Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59http://d

n CorrCircus, P

E-mibailey@jonathaattrill@p

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Public perceptions of the UK marine environment

R.L. Jefferson a,b,n, I. Bailey b,c, D. d′A. Laffoley d, J.P. Richards e, M.J. Attrill b

a Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UKb Marine Institute, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UKc School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UKd IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerlande Open Polytechnic, 3 Cleary Street, Lower Hutt, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 10 March 2013Received in revised form7 July 2013Accepted 8 July 2013Available online 29 July 2013

Keywords:Marine conservationPublic perceptionsUK seasMarine citizenshipGenderExperience

7X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Published by Ex.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.07.004

espondence to: Reynolds Building, SMSE,lymouth, PL4 8AA, UK. Tel.: +44 1752 586 16ail addresses: rebecca.jefferson@plymouth.ac.uplymouth.ac.uk (I. Bailey), danlaffoley@btinten.richards@adjunct.openpolytechnic.ac.nz (J.P.lymouth.ac.uk (M.J. Attrill).

a b s t r a c t

The damaging effects of human activities on marine health suggest that a major shift is required in theway marine systems are used by individuals. Identifying how to engage society in this shift is an on-going debate. This includes strengthening the positive connections between society and the sea. Thisstudy uses a survey (n¼1047) to investigate UK public perceptions of subtidal species and marine healthto assess whether it is possible to build more positive connections between society and the sea.Respondents showed considerable interest in traditionally charismatic species (puffins, seals andseahorses) although many respondents thought these species did not live in UK seas. Gender andexperience of marine environments influenced public perceptions of species. Public perceptions ofmarine health showed issues such as litter to be considered as the greatest indicator of poor health.Ecological concepts of habitat integrity and biodiversity were also rated as important to marine health.Social values were found to influence public perceptions of marine health. The results show thatperceptions are far from uniform across the population, and such diversity of perceptions is likely impactupon methods to catalyse societal engagement with marine conservation. These findings reinforceprevious research on public perceptions of UK seas, and identify opportunities for building positiveconnections between society and the sea. Research priorities to further the debate of engaging societywith the sea are identified.

& 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Marine systems provide many services essential to human life[1] yet the everyday activities of individuals are degrading thehealth of marine systems and undermining their ability to providevital services [2,3]. This has prompted increasing recognition ofthe need to engage society and deliver behaviour changes as partof the solution to marine conservation issues [4–7]. An over-arching goal for marine conservation and the driving force of anymarine behaviour change is to achieve healthy marine environ-ments. From an ecological perspective, a healthy ecosystem can bedefined, like a healthy human body, as a system which functionswell and is able to resist or recover from disturbance [8].Quantifiable components of this are vigour (the activity, metabo-lism or primary productivity of an ecosystem), organisation(biodiversity, food web and biophysical structure of an ecosystem),resistance to disturbance (its ability to maintain structure and

lsevier Ltd.

Plymouth University, Drake7; fax: +44 1752 584 950.k (R.L. Jefferson),rnet.com (D.d′A. Laffoley),Richards), m.

functions under stress) and resilience (the ability of the system torecover from a disturbance). These ecosystem attributes are widelyaccepted as underpinning ecosystem health [9–12].

A number of concepts have been proposed to engage societywith the sea to deliver marine health, including marine citizenship[13] and the ‘Shallow Seas’ approach [6] but questions of how torealise the outcomes of these concepts abound [14,15]. Connectingsociety with the sea presents a significant challenge to deliveringmarine conservation goals and requires an understanding of socialvalues, attitudes and knowledge [14]. Overcoming this challengehas been cited as a national and global research priority and anarea which requires urgent attention [14,16,17]. This research isoccurring, however greater support and focus is required toadvance this newly developing field. This paper contributes tothis debate through presenting the results of a nationally repre-sentative investigation of public perceptions of the United King-dom (UK) marine environment. More specifically, this studyinvestigates public perceptions of subtidal UK marine speciesand public understanding of marine health. Socio-demographicand social values variables are known to affect perceptions ofissues, and their influence is assessed in this study.

The paper begins with a review of marine health, existingresearch on engaging society with behaviour change, the implica-tions for marine behaviour changes, and previous studies on public

R.L. Jefferson et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337328

perceptions of the marine environment. The methods describe thesurvey format and delivery, and the results report the findings ofthe survey. The discussion considers the key themes related topublic perceptions of marine species and marine health and theconclusion identifies priority research themes needed to continueto the debate into engaging society with the sea.

