appendix IV.

Table 4. The mean response by all tourists to the question, “To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements about your whale-watching experience today?”

n Mean Standard Deviation Level of Agreement

I learned some new information during the tour. 397 1.85 ±1.03 Slight to Moderate Agreement

The experience has made marine animal conservation issues more meaningful to me.

396 1.47 ±1.15 Slight to Moderate Agreement

The experience has made me more interested in marine animals.

397 1.43 ±1.16 Slight to Moderate Agreement

My tour has made me more concerned about the well-being of marine life in general. 396 1.18 ±1.34 Slight to Moderate Agreement

I feel more strongly about marine life conservation issues as a result of my tour. 396 .95 ±1.37 Slight to Moderate Agreement

I have a better understanding of conservation issues because of my tour. 397 .95 ±1.27 Slight to Moderate Agreement

Some of my beliefs have changed as a result of my visit. 394 .09 ±1.46 Slight to Moderate Agreement

‡ The level of impact items are on a 7-point scale from -3= "strongly disagree” to 0 = “neutral” to 3 = “strongly agree”

Page | 29

Sharing Experiences with People

Figure 13. The frequency of coded responses to the question, “What have you talked about with people related to the whale-watching tour?” The tourists reported that, after the tour, they most frequently discussed the animals observed on the tour (51%, n = 35; Figure 13). Eleven percent (n = 8) of tourists reported talking about every part of the tour—including the wildlife, the boat ride, the crew, and logistics; 7% (n = 5) reported encouraging their friends and family to go on a tour. Although tourists reported in other survey items that they learned about conservation behaviors they could perform to support healthy oceans, only a few respondents reported discussing environmental issues with others after the tour. Specifically, tourists described the importance of sustainable fishing, evidence of marine debris, and dangers of helium balloons.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

LogisticsEnvironmental issues

The oceanSeasickness

Oceanic Society & crewGoing again & encouraging others to go

Farallon IslandsGeneral boat ride

Fun experienceEverything

General observationsWildlife seen

Frequency


Page | 30

Tourists’ Role in Conservation

Figure 14. The frequency of coded responses to the question, “In what ways (if any) have your thoughts or feelings about your role in marine conservation changed as a result of your whale watching tour?” About one-third of the whale-watching tourists reported that their thoughts or feelings about their role in conservation had not changed since participating in the tour (39%, n = 27; Figure 14), although half of these tourists said specifically that they already thought “a lot” about marine conservation even before participating in the tour. By contrast, 16 tourists (23%) reported a general increase in awareness about environmental issues concerning the ocean. In terms of awareness of specific behaviors that could support marine conservation, 10 tourists (14%) indicated that they now will think more about reducing plastic use, while 4 tourists (6%) reported an increased awareness of their actions on water pollution.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Reducing waste

Looking into other opportunities

Considering impact of fishing

Considering impact on water quality

Considering impact on wildlife

Reducing plastic use

Being more aware

Nothing new

Frequency


Page | 31

Results C: Motivations for Attending the Whale-Watching Tour

As detailed in the Methods section, we used four types of visitor motivations2 to describe and analyze the Oceanic Society’s whale-watching tour community. These motivations are grouped into the following four areas: (1) learning and discovery, (2) enjoyment, (3) social contact, and (4) restoration. Our findings suggest the following: Learning and discovery, on average, were important motivations for attending the whale-watching tour. In general, tourists attending Oceanic Society’s whale-watching tours hoped to learn new things and be mentally stimulated (Figure 15a). This same pattern was observed with regard to the items related to enjoyment: Tourists described that they were looking to have fun, be entertained, and feel happy and satisfied (Figure 15b). The responses to items regarding social contact, however, were more variable. The most important motivation related to the social experience described spending quality time with family and friends (mean = 5.76, n = 401; Table 15c). Other socially related reason for participating in the tour were only of slight-to-moderate importance for tourists. This means that, in general, tourists were not participating in the whale-watching tours to build new relationships. Interestingly, tourists reported the motivation of “emotional restoration” to be moderately-to-very important (Figure 15d), suggesting that whale watchers perceived the tour as an opportunity to escape from the stresses of everyday life and to relax mentally and physically.

2 Figure 15a,b,c,d depicts the average response to the motivation items; frequencies and percentages are reported in Appendix II.

Page | 32

(a) Motivations concerning enjoyment. (b) Motivations concerning learning and discovery.

(c) Motivations concerning restoration. (d) Motivations concerning social contact.

Figure 15. The mean responses by all tourists to the question, “What do you hope to get out of your whale-watching tour today?” The motivations were categorized into four types: (a) enjoyment, (b) learning and discovery, (c) restoration, and (d) social contact. Items related to tour-attendance motivations are on a 7-point scale from 1 = "not important” to 4 = “moderately important” to 7 = “extremely important.”

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be entertained.

To be pleasantly occupied.

To feel happy and satisfied.

Enjoyment Scale

To enjoy myself.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To be mentally stimulated.

To be better informed.

Learning & Discovery Scale

To discover new things.

To explore the unknown.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To recover from the stress and tensionof everyday life.

To get away from the responsibilities ofeveryday life.

Restoration Scale

To relax physically.

To find some peace and tranquility.


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To meet new people.

To build friendships with new people.

To develop closer friendships.

To interact with others.

Social Context Scale


Page | 33

Figure 16 shows the combined average responses of each item within each of the four motivation types: (a) enjoyment, (b) learning and discovery, (c) restoration, and (d) social contact. Overall, tourists reported that enjoyment was the most important reason for coming on the tour (mean = 5.70, n = 401). Learning and discovery were also important reasons (mean = 5.55, n = 404).

Figure 16. The mean responses by all tourists to the overall motivation scales: (a) enjoyment, (b) learning and discovery, (c) restoration, and (d) social context. The four scales that relate to motivations for tour participation are on a 7-point scale from 1= "not important” to 7 = “extremely important.”

To further explore respondents’ hopes for the tour, we conducted a cluster analysis related to the four motivation scales. The results from this analysis indicated that there were two types of overall motivations. One type of motivation relates to tourists who seek a combination of (a) learning and discovery and (b) enjoyment (51%, n =203). The second type represents tourists whose primary motivations were a combination of all four motivations categories: (a) enjoyment, (b) learning and discovery, (c) restoration, and (d) social contact (49%, n =197).

Figure 17. Based on cluster analysis, percentage of tourists who fit into two different motivations types: (a) learning/discovery and enjoyment and (b) combined, comprised of all four motivations types.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Social Context Scale

Restoration Scale

Learning & Discovery Scale

Enjoyment Scale

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Learning & Discovery / Enjoyment Scales

All Four Motivations Scales

Page | 34

Results D: Changes in Tourists Between Pre-, Post-, and Delayed Post-Tour

This section reports on the differences between pre-, post-, and delayed post-tour for three constructs: (a) knowledge (all three surveys); (b) environmentally related behaviors (pre- and delayed post-tour surveys); and (c) environmental attitudes (pre- and post-tour surveys). Environmental Knowledge Overall, tourists reported that they had some knowledge (mid-range between knowing “nothing” to being an “expert”) on a variety of topics about ocean wildlife and conservation. A spike in knowledge was observed between the pre-tour and post-tour knowledge items. This was anticipated, given the onboard interpretation. All knowledge items, except for climate change impacts, significantly increased between the pre- and post-tour. The overall knowledge scale increased significantly as well (t = 3.66, n = 77, p < .001; Figure 18a, Table 5); however, the spike in knowledge was not long lasting. When we compared the post- and delayed post-tour knowledge items, the overall knowledge scale significantly decreased (t = 2.16 n = 77, p = .034; Figure 18b). Despite the overall knowledge scale decreasing between the post- and delayed post-tour surveys (due to the decreases in marine animal and sustainable seafood knowledge levels), knowledge specifically about plastic ocean pollution and climate change impacts increased, but not significantly (Table 5).

Page | 35

Figure 18. The mean responses by all tourists to knowledge items between the pre-tour, post-tour, and the delayed post-tour (n = 77) surveys. The Knowledge Scale is the mean response of all four items.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sustainable seafood

Marine animals

Plastic ocean pollution

Climate change impacts

Knowledge Scale

Pre-Tour Post-Tour Delayed Post-Tour

Page | 36

Table 5 provides the mean values for all the knowledge items and the level of significance between the means.3 Note that, while there were 77 tourists who completed the delayed post-tour survey, not all of these tourists answered every item. Thus, the sample size (n) is slightly different in some items between the pre-tour/post-tour comparison and the pre-tour/delayed post-tour comparison. For any given item, the slight differences in sample sizes between the survey comparisons results in slight differences in the mean values for pre-tour, post-tour, and delayed post-tour. Table 5. The mean difference in responses by all tourists to knowledge items between the pre-tour and post-tour surveys, the post-tour and delayed post-tour surveys, and the pre- and delayed post-tour surveys. The Knowledge Scale is the mean response to the four items: climate change impacts, plastic ocean pollution, marine animals, and sustainable seafood.

Pre- Tour

Post-Tour

Delayed Post-Tour

Mean Difference t-value Df** p-value

Knowledge Scale* 4.27 4.43 -.254 3.66 76 <.001

4.52 4.34 .181 2.16 76 .034

4.27 4.34 -.0581 .611 75 .54

Climate change impacts 4.71 4.79 -.079 .973 75 .33

4.78 4.88 .104 .882 76 .38

4.72 4.92 -.200 1.59 74 .116

Plastic ocean pollution 4.22 4.53 -.312 2.76 76 .007

4.53 4.53 .182 1.67 76 .099

4.22 4.33 -.118 .932 75 .35

Marine animals 4.06 4.39 -.325 3.08 76 <.001

4.39 4.05 .338 3.48 76 .001

4.07 4.04 .026 .228 75 .82

Sustainable seafood 4.12 4.39 .276 3.42 75 .001

4.39 4.08 .316 2.48 75 .015

4.14 4.07 .068 .533 73 .60 * The knowledge items and scales are on a 7-point scale from 1 = "nothing” to 7 = “expert” ** The degrees of freedom value is equal to the sample size minus 1

3 As we asked the knowledge items on all three surveys, we reported the analyses of only the 77 tourists who completed all three surveys. Knowledge statistical tests, however, were run on the 370 tourists who completed only the pre- and post-tour surveys. The pre-tour mean responses for the 370 tourists were slightly lower on all the knowledge items. This indicates a possible survey bias, in which tourists who completed all three surveys may have been more interested in marine life/conservation. It also notes that the pre-tour knowledge levels for most Oceanic Society visitors will be a little lower than reported here.

Page | 37

Environmental Attitudes As detailed in the Methods section, we divided the items regarding environmental attitudes into three conceptual categories: (a) environmental responsibility, (b) self-efficacy, and (c) awareness of consequences (Table 6). Of the three items representing environmental responsibility, the only one that had a significant positive difference between the pre- and post-tour surveys was, “I am personally responsible for helping protect the marine environment” (t = 7.26, df = 353, p < .001; Figure 19a). The other two items were not significantly different between the pre- and post-tour surveys.

(a) Items concerning attitudes toward environmental responsibilities

(b) Items concerning attitudes toward self-efficacy

(c) Items concerning attitudes toward awareness of consequences

Figure 19. The mean responses of all tourists regarding (a) environmental responsibility, (b) self-efficacy, and (c) awareness of consequence between the pre-tour and post-tour surveys. The environmental attitude items are on a 7-point agreement scale from 1 = "not at all” to 7 = “completely.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am personally responsible for helping protect themarine environment.

I want to help conserve the environment.

We have the responsibility to leave healthyecosystems for future generations.

Pre-Tour Post-Tour

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am personally responsible for helping protect themarine environment.

I want to help conserve the environment.

We have the responsibility to leave healthyecosystems for future generations.

Pre-Tour Post-Tour

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I know actions I can take to help protect oceans.

I understand the impact my actions have on theenvironment.

Pre-Tour Post-Tour

Page | 38

The two items representing environmental self-efficacy had significant positive increases between the pre- and post-tour surveys (p < .01; Figure 19b). After the whale-watching tour, tourists reported feeling more efficacious in their ability to conserve resources and more confident that their actions could improve the marine environment. There was a significant positive increase for the two items representing environmental awareness of consequences (p < .001; Table 6). This means that tourists had a greater awareness of actions that they could take to protect the environment and a greater understanding of their impact on the environment (Figure 19c). Table 6. The mean difference in responses by whale watchers to environmental attitude items between the pre-tour and post-tour surveys. Each environmental attitude scale is comprised of the mean of the responses to the items included below the headings. The scales that we computed are for the following three constructs: (a) environmental responsibility, (b) environmental self-efficacy, and (c) awareness of consequences.

Pre- Tour

Post-Tour

Mean Difference t-value df p-value

Environmental Responsibility Scale* 6.14 6.35 .21 5.25 354 <.001

We have the responsibility to leave healthy ecosystems for future generations.

6.49 6.55 .062 1.50 352 .14

I want to help conserve the environment. 6.45 6.46 .003 .20 348 .84

I am personally responsible for helping protect the marine environment.

5.46 6.02 .53 7.26 353 <.001

Self-Efficacy Scale* 5.98 6.20 .22 4.99 352 <.001

I have the ability to conserve resources. 6.23 6.34 .11 2.56 653 .011

My actions can improve the marine environment.

5.74 6.06 .32 5.42 354 <.001

Awareness of Consequences Scale* 5.59 6.00 .41 3.93 353 <.001

I understand the impact my actions have on the environment.

5.68 6.01 .33 5.34 353 <.001

I know actions I can take to help protect oceans. 5.51 5.99 .49 6.80 352 <.001

* The environmental attitude items and scales are on a 7-point scale from 1 = "not at all” to 7 = “completely.”

Page | 39

Figure 20 depicts the overall average response for the three environmental attitude scales. All three—responsibility, self-efficacy, and awareness of consequences—were significantly different between the pre-tour and post-tour responses, with the post-tour responses being greater than pre-tour (p < .001; Table 6). It is important to note that only one out of three questions within the environmental responsibility scale was statistically significant pre- to post-tour, which made the overall construct significant with a positive change.

Figure 20. The mean responses by whale watchers to the environmental attitude scales between the pre-tour and post-tour surveys. The environmental attitude scales are on a 7-point scale from 1 = "not at all” to 7 = “completely.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Environmental Efficacy

Awareness of Consequences

Environmental Responsibility

Pre-Tour Post-Tour

Page | 40

Environmentally Related Behaviors As detailed in the Methods section, we divided environmental behavior into three categories: (a) personal behavior (b) advocacy behavior and (c) transportation. Examples of personal behaviors included reducing the use of resources, disposing of waste in an environmentally friendly manner, and reading or listening to information about the environment. Examples of advocacy behaviors included participating in a community cleanup, sharing experiences of being in natural places, and volunteering for environmentally related groups. Transportation was its own category because the reasons that people report using different forms of transportation (e.g., personal vehicle, public bus/train, and bicycle) are complex and, therefore, cannot be neatly categorized as public or private sphere behaviors. There were no significant differences between the pre- and delayed post-tour responses for the overall personal behavior scale (t = .004, df =77, p = 1.00; Figure 21) and transportation scale (t = .512, df =75, p = .61; Table 7). In terms of the advocacy behavior scale, there was a significant decrease between the pre- and delayed post-tour surveys (t = .53, df =76, p < .001). The discrepancy between the pre- and delayed post-tour responses could be due to unconscious social norm pressure felt by tourists as they completed the survey on the dock in the presence of whale-watching tourists versus in the privacy of their own homes.