2. Background

2.1. Understanding societal engagement with the environment

Extensive research has already been conducted into behaviourchanges to achieve public health, safety and environmental benefitswhich can inform strategies to engage society with marine issues[18]. Understanding how behaviour change occurs has improvedconsiderably from early “knowledge deficit models”, which arguedthat environmentally detrimental behaviours occur because indivi-duals are unaware of the effects of their behaviours, and thus, thatbehaviours could be changed simply by ‘supplying knowledge’. Thishas repeatedly been shown to be a simplification of the processesinfluencing behaviour change [19] and it is now recognised thatmany variables, such as values, emotions and enabling infrastruc-ture, can influence behaviour choices [20]. This paper focuses onunderstanding values, which are known to have a strong effect onbehaviour, with different values leading to different behaviouralresponses. Environmental values are of particular importance, asthey underpin the way individuals interpret and engage withenvironmental issues [21]. By understanding the values of a targetaudience, it is possible to identify the different motivations thatmay cause individuals to perform a particular behaviour.

Factors which influence environmental values are also indir-ectly related to behaviour. Personal experience of an environmentor environmental issue has been found to have a considerableeffect on environmental values and behaviour. Experiences canfacilitate stronger emotional connections to natural environments,which in turn can increase the willingness of the person to protectthat environment [22,23]. Maiteny [24] describes the positiveeffects of emotional involvement as essential to sustained pro-environmental values and behaviours. Indeed, the need to recon-nect people with nature is considered as one of the currentpriorities for conservation biology, ensuring that behaviouralchange is rooted in a connection to the wider environment [25].

In addition to the values of the audience, the way in whichmessages are framed is known to influence engagement. Issuesframed with negative emotions, such as fear and loss, portray a‘doom and gloom’ atmosphere which translates into fatalism andpowerlessness among audiences, leading to disengagement ratherthan connection [26,27]. Research has repeatedly shown thatbuilding positive associations and personalising benefits is morepotent in eliciting potential behaviour change than a focus onnegative impacts [28]. This implies that the development of positiveconnections between individuals and the sea may be necessary tosuccessfully engage society marine conservation issues.

A range of variables are thought to influence individualbehaviour patterns and choices which therefore need to bemeasured when conducting surveys of public perceptions. Socio-demographic variables can be measured through standard ques-tions of age, gender, education, etc. the results of which can berelatively easily communicated to conservation practitioners andthose who implement behaviour change and engagement cam-paigns. Measuring social values is more difficult, and the science ofvalues is more complex, necessitating explanation to the practi-tioner audience, in order for research findings to be applied toengagement campaigns. Social segmentation models are toolswhich enable a person’s values to be measured, identified, and

categorised, thereby providing an opportunity to investigate howthese factors influence behaviours or perceptions [29]. Thesemodels provide a method for assessing social values, within aframework which can be used to communicate findings to practi-tioners. A number of social segmentation models exist. This studyuses the Maslow Group method which provides an easily appliedmethod, and allows the results of this study to build on those uponprevious studies that used this method [30,31].

2.2. Connecting society and the sea

Although our existing understanding of how society engageswith environmental issues can inform the debate on how toengage society with the marine environment, the specific nuancesof marine engagement must also be better understood becausemarine environments are manifestly different in character, posi-tioning, and cognition. A particular challenge in achievingincreased and higher quality public engagement with marineissues is the spatial and cognitive disconnection between societyand ‘the sea’. ‘The sea’ is seen as something ‘far away’ by manypeople, and its benefits and impacts can appear distant. Marineconservation issues are also complex as they are driven by a rangeof human activities which cause a variety of impacts on complexsystems, at a range of temporal and spatial scales [3]. Additionally,there is limited knowledge of the behaviour changes that woulddeliver most environmental benefit, and there is little directfeedback to the individual about the environmental benefits theirbehaviour change may create. Public disconnection from environ-mental issues is evident in a range of other policy domains, howeverthis has not precluded societal behaviour changes. For example,climate change is complex, but a focus on specific behaviours (suchas energy consumption) and wider links to prominent concerns(such as energy security), help to overcome the disconnect [32].Campaigns to conserve priority species which live far from thecampaign′s target audience can successfully raise money for theircause, however, donating money perhaps represents a relativelysimple behavioural response [33]. The characteristics of the marineenvironment, and the existing knowledge, attitudes and values ofthe audience act as a filter through which society interpretsengagement attempts. Disconnection in other contexts may beeasier to overcome than the barriers which cause disconnectionfor marine issues, therefore, the specific characteristics of marineenvironmental engagement must be recognised in order to under-stand how they influence potential behaviour change.