Figure 21. The mean responses by whale watchers to environmentally related behaviors for the overall scales (a) personal behaviors, (b) personal transportation, and (c) advocacy behaviors between the pre-tour and the delayed post-tour (n = 77) surveys. The environmentally related behavior items are on a 7-point scale from 1 = "never” to 4 = “sometimes” to 7 = “always.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Advocacy Behaviors

Personal Transportation

Personal Behaviors

Pre-Tour Delayed Post-Tour

Page | 41

The following sections describe the differences between items within the specific constructs. Two of the three environmentally related behavior constructs were not significantly different from pre-tour to delayed post-tour surveys, yet some of the items within the constructs were significantly different. These differences are highlighted in the following sections.

Personal Behaviors

Five of the eight personal behavior items were not significantly different between the pre- and delayed post-tour survey (Figure 22a). Of the eight items within the personal behavior category, three were significant. There was a significant decrease in the frequency of the behaviors: picking up litter (t = 4.08, df = 76, p < .001), using reusable bags (t = 2.03, df = 76, p = .28), and conserving energy at home (t = 2.06, df = 76, p = .043).

Advocacy Behaviors

Overall, there was a significant decrease in reported advocacy behaviors (t = 3.80, df = 76, p < .001; Table 7). Participating in a community cleanup and volunteering for a group that helps the environment decreased significantly (p < .008; Figure 22c) between the pre- and delayed post-tour.

Page | 42

Table 7. The mean difference in responses by whale watchers to pro-environmentally related behavior items between the pre-tour and delayed post-tour surveys. Each behavior “scale” consists of the mean responses of the individual items within the scale.

Pre- Tour

Delayed Post-Tour

Mean Difference t-value df p-value

Personal Behavior Scale* 5.79 5.79 0 .004 77 1.0

Recycle (bottles, cans, paper). 6.70 6.70 0 0 76 1.0

Use reusable shopping bags. 6.21 5.97 .23 2.03 77 .046

Conserve energy in your home. 5.91 6.13 .22 2.06 76 .043

Conserve water in your home and garden. 5.82 5.88 .064 .399 77 .69

Pick up litter. 5.77 5.29 .48 4.08 76 <.001

Read or listen to information about the environment.

5.62 5.42 .21 1.48 76 .14

Purchase environmentally friendly products. 5.37 5.35 .026 .203 77 .84

Talk to others about the importance of the environment.

4.95 5.12 .17 1.10 76 .28

Transportation Behavior Scale

Take alternative forms of transportation (other than personal vehicles). 4.67 4.75 .079 .512 75 .61

Advocacy Behavior Scale* 3.45 2.92 .53 3.80 76 <.001

Share experiences of being in natural places via social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). 4.05 4.12 .067 .47 74 .64

Participate in a community cleanup. 3.48 2.87 .61 3.78 76 <.001

Do volunteer work for a group that helps the environment. 3.43 2.97 .46 2.72 76 .008

* The conservation behavior items and scales are on a 7-point scale from 1 = "never” to 4 = “sometimes” to 7 = “always.”

Page | 43

(a) Personal Behaviors

(b) Transportation Behavior

(c) Advocacy Behaviors

Figure 22. The mean responses by whale watchers to environmentally related behaviors grouped into (a) personal behaviors, (b) transportation behavior, and (c) advocacy behaviors between the pre-tour and the delayed post-tour (n = 77) surveys. The environmentally related behavior items are on a 7-point scale from 1 = "never” to 4 = “sometimes” to 7 = “always.”

1 2 3 4 5 6

Talk to others about the importance of the environment.

Purchase environmentally friendly products.

Read or listen to information about the environment.

Pick up litter.

Conserve water in your home and garden.

Conserve energy in your home.

Use reusable shopping bags.

Recycle (bottles, cans, paper).


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Take alternative forms of transportation (other thanpersonal vehicles).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Do volunteer work for a group that helps the environment.

Participate in a community cleanup.

Share experiences of being in natural places via socialmedia (e.g. Facebook, Twitter).


Page | 44

Results E: Blue Habits Messaging and Commitment

We began development and testing of Blue Habits in two parts: (1) website messaging (in conjunction with Innovage Studios) and (2) behavioral testing through Blue Habits commitments.

Blue Habits Videos In conjunction with Innovage Studios, we developed Blue Habits messaging for the Oceanic Society website. Innovage Studios created three related videos4 focused on the problem of marine debris and the personal behaviors individuals can take to address this issue. The personal behaviors in the videos included using a reusable container, such as a water bottle, and participating in a beach cleanup. These same two behaviors were also included as part of our Blue Habits Commitment enrollment at the end of the post-tour survey (see Appendix III).

Blue Habits Commitments The majority of tourists signed up for one habit as part of the post-tour survey (70%, n = 210). Thirty percent signed up for two or three habits (n = 67, Figure 23).

Figure 23. The percentage of tourists who signed up for Blue Habits.

4 Links and suggested text to videos have been sent to Oceanic Society staff.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3 Blue Habits

2 Blue Habits

1 Blue Habit


Page | 45

The most popular of the three Blue Habits was using a reusable container for three days per week, with 85% (n = 255) of tourists during the post-tour survey committing to perform the behavior. Thirty-three percent (n = 99) volunteered to share a conservation message from the Oceanic Society on either Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, and 19% (n = 56) of tourists volunteered to participate in a community cleanup.

Figure 24. The percentage of tourists who signed up for one of the three Blue Habits while taking the post-tour survey. Follow up questions in the three-month delayed post-tour survey (n = 77) asked about visitor completion of the Blue Habits. Of the seven tourists who remembered the habit to which they committed, all seven reported that they had completed the “reusable container” habit. Two of these seven also reported that they had shared a conservation message and had signed-up to participate in a community cleanup.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Sign up to PARTICIPATE in a community cleanup in thenext two months.

SHARE a conservation message from the Oceanic Societyon Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

USE a reusable container 3 days/week.


Page | 46

Discussion and Future Directions Discussion Overall, Oceanic Society’s whale-watching tours are a great success in terms of engaging and educating tourists. Not surprisingly, viewing and learning about the wildlife was consistently tourists’ favorite part of the tour and the part they most frequently shared with others after the tour. In addition, tourists agreed that the tour made them more interested in marine animals as well as marine conservation. Although a high percentage of tourists (in proportion to who answered the question) did not think any improvement was necessary for increased learning about marine life, others tourists suggested a range of ways that Oceanic Society might go about further engaging tourists in these efforts, the most common of these avenues being for the Oceanic Society to provide more onboard and post-trip interpretive materials. Other ideas included providing binoculars onboard the whale-watching boat and providing clear and compelling handouts with large, colorful illustrations of marine wildlife and ecosystems. Understanding patterns in motivations for participating in a tour may support the design and development of these outreach materials. Learning and discovery were almost as equally strong motivators for tourists as having fun or enjoying oneself. Specifically, within the construct of learning and discovery, tourists reported exploring the unknown and discovering new things as most important reasons for participating in the whale-watching tours. While tourists reported learning a great deal about marine wildlife during the whale-watching tours, they reported learning less about marine conservation. Tourists only slightly agreed that they gained a better understanding of marine conservation issues through the course of the tour; similarly, they only slightly agreed that they felt more strongly about marine conservation issues because of the tour. Interestingly, when tourists were asked specifically about their feelings about conservation issues with regard to marine animals, they reported stronger levels of feelings than when asked similar items with regard to marine life or conservation issues in general. It may be that the terminology of marine animals is more compelling than inquiring about the more general terms of “marine life” or “conservation issues.” Tourists appear ripe for more conservation messaging given their high levels of environmental curiosity, education, and interest in learning and discovery whale-watching tours. More targeted messaging related to conservation learning and environmental behavior, both during the tour as well as before/after, may be fruitful. In addition, given the high level of commitment to Blue Habits at the end of the tour, but low follow-through rate three months after the tour, we believe that the post-tour interventions are critical for transforming this immediate post-tour excitement and motivation into actual action. In particular, post-tour, social media-based, technological interventions may work well for this population given that the most common tourist age range was between 30 and 39 years of age. According to recent Pew Studies on Internet use within the United States, people in this age group are some of the most active users of the Internet. In addition, social media sites are now commonly used for obtaining news, with almost two-thirds of Twitter and Facebook users receiving news from these websites (Pew Research Center, 2015, a & b).

Page | 47

In addition, given that almost half of tourists had some kind of prior whale-watching experience—although not necessarily with the Oceanic Society in particular—we suggest, when possible, that engaging these tourists in discussions about their past experiences with environmental action would be fruitful. We also suggest that building upon their environmentally related knowledge and skills would help bolster further action and build community around possible opportunities for pro-ocean and marine conservation support. Prior research (e.g., Wheaton et al., 2015) has found that repeat visitation to state parks influences likelihood of commitment to taking environmental action. Tourists are also more likely to commit to undertaking such actions when they are asked to do so immediately following the experience and when presented with actions that are relatively easy and linked with the content of the visit. Given that animal viewing on the whale-watching tours may be highly variable, this may provide a great opportunity to support in-depth conversation about marine conservation and, specifically, about conservation of animals that are most likely be seen, such as sea lions, seals, and birds. At the same time, for half of the tourists, this may be their first whale-watching tour experience and the first time they are learning or hearing about marine conservation. For these tourists, it may be important to connect land conservation with marine conservation and also to connect the behaviors that they can undertake at home with the impacts they may, or may not, see while actively on the water and observing wildlife. Each naturalist brings a tremendous wealth of information to the tours and has her or his own specialty. To keep naturalists abreast of the latest research and news in the variety of topics covered during the tour, we suggest having an internal Oceanic Society blog, listserv, or private Facebook group wherein the naturalists and Oceanic Society staff can share the latest marine mammal, oceanic, and marine-related information as well as effective interpretive techniques. Future Directions As discussed in meetings with Oceanic Society, we believe that our findings suggest opportunities for two important future directions. The first is to focus more heavily on conservation messaging during the tour. We believe a design-thinking workshop for naturalists and staff would be ideal for expanding conservation interpretation because this workshop would coalesce the expertise of all the naturalists in combination with innovative, creative, and out-of-the-box approaches to behavior change. The second direction we recommend would be to focus more on the pre-tour and post-tour messaging to prime visitors, prior to the tour, to think ahead to their experience; then, after the tour, support them in undertaking specific behaviors to which they wish to commit. For either of these directions, our data—as well as past research—suggest that a direct connection to the wildlife seen on the tours will be important given that the wildlife aspect is most salient for tourists. The current study has provided a wealth of data related to Oceanic Society’s current tourists. These data will be essential in creating tailored, focused interventions that consider tourists’ learning and social motivations, in addition to their environmental curiosity. This baseline understanding of Oceanic Society’s visitors will help develop effective environmental conservation engagement platforms for the visitors and, in this way, will support Oceanic Society’s mission of connecting people worldwide with oceans and empowering them to become ocean stewards.

Page | 48

References

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., and Falk, J. (2011). Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: Testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modelling. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1243–1252. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.11.003

Monroe, M. C. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 113–125.

Pew Research Center. (2015a). Americans’ Internet access: 2000–2015. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015/. Retrieved on June 1, 2016.

Pew Research Center. (2015b). 5 key takeaways about Twitter, Facebook and news use. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/14/5-key-takeaways-about-twitter-facebook-and-news-use/. Retrieved on June 1, 2016.

Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. http://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation, and human dimensions. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Wheaton, M., Ardoin, N., Hunt, C., Kress, M., Menke, C., Durham, W., and Fogg, B. J. (2015). Using web and mobile technology to motivate pro-environmental behavior action after a nature-based tourism experience, Journal of Sustainable Tourism. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1081600

Page | 49

Appendix I: Project Personnel Principal Investigator, Nicole Ardoin, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Education and a senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. Nicole holds a Ph.D. in Social Ecology from the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and an M.S. in Natural Resource Management from the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. Prior to Yale, Nicole worked at WWF, where she managed a multi-million-dollar NSF-funded traveling exhibition project on biodiversity and oversaw curriculum development as well as professional development workshops. More recently, Nicole has conducted research in the area of environmental behavior, sense of place, and environmental learning at an ecoregional scale; she is a collaborator on an NSF-funded project on the long-term science learning and conservation behavior effects of zoo and aquarium visits; she has served as a Principal Investigator on a grant focusing on nature-based tourism and environmental behavior in national and state parks as well as marine protected areas. Associate Investigator, Mele Wheaton, Ph.D., is a Research Associate in the Graduate School of Education and Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. Mele’s current research focuses on facilitating pro-environmental behavior through nature-based tourism. She recently managed a grant (co-PIs Nicole Ardoin and William Durham) working with community partners at Año Nuevo State Park and Galapagos National Park focusing on extending the ecotourism experience back to visitors’ home environments. Mele received her Ph.D. in Education with a concentration in science and mathematics from University of California, Santa Cruz. For her doctorate, Mele researched the concept of “environmental identity” and worked as a fellow with the Center for Informal Learning and Schools (CILS). Prior to her doctoral studies, Mele worked as a science and environmental educator at informal science institutions, including a botanical garden and at a national wildlife refuge. Carly Sponarski, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, specializes in quantitative methods and has experience in statistical analysis and modeling, specifically in projects concerning human dimensions of the environment. Her work focuses on protected areas and natural resource management. Carly was one of the lead researchers on the project To Reduce Human–Coyote Conflict in Cape Breton Highlands National Park, which examined the social components of human–coyote conflicts. She has worked with parks, nongovernment environmental groups, and government agencies on various projects aimed at understanding human dimensions of natural resource management issues, with a particular interest in human–animal relationships. Carly has a Ph.D. in Geography from Memorial University in Newfoundland.

Noelle Wyman Roth, Research Associate, holds a Masters of Environmental Management from the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. Noelle has five years of experience conducting community-engaged social science research, and her work is highly qualitative in nature. Noelle helped design and implement this project and served as interim project manager from May to August 2015. Prior to joining the Ardoin Lab, Noelle worked for the Superfund Research Center’s Research Translation Core at Duke University, where her work centered on communicating environmental science to broader audiences and affected communities.