2.3. Public perceptions of the marine environment

In order to catalyse public engagement for marine conservationoutcomes, ecologically defined marine health goals need to reso-nate with public audiences. Existing research on public percep-tions of the marine environment does not provide a societaldefinition of marine health, and currently does not identify howto connect ecological and societal perspectives of marine health.Relatively little research has investigated public perceptions of themarine environment and those studies which do exist have beenoften focused on negative components of marine conservationsuch as threats to marine health, and on measuring public concern[34,35]. Additionally, most research on connections betweensociety and the sea has focused on the coastal or intertidal space,consequently little is known about connections to subtidal envir-onments. Evidence supports strong positive public associationswith the UK coast: over 18 million UK residents took seasideholidays in 2010 [36] and 63% of the public considered visiting thecoast important to their quality of life (National Trust CoastalValues Survey, Pers. Comms). Such positive associations are oftenconnected to personal experiences, but opportunities to make

Table 1Questions included in the survey.

Species questionsWhich (if any) of the following plants and animals have you heard of or

R.L. Jefferson et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337 329

connections with sub-tidal areas are much more limited due to thedifficulties in directly accessing this environment.

Two studies of public perceptions of English subtidal seas havefound overwhelmingly pessimistic perceptions. When asked aboutthe “undersea” environment, people instinctively talked about thecoast [30]. When pushed to consider subtidal areas, respondentsperceived the sea surface to be cold and grey, and the seabed to bethe same as the sea surface, “just covered in water” [31]. Con-sideration of undersea landscapes elicited perceptions of disgust(towards a cold, dark, dangerous environment), shame (aboutpollution and litter) and sadness prompted by comparing Englishseas with how they used to be or in comparison to seas in othercountries. In terms of biota, it has been reported that 44% ofrespondents considered the seabed to be generally, mostly orutterly barren [30]. This implies that a barren marine environmentwill have no perceived benefits; it provides no utilitarian valuefrom the provision of seafood or intrinsic value in terms of sea lifeand is unlikely to drive societal support for conservation.

These existing studies suggest that subtidal marine environ-ments (which contain the majority of biota, suffer the greatestthreats, and are the target of most management responses in themarine environment) are rarely or pessimistically contemplated[31]. In other words, in previous studies, ‘out of sight’ equatedstrongly to ‘out of mind’. The ‘in sight’ coastal and intertidal zones, inpeople′s minds, represented the marine environment, while subtidalseas remained ‘unseen’ and generated pessimistic perceptions, oftenbased on the fear of the unknown. This suggests there are a lack ofpositive connections between society and the sea in the UK.

The study described in this paper presents the results of a largescale survey of UK public perceptions of subtidal seas. It investigateswhether there is the potential to develop more positive associationswith UK seas, to allow a transition away from ‘doom and gloom’

orientated methods. This study provides insight into public percep-tions of the marine environment and forms a basis from whichfurther questions can be identified to guide this new but essentialarea of marine conservation research. This study contributes a newperspective on the debate by focusing on the potential to buildpositive connections between society and the sea as a foundation tofuture engagement with behaviour change for marine conservation.

2.4. Question selection

The questions selected for the survey were grouped as speciesand health questions. The species questions were selected toinvestigate public knowledge of species to measure the extent towhich the UK public recognised species from subtidal environ-ments. Respondents were then asked which species they associatedwith UK seas, to investigate whether previously recorded pessimis-tic perceptions were prevalent. Interest in marine species providedan insight into potential connections between the public and UKseas and future development of engagement opportunities. The twohealth questions assessed public perceptions of a criteria for judginga sea as healthy or unhealthy. This question enabled a multiplevalues to be measured through the inclusion of different state-ments. These five questions address some of the fundamental gapsin the understanding of public perceptions of UK seas.

recognise?Which (if any) of the following plants and animals do you think can be found inthe seas around the UK?

All of the plants and animals can be found in the seas around the UK. Pleaseselect up to four pictures to show which plants and animals you would bemost interested to learn more about

Health questionsSelect up to three statements which you think best show a healthy marineenvironment

Select up to three statements which you think best show an unhealthy marineenvironment

3. Method

3.1. Survey development and analysis

Following pilot testing of the survey questions, a survey ofpublic perceptions of the marine environment was conductedduring February and March 2009. This was administered by acommercial market research company who drew from a bank of

registered respondents to ensure a UK representative sample.Respondents receive credit as a form of payment for completingsurveys, which helps to reduce the likelihood of bias from autoself-selection. Internet surveys have been shown to be a robustmethod for delivering surveys [37]. A total of 1047 respondentscompleted the survey. Analysis of socio-demographic variablesshowed respondents to be representative of the UK adult popula-tion. The gender split was 48% male and 52% female, whilst ageand geography showed similar distributions to the most recent UKdata published at the time [38].