Page | 50

José Urteaga is a second-year Ph.D. student in Stanford’s Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (EIPER). José served as a graduate research assistant with the Blue Habits project in Spring Quarter 2015, as well as one of the primary data collectors on the Half Moon Bay whale-watching trips. His research interests center on the governance and sustainable management of marine natural resources in developing countries, particularly Nicaragua. José holds a postgraduate degree in Sea Fisheries from the Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Argentina, and a BSc in Biological Sciences from the same university. Becky Niemiec is a second-year Ph.D. student in EIPER. Her research focuses on citizen collective action in response to invasive species in communities in Hawaii and New Zealand. She engaged in Blue Habits primarily through her participation in the EDUC 332: Theory and Practice of Environmental Education course in Spring 2015. Cody Karutz is a Master’s student in Symbolic Systems at Stanford University. He studies the intersection between virtual reality and environmental education by building immersive 3D climate change simulations that educate users about oceanic acidification processes. He engaged in Blue Habits primarily through his participation in the EDUC 332: Theory and Practice of Environmental Education course in Spring 2015. Jessica Huang is trained as an environmental engineer; she is now a Master’s degree candidate at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. Prior to this, she worked on water treatment and engineering education initiatives at MIT, in collaboration with community partners in Ghana, India, Cambodia, and beyond. She engaged in Blue Habits primarily through her participation in the EDUC 332: Theory and Practice of Environmental Education course in Spring 2015. Alex Yamamoto is the principal at Innovage Studios. Alex began his technology career working as web designer and art director at many well-established agencies and companies such as Morgan Stanley, Emerging Media, Organic, Intel, and eBay. Prior to Innovage Studios, Alex was the program manager of the Adobe Youth Voices, a program of the Adobe Foundation. While at Adobe, he developed online content management systems, such as the Adobe Youth Voices Gallery and the Adobe Youth Voices Community, a private community of educators worldwide sharing resources, program-related information, and training. Alex specializes in digital marketing, social media strategy, animation, program management, and design thinking. Stephanie Le is the Marketing and Communications Director for Innovage Studios. Her experience began in event marketing and sponsorship at the Cinequest Film Festival, where she managed customized partnerships for companies like Intel and Motorola. From there, Stephanie moved into producing the Adobe Youth Voices Awards. She worked passionately with educators and students, while continually seeking out unique ways to showcase youth media. Stephanie’s responsibilities included recruiting well-known artists for social media influencer programs, cultivating partnerships, and increasing global visibility. She is an avid lover of the arts and earned her Bachelor’s degree at Santa Clara University.

Page | 51

Appendix II: Pre-Tour Survey Answers5

Blue Habits Pre-Visit Survey

Date: ___/___/ 2015 Tour Time: _______

Thanks for participating in this study. The survey should take 5-10 minutes to complete. Your answers are confidential and your participation is voluntary.

n Yes No

1. Have you been on a whale-watching trip before? 415 200 (48%)

215 (52%)

2-3 Times 4-10 Times Greater than 10

Times Total

(n)

Approximately how many times? 57 (55%)

26 (25%)

21 (20%) 104

2. Who accompanied you on your visit here today? (Check all that apply)

Came Alone One Other Adult Two or More Adults Family Group Total

(n)

25 (6%)

190 (46%)

96 (23%)

99 (24%) 410

5 The frequency and percentages reported are a combination of Half Moon Bay and Farallon Island tourists.

Page | 52

3. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following reasons for coming on a whale-watching tour today.

I came here because the tour… n

Mean ± SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Slightly Disagree Neutral

Slightly Agree Agree

Strongly Agree

… is a good way to spend quality time with my family/friends.

404 2.16

±1.15 7

(2%) 1

(.2%) 2

(.5%) 31

(8%) 21

(5%) 150

(37%) 192

(48%)

… helps me feel at peace. 405 1.30

±1.43 7

(2%) 10

(3%) 11

(3%) 106

(26%) 64

(16%) 108

(27%) 99

(24%)

… helps me appreciate nature.

407 2.38 ±1.06

7 (2%)

1 (.2%)

0 (0%)

12 (3%)

27 (7%)

110 (27%)

250 (61%)

… helps me learn about marine animals.

407 2.33

±1.06 6

(1%) 2

(.5%) 0

(0%) 12

(3%) 35

(9%) 122

(30%) 230

(57%)

… helps me to discover something new.

410 2.02

±1.28 8

(2%) 3

(1%) 4

(1%) 39

(10%) 40

(10%) 121

(30%) 195

(48%)

… is a “must-do” activity. 395 1.35

±1.56 6

(2%) 22

(6%) 8

(2%) 92

(23%) 59

(15%) 79

(20%) 129

(33%)

4. How much do you know about each of the following topics?

n Nothing Expert

a. Marine animals (e.g., whales, seals, birds, fish)

407 10 (3%)

53 (13%)

96 (24%)

121 (30%)

97 (24%)

26 (6%)

4 (1%)

b. Plastic ocean pollution 406 13 (3%)

43 (11%)

85 (21%)

99 (24%)

124 (31%)

38 (9%)

4 (1%)

c. Sustainable seafood 405 33 (8%)

55 (14%)

73 (18%)

102 (25%)

96 (24%)

40 (10%)

6 (2%)

d. Climate change impacts 405 10 (3%)

20 (5%)

65 (16%)

89 (22%)

127 (31%)

80 (20%)

14 (4%)

Page | 53

5. Please rate how well the following statements describe you:

n Mean ± SD

Does NOT describe me

Describes me perfectly

I enjoy spending my leisure time observing animals. 404

5.12 ±1.53

7 (2%)

23 (6%)

29 (7%)

64 (16%)

105 (26%)

86 (21%)

90 (22%)

I often think about whether my actions harm the natural world.

406 5.50

±1.27 4

(1%)

6 (2%)

19 (5%)

44 (11%)

111 (27%

)

125 (31%)

97 (24%)

I am interested in learning about environmental issues.

406 5.67

±1.17 1

(.2%) 5

(1%) 14

(3%) 39

(10%) 100

(25%) 137

(34%) 110

(27%)

I actively seek out information about marine conservation. 405

4.18 ±1.68 26

(6%)

51 (13%)

60 (15%)

89 (22%)

81 (20%

)

62 (15%)

36 (9%)

I enjoy watching TV documentaries about wildlife.

408 5.47

±1.46 9

(2%) 9

(2%) 22

(5%) 151

(13%) 91

(22%) 103

(26%) 123

(30%)

Page | 54

6. Indicate how often you do each of the following activities, using a scale of 1 (Never) to 7 (Always):

n Never Sometimes Always

Conserve water in your home and garden. 405 9

(2%) 6

(1%) 7

(2%) 59

(15%) 85

(21%) 116

(29%) 123

(30%)

Recycle (bottles, cans, paper). 408 3 (1%)

6 (2%)

3 (1%)

16 (4%)

34 (8%)

96 (24%)

250 (61%)

Pick up litter. 404 3 (1%)

6 (2%)

17 (4%)

49 (12%)

103 (26%)

106 (26%)

120 (30%)

Use reusable shopping bags. 408 5 (1%)

8 (2%)

10 (3%)

31 (8%)

48 (12%)

120 (29%)

186 (46%)

Talk to others about the importance of the environment. 407 17

(4%) 25

(6%) 39

(10%) 90

(22%) 110

(27%) 76

(19%) 50

(12%)

Purchase environmentally friendly products. 405 4

(1%) 12

(3%) 19

(5%) 73

(18%) 136

(34%) 103

(25%) 58

(14%)

Read or listen to information about the environment. 406 3

(1%) 10

(3%) 23

(6%) 55

(14%) 112

(28%) 128

(32%) 75

(19%)

Conserve energy in your home. 407 2 (1%)

2 (1%)

15 (4%)

39 (10%)

95 (23%)

142 (35%)

122 (28%)

Take alternative forms of transportation (other than personal vehicles).

404 25

(6%)

49 (12%)

53 (13%)

79 (20%)

68 (17%)

69 (17%)

61 (15%)

Participate in a community cleanup. 407 106 (26%)

83 (20%)

65 (16%)

72 (18%)

42 (10%)

27 (7%)

12 (3%)

Share experiences of being in natural places via social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter).