3.2. Survey questions

The survey included three groups of questions: (1) speciesquestions to assess knowledge about, and interest in, a suite of 12subtidal UK marine species; (2) health questions to assess publicperceptions of healthy and unhealthy marine environments; and(3) respondent profiling, including interactions with the marineenvironment, standard socio-demographic variables andsocial values

3.2.1. Species questionsThree ‘species’ questions were selected to investigate public

knowledge and interest in subtidal species (Table 1). Twelvespecies were selected to reflect a cross-section of the ecological,economic and charismatic values of UK subtidal marine life.Selection criteria included taxonomic and functional representa-tiveness and commercial, non-commercial, charismatic, or ecolo-gical importance determined by previous analyses [18]. All thespecies selected are subtidal, although some are also intertidal,and most have a UK-wide distribution. Table 2 details and justifiesthe species included. Each question included photographs and thecommon names of the twelve species and the following questionswere asked, focusing on species recognition, presence in UK seas,and interest.

3.2.2. Marine health questionsStatements were defined to reflect the different values which

can be used to assess the health, or lack of health, of a marineenvironment. These included ecological, policy and known sociallyimportant statements. Table 3 details the statements and justifica-tion for inclusion, showing the nine statements for each of the twohealth questions (Table 1).

3.2.3. Respondent profileStandard socio-demographic questions were also asked, includ-

ing age, gender and education level, along with questions aboutrespondents’ interaction with the coast: how often they visited theUK coast or sea, leisure activities undertaken when there, and how

Table 2Justifications of species included in survey. Species represent a particular taxonomic group and a range of values are reflected by the species selection as a whole, including:ecological, commercial importance, charismatic and unfamiliar species.

Species Latin name Justification

Brittlestar Ophiothrix fragilis Echinoderm, similar to familiar intertidal starfishCod Gadus morhua Fish, commercially importantDahlia anemone Urticina feline Cnidarian, anemones familiar from intertidalHarbour seal Phoca vitulina Mammal, charismaticKelp Laminaria hyperborea Plant, typical seaweed appearance, high ecological importanceMaerl Lithothamnion corallioides Plant, biogenic reef species, high ecological importance, unusual appearanceNative oyster Ostrea edulis Bivalve, commercially important, familiar food item, biogenic reef speciesNorway lobster Nephrops norvegicus Crustacean, commercially importantPuffin Fratercula arctica Bird, charismaticSand mason worm Lanice conchilega Annelid, unusual appearanceSeagrass Zostera marina Plant, linked to seahorse, high ecological importanceSeahorse Hippocampus hippocampus Fish, non-commercial, charismatic

Table 3Justification of health statements included in marine health questions. Statements in italics show issues represented in both the healthy and unhealthy questions. Policyvalues are represented through inclusion of statements from the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive′s Good Environmental Status (GEnS) descriptors which will beused to assess the health of marine systems.

Abridged statement Justification

Healthy marine environment – full statementClean beaches—no litter or sewage Clean beaches Marine litter GEnS descriptor (10), visual issueClear or blue water Clear water Visual issueMany different plants and animals live there Diversity GEnS descriptor (1) and ecosystem healthThriving local fishing industry Fishing Socio-economic, ecosystem approach, GEnS descriptor (3)Big animals like whales and dolphins can be seen Megafauna Charismatic speciesParts of the sea are nature reserves—like the National Parks we have on land MPAs Policy and conservationEnough plants and animals for the food chain to work properly Food chain GEnS descriptor (4) and ecosystem healthAreas which scientists say is healthy or important Scientists Public trust of scientist opinion over personal judgmentHaving plants or animals which are regionally, nationally or globally important Endemic species Ecological importance, regional identity

Unhealthy marine environment – full statementLots of litter on the beach or out at sea Litter Marine litter GEnS criteria (10), visual issueMurky or brown water Murky water Public perception issue from NE surveyNot many types of plants and animals live there Low diversity GEnS descriptor (1) and ecosystem healthHigh unemployment in local fishing industry Fishing unemployment Socio-economic, ecosystem approach, GEnS descriptor (3)No big animals like seals or whales No megafauna Charismatic speciesNo areas of the sea protected from human activities No MPAs Policy and conservationFish/shellfish not fit for humans to eat due to contamination Contaminated seafood GEnS descriptor (9)The habitats where the plants and animals live have been damaged Habitat damage GEnS descriptor (6)Close to a large city City Urban areas possibly linked with poor environmental health

R.L. Jefferson et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337330

far from the coast they lived, in order to assess their personalexperience of the marine environment.

Social values were assessed using a social segmentation modeldeveloped from Maslow′s Hierarchy of Needs. The layers of needswithin the hierarchy reflect something about the values a personhas, and their motivation for interest, or type of interest in aparticular issue. Through extensive research into social values acrossthe UK a model has been developed which allows the character-istics of the layers of the Hierarchy of Needs to be generalised acrossindividuals within three broad Maslow groups: settlers, prospectorsand pioneers [30,39]. A key strength of the Maslow group model isthat it facilitates measurement of the social values of a population,providing a more detailed understanding of the motivations ofbehaviour and interest than solely socio-demographic data allow.The model has been developed for use in large scale surveysthrough the inclusion of 10 statement questions, and therefore isknown to be well-suited to this type of study.

3.3. Data analysis

SPSSs 16.0 for Windowss was used for the analysis. T-testswere applied to gender data. Variables with more than twocategories were analysed using a Kruskal–Wallis test, with a TukeyHonestly Significant Difference (HSD) PostHoc test for significance

of any differences found using a critical P value of o0.05. ASpearman Rank correlation was used to test for a relationshipbetween distance lived from the coast and frequency of coastalvisits. Data for the Maslow groups was analysed by CulturalDynamics, a company specialising the application of this model.

4. Results

4.1. Respondent profile

The questions revealed a mix of interactions with the UK coast.17% of respondents reported living on the coast, 58% visited morethan once a year, and 25% rarely or never visited. Frequency ofvisits to the coast was negatively correlated with distance livedfrom the coast (r¼0.362, Po0.001, n¼867 (excluding respondentswho lived on the coast)). No relationship was found betweenfrequency of visits or distance lived from the coast, and the typesof coastal leisure activities undertaken. The most popular activitieswere walking (74%) and visiting the seaside (71%). A quarter ofrespondents reported looking for wildlife, while activities invol-ving being on or in the sea (e.g. swimming or diving), rather thanon the beach or coastline, were selected by 18%, while 13%reported doing no coastal leisure activities.

R.L. Jefferson et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337 331

4.2. Public perceptions of marine species

As shown in Fig. 1, charismatic species were most familiar,particularly puffins (recognised by 95% of respondents), seahorses(93%) and seals (78%). Cod was also well recognised (89%). Twoplant species were well recognised: kelp (74%) and seagrass (65%).Maerl, the third plant species surveyed, has a less typical seaweedappearance and was the least recognised of all the species (6%).Invertebrates were the least familiar group, with the native oyster(60%) and Norway lobster (49%) being most frequently recognised.Alongside maerl, brittlestar (10%) and sand masonworm (8%) werethe least recognised species.

Respondents’ association of species with UK seas varied withthe familiarity of species. Species that were recognised by over30% of the respondents all showed a lower percentage of respon-dents citing them as found in UK seas, whereas those recognisedby less than 10% of respondents were thought to be in UK seas by aproportionately higher number of respondents. Over 90% ofrespondents recognised puffin and seahorse, but only 69% and45% of respondents, respectively, thought they lived in UK waters.Norway lobster was recognised by 49% of respondents, but only26% thought they lived in UK seas. In contrast, the sand masonworm was only recognised by 8% but over 20% thought it waslikely to live in UK seas.

When asked what species were considered to be most inter-esting, three groups were evident (Fig. 2). The top-scoring charis-matic species (seal, puffin and seahorse) were all selected byapproximately 60% of respondents; a lower interest group con-sisting of Norway lobster, cod, dahlia anemone and native oysterwas selected by 20–25% of respondents; and, an ‘uninteresting’group of plants and invertebrates was selected by fewer than 13%of respondents. The “none” or “don′t know” options were selectedby 13% of respondents, inferring interest in none of the species.

A comparison of responses to the species questions by genderrevealed only slight differences in species knowledge, but con-siderable differences between male and female interest in species.Two main differences were found in knowledge of speciesbetween males and females: more females recognised seagrass(P¼0.001) and more males thought harbour seals existed in theUK (P¼0.016). Gender differences also emerged in species interest(Fig. 2b). First, a larger proportion of females answered the interestquestion: 91% of females compared to 83% of males (Po0.001).Seven significant differences between interest in species wererecorded: males were more interested in Norway lobster(P¼o0.001), cod (P¼0.003) and native oyster (P¼0.042), whilstfemales were more interested in puffin (P¼0.003), seahorse(Po0.001), dahlia anemone (Po0.001) and maerl (P¼0.018).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Puffin Seahorse Cod Harbour seal

Kelp Seagra

% R

espo

nden

ts

Fig. 1. Responses to “Which of the following plants and animals have you heard of or recan be found in the seas around the UK?” (black bars). n¼1047.

Interestingly, the species attracting greatest male interest wereedible species, whereas those of greatest interest to females couldbe considered to have greater aesthetic appeal.