405 105 (26%)

41 (10%)

34 (8%)

60 (15%)

57 (14%)

62 (15%)

46 (11%)

Do volunteer work for a group that helps the environment. 407 136

(33%) 72

(18%) 56

(14%) 68

(17%) 32

(8%) 21

(5%) 22

(5%)

Page | 55

7. What do you hope to get out of your whale-watching tour today? Please circle the appropriate number for each item.

n

Mean ± SD

Not Important

Moderately Important

Extremely Important

Learning and Discovery Scale‡ 404 5.55 ± 1.03

To discover new things. 403 5.78 ± 1.08

1 (.2%)

3 (1%)

3 (1%)

46 (11%)

89 (22%)

143 (36%)

118 (29%)

To be better informed. 404 5.38 ± 1.39

5 (1%)

13 (3%)

18 (6%)

60 (15%)

99 (25%)

111 (28%)

98 (24%)

To expand my interests. 403 5.33 ± 1.44

7 (1%)

12 (3%)

19 (5%)

73 (18%)

136 (34%)

103 (25%)

58 (14%)

To be mentally stimulated. 401 5.05 ± 1.36

5 (1%)

9 (2%)

16 (4%)

60 (15%)

77 (19%)

127 (32%)

107 (27%)

To explore the unknown. 404 5.79 ± 1.54

4 (1%)

4 (1%)

11 (3%)

40 (10%)

81 (20%)

118 (29%)

146 (36%)

Enjoyment Scale‡ 401 5.70 ± 1.02

To be pleasantly occupied. 398 5.55 ± 1.31

4 (1%)

8 (2%)

11 (3%)

63 (17%)

73 (18%)

134 (34%)

105 (26%)

To feel happy and satisfied. 401 5.64 ± 1.33

7 (2%)

5 (1%)

11 (3%)

47 (12%)

90 (22%)

115 (29%)

126 (31%)

To have fun. 401 6.08 ± 1.12

4 (1%)

1 (.2%)

6 (1%)

22 (6%)

62 (16%)

124 (31%)

182 (46%)

To be entertained. 401 5.01 ± 1.66

22 (6%)

13 (3%)

34 (9%)

66 (17%)

81 (20%)

104 (21%)

81 (20%)

To enjoy myself. 401 6.10 ± 1.06

2 (.5%)

3 (1%)

1 (.2%)

26 (6%)

63 (16%)

127 (31%)

179 (44%)

* The motivations for coming on the tour items are on a 7-point scale from 1= "not important” to 4 = “moderately important” to 7 = “extremely important.” ‡ The four motivation scales are the mean of the items listed below each of them, respectively, and are on a 7-point scale from 1 = "not important” to 4 = “moderately important” to 7 = “extremely important.”

Page | 56

n

Mean ± SD

Not Important

Moderately Important

Extremely Important

Social Contact Scale‡ 402 4.14 ± 1.42

To build friendships with new people.

399 3.49 ± 1.76

71 (18%)

54 (14%)

72 (18%)

98 (25%)

49 (12%)

26 (7%)

29 (7%)

To interact with others. 404 4.09 ± 1.73

36 (9%)

47 (12%)

56 (14%)

98 (24%)

83 (21%)

41 (10%)

43 (11%)

To meet new people. 400 3.39 ± 1.78

79 (20%)

66 (17%)

54 (14%)

100 (25%)

51 (13%)

23 (6%)

27 (7%)

To spend quality time with family and friends. 401 5.76

± 1.54 14

(4%) 10

(3%) 13

(3%) 32

(8%) 49

(12%) 116

(29%) 167

(42%)

To develop closer friendships. 399 3.96 ± 1.97

62 (16%)

52 (13%)

42 (11%)

84 (21%)

53 (13%)

53 (13%)

53 (13%)

Restoration Scale‡ 402 4.88 ± 1.43

To recover from the stress and tension of everyday life. 401 4.53

± 1.76 27

(7%) 30

(8%) 51

(13%) 87

(22%) 73

(18%) 68

(17%) 65

(16%)

To find some peace and tranquility. 400 5.08

± 1.52 16

(4%) 9

(2%) 29

(7%) 73

(18%) 96

(24%) 102

(26%) 75

(19%)

To get away from the responsibilities of everyday life.

401 4.63 ± 1.85

38 (10%)

23 (6%)

36 (9%)

84 (21%)

69 (17%)

74 (19%)

77 (19%)

To relax physically. 404 5.00 ± 1.65

17 (4%)

17 (4%)

37 (9%)

74 (18%)

86 (21%)

70 (20%)

94 (23%)

To relax mentally. 401 5.24 ± 1.61

14 (4%)

18 (5%)

22 (6%)

62 (16%)

79 (20%)

101 (25%)

105 (26%)

* The motivations for coming on the tour items are on a 7-point scale from 1= "not important” to 4 = “moderately important” to 7 = “extremely important.”

‡ The four motivation scales are the mean of the items listed below each of them respectively and are on a 7-point scale from 1 = "not important” to 4 = “moderately important” to 7 = “extremely important.”

Page | 57

8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about conservation?

n Not At All Completely

I am personally responsible for helping protect the marine environment. 394 14

(4%) 15

(4%) 17

(4%) 52

(13%) 70

(18%) 104

(26%) 122

(31%)

My actions can improve the marine environment. 394 8

(2%) 7

(2%) 15

(4%) 37

(9%) 82

(21%) 108

(27%) 137

(35%)


390 1 (.3%)

3 (1%)

2 (.4%)

16 (4%)

28 (7%)

87 (22%)

253 (65%)

I have the ability to conserve resources. 392 0 (0%)

5 (1%)

12 (3%)

19 (5%)

43 (11%)

112 (29%)

201 (51%)

I know actions I can take to help protect oceans. 392 3

(1%) 20

(5%) 19

(5%) 54

(14%) 75

(19%) 93

(24%) 128

(33%)

I understand the impact my actions have on the environment. 392 2

(.5%) 7

(2%) 16

(4%) 45

(12%) 87

(22%) 111

(28%) 124

(32%)

I want to help to conserve the environment. 391 0

(0%) 3

(1%) 6

(3%) 14

(4%) 38

(10%) 81

(21%) 249

(64%)

Page | 58

Finally, we have several questions about your background: 9. Are you:

n Female Male

427 256 (60%)

171 (40%)

10. What year were you born?

18-24 yrs 25-29 yrs 30-39 yrs 40-49 yrs 50-59 yrs 60-60 yrs 70-79 yrs 80-89 yrs n

11 (3%)

50 (13%)

89 (23%)

69 (18%)

78 (20%)

68 (17%)

22 (6%)

3 (1%) 390

11. In which city and country do you live?

Location Worldwide Location United States

USA Canada Europe Asia Oceania n California Outside

CA n

361 (91%)

2 (.5%)

18 (5%)

12 (3%)

2 (.5%) 395 292

(85%) 53

(15%) 345

12. What is the highest level of education you’ve completed?

High School Associate Degree College Degree Graduate Degree n

46 (12%)

29 (7%)

116 (29%)

204 (52%) 395

Follow-up details:

Please provide your email and full name, printing clearly. We will not share this information with anyone outside the research team. We are using this information to pair your questionnaires together. Name (printed): First Last Email (printed):

Page | 59

Appendix III: Post-Tour Survey Answers

Blue Habits Post-Visit Survey

Date: ___/___/ 2015 Tour Time: _______

Thanks for participating in this study. The survey should take 5-10 minutes to complete. Your answers are confidential and your participation is voluntary.

n Yes No

1. Did you see whales today? 401 366 (91%)

35 (9%)

2. Did you see plastic ocean pollution today? 397 209 (53%)

188 (47%)

3. What was your favorite part of the whale-watching tour?

n = 3386

Marine wildlife 318 (94%)

Being out on a boat 69 (20%)

Interpretation 23 (7%)

Weather 11 (3%)

Socializing with people 10 (3%)

All aspects 9 (3%)

Returning to shore 3 (1%)

Picking up marine debris 1 (.3%)

6 Results add up to more than the n of 338 because the majority of respondents provided more than one answer.

Page | 60

4. What was your least favorite part of the whale-watching tour?

n = 437

Seasickness 71 (16%)

Poor weather 49 (11%)

Not enough weather 45 (10%)

Rough ocean 39 (9%)

Length of trip 20 (5%)

Kelp flies 15 (3%)

Crowding on boat 7 (2%)

Seeing marine debris 7 (2%)

Not enough interpretation 6 (1%)

Smell 4 (1%)

General comforts 3 (1%)

Time spent with wildlife 3 (1%)

Tour logistics 2 (.5%)

Passenger interactions 1 (.2%)

None 80 (18%)

Page | 61


n Nothing Expert


399 0 (0%)

36 (9%)

62 (16%)

109 (27%)

142 (36%)

46 (12%)

4 (1%)


33 (8%)

66 (17%)

110 (28%)

113 (28%)

65 (16%)

8 (2%)


53 (13%)

73 (18%)

89 (23%)

106 (.3%)

55 (14%)

10 (3%)

d. Climate change impacts 395 2 (.5%)

24 (6%)

50 (13%)

83 (21%)

130 (33%)

91 (23%)

15 (4%)

6. As a result of participating in this whale-watching tour, do you intend to do anything differently with regard to the environment?

n Yes No

394 207 (53%)

187 (47%)

If YES, what? If NO, why?

Page | 62

7. To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements about your whale-watching experience today?

n Mean ± SD




Strongly Agree

Reflective Engagement 296 1.36 ±.89

I felt an emotional connection with the animals I saw.

394 1.27

± 1.33

5 (1%)

16 (4%)

8 (2%)

77 (20%)

82 (21%)

143 (36%)

63 (16%)

I found myself reflecting on new ideas about animals. 394

.86 ±

1.27

1 (.3%)

23 (6%)

14 (4%)

124 (32%)

96 (24%)

101 (26%)

35 (9%)

The staff answered my questions. 385 2.29

± .87 0

(0%) 0

(0%) 1

(.3%) 20

(5%) 38

(10%) 133

(35%) 193

(50%)

I discussed new information with my companions. 392

1.20 ±

1.32

7 (2%)

12 (3%)

15 (4%)

85 (22%)

84 (21%)

122 (31%)

67 (17%)

I experienced something surprising. 395

1.67 ±

1.33

1 (.3%)

14 (4%)

8 (2%)

54 (14%)

65 (17%)

124 (31%)

129 (33%)

I learned something new about environmental issues.

394 .88 ±

1.51

12 (3%)

21 (5%)

29 (7%)

91 (23%)

79 (20%)

112 (28%)

50 (13%)

Experiential Engagement 396 2.21 ±.85

The experience was engaging. 395 2.13

± .94 0

(0%) 3

(1%) 2

(.5%) 19

(5%) 53

(13%) 157

(40%) 161

(41%)

It was exciting to see live marine life.

394 2.53 ± .77

0 (0%)

1 (.3%)

0 (0%)

11 (3%)

23 (6%)

103 (26%)

256 (65%)

I got a good view of the marine life.

394 2.31 ± .99

1 (.3%)

2 (.5%)

4 (1%)

18 (5%)

36 (9%)

113 (29%)

220 (56%)

There was plenty of activity to see. 396

1.82 ±

1.38

3 (1%)

10 (3%)

17 (4%)

39 (10%)

52 (13%)

109 (28%)

166 (42%)

I felt a sense of wonder or awe. 395

2.05 ±

1.16

2 (.5%)

3 (1%)

6 (2%)

36 (9%)

54 (14%)

110 (28%)

184 (47%)

I had an enjoyable experience. 397 2.42

± .83 0

(0%) 1

(.3%) 2

(.5%) 15

(4%) 20

(6%) 133

(34%) 226

(57%)

Page | 63

8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements about your whale-watching experience today?

n Mean ± SD




Strongly Agree

Tour Impact Scale 397 1.13 ±1.01

The experience has made me more interested in marine animals.

397 1.43 ±1.16

0 (0%)

10 (3%)

1 (.3%)

88 (22%)

74 (17%)

156 (39%)

68 (17%)

The experience has made marine animal conservation issues more meaningful to me.

396 1.47 ±1.15

0 (0%)

11 (3%)

1 (.3%)

66 (17%)

105 (27%)

138 (35%)

75 (19%)

Some of my beliefs have changed as a result of my visit.

394 .09 ±1.46

20 (5%)

50 (13%)

23 (6%)

174 (44%)

59 (15%)

46 (12%)

22 (6%)

I feel more strongly about marine life conservation issues as a result of my tour.

396 .95 ±1.37

5 (1%)

26 (7%)

5 (1%)

110 (28%)

106 (27%)

91 (23%)

53 (13%)

My tour has made me more concerned about the well-being of marine life in general.

396 1.18 ±1.34

3 (1%)

20 (5%)

7 (2%)

86 (22%)

105 (26%)

106 (26%)

69 (17%)

I learned some new information during the tour.

397 1.85 ±1.03

2 (.5%)

3 (1%)

2 (.5%)

29 (7%)

86 (22%)

163 (41%)

112 (28%)

I have a better understanding of conservation issues because of my tour.

397 .95 ±1.27

3 (1%)

17 (4%)

12 (3%)

118 (30%)

103 (26%)

101 (25%)

43 (11%)

Page | 64

9. After the tour today, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about conservation?

Not At All Completely

I am personally responsible for helping to protect the marine environment. 0

(0%) 0

(0%) 3

(1%) 35

(9%) 78

(20%) 117

(30%) 157

(40%)

My actions can improve the marine environment. 1

(.3%) 0

(0%) 5

(1%) 25

(6%) 73

(19%) 129

(33%) 159

(41%)


0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

9 (2%)

28 (7%)

100 (26%)

255 (65%)

I have the ability to conserve resources. 0 (0%)

1 (.3%)

2 (.5%)

13 (3%)

49 (13%)

111 (28%)

216 (55%)

I know actions I can take to help protect oceans. 0

(0%) 3

(1%) 9

(2%) 33

(8%) 63

(16%) 128

(33%) 155

(40%)

I understand the impact my actions have on the environment. 0

(0%) 4

(1%) 5

(1%) 28

(7%) 71

(18%) 127

(32%) 157

(40%)

I want to help to conserve the environment. 0

(0%) 0

(0%) 0

(0%) 14

(4%) 37

(10%) 97

(25%) 240

(62%)

Finally, about you: 10. Are you:

n Female Male

427 256 (60%)

171 (40%)

Please provide your email and full name, printing clearly. We will not share this information with anyone outside the research team; we will only use it to contact you about a follow-up activity and survey. Name (printed): First Last Email (printed):

Page | 65

Start a Blue Habit!

Commit to doing one new action to help reduce plastic ocean pollution.

1. SHARE a conservation message from the Oceanic Society on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

2. USE a reusable food or beverage container at least three days per week.

3. Sign up to PARTICIPATE in a community clean up in the next two months.

You can opt-out at any time. Thank you for your participation!