Further analysis revealed found that respondents who rarely ornever visited the coast, or did no coastal activities were morelikely to answer “none” or “don′t know” to all three speciesquestions. This group could be considered to be ‘unengaged’ withthe marine environment and a considerably larger proportion ofrespondents from the unengaged group answered “none” or “don′t know” to the species questions (Table 4).

4.3. Public perceptions of marine health

The highest scoring statement for both healthy and unhealthyquestions related to beach and sea cleanliness selected by over60% of respondents (Fig. 3). Contaminated seafood was selected by60% of respondents as characteristic of an unhealthy marineenvironment. These answers form a set of responses which relatedto issues with a clear and direct human impact. The second highestset of answers are those related to ecological concepts and policycriteria; in the healthy question food chain (55%) and diversity(50%) scored highly, whilst damaged habitat (48%) and lowdiversity (46%) scored highly in the unhealthy question. In boththe healthy and unhealthy questions, megafauna were consideredto be the least important indicator of marine health (o10%).

The analysis of socio-demographic variables showed socialvalues to be the strongest influence on perceptions of marinehealth (Fig. 4; Table 5). Maslow group analysis found pioneers tobe the most distinctive group showing greater recognition ofecological concepts. Pioneers were more likely than prospectorsand settlers to select the food chain statement as a sign of ahealthy marine environment, and habitat damage and low diver-sity as a sign of an unhealthy marine environment. The fourthecological statement of diversity as a healthy descriptor found nodifferences in opinion between the three Maslow groups.

In both statements relating to water clarity, pioneers weresignificantly less likely than the prospectors or settlers to thinkthese showed a healthy or unhealthy marine environment (Fig. 4;Table 4). There was also a recorded difference in the contaminatedseafood score, with pioneers being more likely to select this thanprospectors. The clean beaches and litter statements were themost selected statements, and showed no significant differences inopinions between the three Maslow groups. Scientific opinion wasselected by a relatively low proportion of all three groups, butpioneers were twice as likely (Po0.001) as prospectors or settlersto judge health on this basis.

ss Native oyster

Norway lobster

Dahlia anemone

Brittlestar Sand mason worm

Maerl

cognise?” (grey bars) and “Which of the following plants and animals do you think

**

* * **

* *

Fig. 2. (a) Results of question “Please select up to four pictures to show which plants and animals you would be most interested to learn more about.” n¼1047. (b) Results of“Please select up to four species which you would be most interested to learn more about” by gender. Male n¼499, female n¼548. * Indicates significant result; see text for Pvalues.

Table 4Percentage of respondents answering “none” or “don′t know” to species questionscategorized by interaction with the coast. ▲ shows the range of responses from allother categories, i.e. respondents visiting the UK coast once or more during theyear. For example, 8% of respondents who rarely/never visit the coast had not heardof any of the species, compared with a range of 0–2% for respondents who do visitthe coast.

Visit coastrarely/never

Visit at leastonce a year▲

Noactivities

One or moreactivities▲

Heard ofspecies

8 0–2 13 0–4

Species foundin UK seas

17 5–9 27 2–10

Interestingspecies

23 9–11 36 4–10

R.L. Jefferson et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337332

5. Discussion

The results from this study contribute to a wider understandingof the relationship between society and the sea and consequentlyinform the debate on how to engage the public to achieve marineconservation goals. The discussion is structured around the twomain sections of the survey (species and health questions).

5.1. Public perceptions of marine species

5.1.1. Public knowledge of speciesPrevious studies have found that UK seas are not considered to

be as ‘rich’ as seas in other countries [31]. This perception is echoedhere with respondents tending to underestimate the presence ofexotic and charismatic species with UK seas. Conversely, lesscolourful or less impressive-looking species were perceived as morelikely to exist in UK seas despite being unfamiliar. This reflects thepublic′s knowledge gap regarding the diversity of UK marinespecies, and reveals a pessimistic attitude towards UK seas. Flagshipspecies are often used to promote conservation issues [40], howeverthese results show that there is considerable pessimism betweenthese typically high profile symbols of conservation and theirassociation with UK seas. Increasing the public′s association offamiliar charismatic species with UK seas is a key opportunity topromote marine life to wider UK audience.

5.1.2. Interest in marine speciesMega-vertebrate species exhibit the characteristics recognised

as being important for positive species attitudes, and are success-fully used as flagship species for conservation issues [21,33]. This

Fig. 3. Responses to marine health questions, (a) “Select up to three statements which you think best show a healthy marine environment” and (b) “Select up to threestatements which you think best show an unhealthy marine environment.” n¼1047.).

R.L. Jefferson et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337 333

was also reflected in these results, with the three charismaticspecies (harbour seal, puffin and seahorse) considered to be themost interesting (Fig. 2a). Larger animals attract greater attentionfrom zoo visitors 41 reflecting the greater interest in vertebratesover other species. The interest in the three charismatic marinespecies may therefore suggest a considerable curiosity value: azoo-like appeal which translates to wild animals.

Plants are known to be considered as less appealing thananimals to public audiences [42]. The most ecologically valuablespecies, including all three plant species (kelp, seagrass and maerl)were considered least interesting. The native oyster is ecologicallyimportant due to its biogenic reef-forming role and was consid-ered to be of greater interest than the plant species (20%);however, this may be due to its status as a luxury food ratherthan any ecological functions. Differing associations with speciescan influence the messages which may be received by an

audience; a species may be chosen to represent a particularmarine conservation issue but other associations may be madeby the audience. Therefore, these potential associations meritfurther exploration to better understand the attitudes of targetaudiences towards particular species and ensure that intendedmessages are connected to suitable species.

Crustaceans represent a divergence of characteristics; inverte-brates tend to invoke dislike [43]. However, Norway lobster wasconsidered to be relatively interesting (25%) and crabs were amongthe species most frequently associated with English seas [31].Crustaceans are relatively easy to spot on UK coastlines due manyspecies inhabiting intertidal zones (e.g. common shore crab Carcinusmaenas). Flagship species are not always large vertebrates; anyspecies which resonates with the values and interest of theaudience can connect the public with a subject [44]. It is possiblethat the familiarity of crustaceans and the relatively high interest in

*

**

*

*

**

*

Fig. 4. Responses to health questions by Maslow Group. “Select up to three statements which you think best show a healthy marine environment” and “Select up to threestatements which you think best show an unhealthy marine environment.” Pioneer n¼449, prospector n¼189, settler n¼395. * Indicates significant result; see Table 5 for P values.

R.L. Jefferson et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337334

the Norway lobster implies that crustaceans could be used to linkintertidal experiences with subtidal seas.

5.1.3. Gender differencesThe results by gender showed a pattern consistent with those

found in previous studies. The higher male interest in cod, oysterand Norway lobster reflects reported stronger utilitarian viewsmore frequently held by males [45,46]. These species are popu-larised through their use as food items. Males were also signifi-cantly less interested than females in puffin, seahorse, dahliaanemone and maerl: species with no obvious utilitarian value.These species could be considered to have greater aesthetic value,having more intricate detail and potentially more attractivecolouration. In general, females show more humanistic andmoralistic values [21,46], therefore higher female interest in thesespecies could reflect interests driven by more intrinsic values.

These gender differences indicate that interest in, and valuestowards, the marine environment are not homogenous across theUK population. The gender results show a clear pattern whichtranslates into potentially different motivations for engaging withthe marine environment, and there are likely to be several othervariables which also influence interest and, thus, need to be betterunderstood when developing messages and communicationmechanisms. Further investigation of these motivations, and ofthe values of different population sub-groups, is needed todevelop broader-based strategies to engage audiences with marineenvironments and conservation.

5.1.4. Experience of the marine environmentPersonal experience of an issue, place or environment has

consistently been shown to be a powerful provider of informal

Table 5Significant differences in results to health questions of respondents categorised byMaslow Group. Pioneer (Pio) n¼449, Prospector (Pro) n¼189, Settler (Set) n¼395.df¼1032. No P value indicates no significant result.

Differences between F value P value

Healthy marine environmentFood chain Pio4Pro 26.685 o0.001

Pio4Set o0.001Clear water Pro4Pio 8.74 o0.001

Pio4Set 0.02MPAs Set4Pio 3.109 0.047Scientists Pio4Pro 9.145 0.012

Pio4Set o0.001

Unhealthy marine environmentHabitat damage Pio4Pro 7.384 0.025

Pio4Set 0.001Fish contamination Pio4Pro 4.948 0.009Murky water Pro4Pio 18.511 o0.001

Set4Pio o0.001Low diversity Pio4Pro 6.032 0.002

R.L. Jefferson et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337 335

education and a positive influence on pro-environmental beha-viour choices [22,47]. In this study, respondents reporting limitedinteraction with the coast showed lower knowledge, greaterpessimism and disinterest in sea areas (Table 4). Only 18% of theadult respondents undertook activities which took them beyondlow tide (and only 1% reported diving or snorkelling experiences ofsubtidal environments). Although it is unlikely that respondentswho visited UK shores had encountered most or all of the species inthe survey, they are likely to have encountered some form of marinelife. The most frequently encountered charismatic species for mostadults, therefore, are likely to be birds and seals, while those specieswhich are easiest to observe are more likely to be considered lesscharismatic species, such as invertebrates and plants, particularly inrockpools. It is possible that these less charismatic, but easy to seespecies, are also providing important wildlife viewing opportu-nities, which, in turn, may encourage more positive associationswith UK seas. This suggests that encounters with species nottraditionally considered to be charismatic could play a role innurturing environmental awareness [23]. The results also implythat intertidal and coastal experiences may have the capacity todevelop connections to the subtidal environment.