Page | 66

Appendix IV: Delayed Post-Tour Survey Answers

Blue Habits Delayed posted Post Survey

Hello! Thank you for participating in our final survey for the Blue Habits project, a collaboration between Stanford University and the Oceanic Society. You are receiving this survey because you went on a whale-watching tour with the Oceanic Society approximately two months ago and completed a questionnaire before and after the trip. This survey will take between 5 and 10 minutes to complete. We will ask questions about what you learned and your experience during your whale-watching tour, as well as whether you started the “blue habit” you signed up for at the end of the tour. We don't anticipate any risks related to completing this survey. Participation in this study is voluntary; you can stop filling out the survey at any time or you can refuse to answer any question. All of your responses are confidential. Only the Stanford researchers will have access to your responses and personal identifying information. If you have any questions or concerns about this survey or study, please contact the Stanford Blue Habits Team ([email protected]). If you have any concerns about your rights as a participant, please contact the Stanford Institutional Review Board (IRB) to speak to someone independent of the research team at 650-723-2480 or toll free at 1-866-680-2906. By completing this survey, you are agreeing to participate in this research. Thanks, in advance, for your time. If you’re ready, click the button below to get started!

mailto:[email protected]

Page | 67

1. What are you most vivid memories from the Oceanic Society whale-watching tour?7

n = 80

Wildlife viewing 77 (96%)

Scenery 12 (15%)

Beautiful water 4 (5%)

Socializing 4 (5%)

Seasickness 3 (4%)


Trip length 2 (3%)

Everything about the trip 1 (1%)

Picking up marine debris 1 (1%)

7 In the following tables, the results may add up to more or to less than the n because respondents gave more than one answer

Page | 68

2. What did you learn about marine life on the whale-watching tour?

n = 72

Animal relationships 6 (8%)

Ocean & coastal environments 6 (8%)

Life on the Farallon Islands 5 (7%)

Animal behavior 4 (6%)

Animal reproduction 4 (6%)

Animal adaptation 1 (1%)

New experiences 1 (1%)


Ocean temperature change 1 (1%)

Did not learn/Nothing new 8 (11%)

Do not remember 3 (4%)

Page | 69

3. What did you learn about marine conservation on the whale-watching tour?

n = 73

Marine debris 17 (23%)

Human responsibility toward environment 12 (16%)

Balance of life 5 (7%)

Marine sanctuary 5 (7%)

Responsibility of boats around wildlife 3 (4%)

Impacts of climate change 2 (3%)

Current research 1 (1%)

Did not learn/Nothing new 16 (22%)

Do not remember 7 (10%)

Page | 70

4. How could the whale-watching experience be improved so that people learn more about . . .

a. Marine life?

n = 67

Onboard materials 12 (18%)

More docents 7 (10%)

Post-tour materials 8 (12%)

Pre-tour materials 5 (7%)

Observation of marine life 3 (4%)

Suggest other activities off board 3 (4%)

More marketing 2 (3%)

Activities onboard 1 (1%)

Structured interpretation 1 (1%)

Nothing 11 (16%)

Unsure 5 (7%)

Page | 71

b. Marine conservation?

n = 62

Interpretation materials 27 (44%)

Post-tour materials 7 (11%)

Marine debris pick up 3 (5%)

Off-boat opportunities 3 (5%)

Pre-tour materials 3 (5%)

Marketing 2 (3%)

More docents 2 (3%)

Observation of marine life 1 (2%)

Do not know 11 (18%)

Nothing new 3 (5%)

Page | 72

5. Have you talked about your whale-watching tour with other people?

n Yes No

79 75 (95%)

4 (5%)

a. What have you talked about?

n = 73

Wildlife seen 37 (51%)

General observations 13 (18%)

Everything 8 (11%)

Fun experience 7 (10%)

General boat ride 7 (10%)

Farallon Islands 5 (7%)

Going again & encouraging others to go 5 (7%)

Oceanic Society & crew 4 (6%)

Seasickness 4 (6%)

The ocean 4 (6%)

Environmental issues 3 (4%)

Logistics 3 (4%)

Page | 73

6. In what ways (if any) have your thoughts or feelings about your role in marine conservation changed as a result of your whale-watching tour?

n = 71

Nothing new 28 (39%)

Being more aware 16 (23%)

Reducing plastic use 10 (14%)

Considering impact on wildlife 8 (11%)

Considering impact on water quality 4 (6%)

Considering impact of fishing 3 (4%)

Looking into other opportunities 3 (4%)

Reducing waste 1 (1%)

Page | 74

7. Indicate how often you do each of the following activities, using a scale of 1 (Never) to 7 (Always).

n Never Sometimes Always

Conserve water in your home and garden. 79 4

(5%) 1

(1%) 1

(1%) 5

(6%) 10

(13%) 19

(24%) 39

(49%)

Recycle (bottles, cans, paper). 78 0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (3%)

2 (3%)

13 (17%)

61 (78%)

Pick up litter. 79 0 (0%)

2 (3%)

4 (5%)

18 (23%)

20 (25%)

14 (18%)

21 (27%)

Use reusable shopping bags. 79 0 (0%)

1 (1%)

0 (0%)

10 (13%)

10 (13%)

25 (32%)

33 (42%)

Talk to others about the importance of the environment. 78 2

(3%) 3

(4%) 3

(4%) 16

(21%) 20

(26%) 18

(23%) 16

(21%)

Purchase environmentally friendly products. 79 0

(0%) 0

(0%) 0

(0%) 20

(25%) 24

(30%) 22

(28%) 13

(17%)

Read or listen to information about the environment. 78 0

(0%) 1

(1%) 2

(3%) 13

(17%) 21

(27%) 28

(36%) 13

(17%)

Conserve energy in your home. 79 0 (0%)

1 (1%)

1 (1%)

4 (5%)

11 (14%)

25 (32%)

37 (47%)

Take alternative forms of transportation (other than personal vehicles).

79 3 (4%)

8 (10%)

9 (11%)

12 (15%)

13 (17%)

20 (25%)

14 (17%)

Participate in a community cleanup. 78 23 (30%)

12 (15%)

12 (15%)

19 (24%)

7 (9%)

5 (6%)

0 (0%)

Share experiences of being in natural places via social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter).

77 23 (30%)

2 (3%)

4 (5%)

10 (13%)

8 (10%)

18 (23%)

12 (16%)

Do volunteer work for a group that helps the environment. 78 25

(32%) 14

(18%) 8

(10%) 16

(21%) 3

(4%) 9

(12%) 3

(4%)

Page | 75


n Nothing Expert


78 0 (0%)

11 14%)

13 (17%)

21 (27%)

27 (34%)

4 (5%)

2 (3%)


6 (8%)

12 (15%)

20 (26%)

28 (36%)

11 (14%)

1 (1%)


6 (8%)

12 (16%)

17 (22%)

24 (31%)

11 (14%)

1 (1%)

d. Climate change impacts 78 0 (0%)

3 (4%)

8 (10%)

9 (12%)

33 (42%)

24 (31%)

1 (1%)

Page | 76

n 0 1 2 3

Number that signed up for multiple Blue Habits by individuals at the end of the tour. 437 138

(32%) 210

(48%) 67

(15%) 22

(5%)

Blue Habits Intervention n Signed Up

#1: Share a conservation message from the Oceanic Society. 299 99 (33%)

#2: Use a reusable food or beverage container at least three days per week. 297 255 (86%)

#3: Sign up to participate in a community cleanup. 296 56 (20%)

Blue Habits: Motivating lasting pro-ocean behaviors among...

Documents

Transcript of Blue Habits: Motivating lasting pro-ocean behaviors among...