The inaccessibility of marine environments makes direct experi-ence a particular challenge. The most accessible areas of the marineenvironment are the coast and intertidal habitats, whilst subtidalseas are only accessible through snorkelling or diving, activitieswhich may not be available to all, and still only reach the first 50 mor so of the sea, and for limited time. Therefore, the extent to whichintertidal visits can be linked to wider marine environments is animportant consideration for direct experiences. Globally there areover 300 aquaria which provide an opportunity for public audiencesto access selected elements of the marine environment [48]. Whilstzoos and aquaria have an increasing recognition of their role aseducators [49], gaps remain in knowing how these efforts can betranslated into behaviour changes [50]. Aquaria undoubtedly pro-vide an essential role to facilitate experiences of the hard-to-reachmarine environment, however, further investigation is required tounderstand, and capitalise on, the links between aquaria andsociety′s perceptions of the marine environment.

5.2. Public perceptions of marine health

As is implied by previous research [34,35], it was predictablethat litter and sewage issues were likely to score highly in thehealth perception questions. These are situations in which a non-expert can easily interpret the issue as being detrimental to

marine health, for example, from images of litter on a beach. Thismay be because of the ease of understanding such issues, or due toan anthropocentric perspective which prioritises issues whichcause potential harm to humans [51]. Issues which present themost severe threat to the health of marine ecosystems, such ashabitat degradation and loss, loss of biodiversity or the effects ofclimate change, often do not have clear, direct, connections tohuman health. They do not fit within the existing social percep-tions of environmental concerns, making them invisible to thepublic [52], and creating a barrier to engaging society withsuitable responses.

However, in contrast to the interest in species, the ecologicalstatements were recognised by a high proportion of respondents:species diversity, habitat degradation and intact food chain werethought to be some of the best indicators of the health of a marineenvironment. Previous studies have shown public audiences toplace considerable importance on the ecological functions ofspecies [53,54]. The ecological principles in this survey weredescribed, in lay-terms (Table 3); the statements were not speci-fically stated as being ecologically important, as in other studies.Therefore, the high selection of the ecological statements in thissurvey illustrates a deeper level of understanding and value thanhas previously been recorded.

A surprising result in the health questions was the lack ofimportance given to the presence of megafauna as indicators ofmarine health. This was in contrast to the earlier results from thespecies questions which showed charismatic species to be themost interesting, which adds to the evidence that public recogni-tion of the factors which underpin healthy marine ecosystems ishigher than may previously have been thought. It also suggeststhat interest in species is driven by curiosity value, and notthrough a link to concern for marine health. This suggests thatless charismatic species may be more suitable to communicatingecological messages of marine health than previously thought.This is an important finding for the society and the sea debate,particularly given the complex nature of marine conservationissues. It suggests there may be a greater capacity for publicengagement with marine conservation issues than is currently beexpected, and therefore it potentially widens the scope for thetypes of connections which are established between public audi-ences and marine behaviour changes.

5.2.1. Influence of social values on public perceptions of the marineenvironment

Social values are known to influence societal connection withthe environment [20], and this study found them to be animportant variable in public perceptions of marine health(Fig. 4). Pioneers were more likely to select the ecological state-ments of marine health, than settlers or prospectors. This grouprepresents individuals with a greater understanding of the holisticnature of the world. The results support previous findings thatpioneers are less likely to depend on direct connections to an issuein order to understand it as having detrimental implications[30,31]. Prospectors and settlers put greater importance on thestate of the water as a measure of health than the pioneers,interpreting murky water as poor health. This illustrates animportant misconception, as water clarity is not an accuratemeasure of marine ecosystem health; estuaries are usually murkydue to their slow flow rate and heavy load of fine suspendedsediment, not due to poor ecosystem health. These findingssuggest the importance of clear and direct connections betweenan environmental issue and human health as a measure ofenvironmental health [51] may be more applicable to the percep-tions of settlers and prospectors than to pioneers, who are more

R.L. Jefferson et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337336

able to make connections between themselves and the widerecosystem.

A number of health statements were similarly rated by all threeMaslow groups, illustrating those issues which have wide rele-vance. An example is the litter statements in both health ques-tions, which were scored equally across the three groups ofrespondents (Fig. 4). This could be interpreted as uniformity inthe perceptions of these three groups. However, given the knownimportance of social values as an influence on perceptions of anissue, it is also possible that there are different motivations behindthese three groups selecting the same statement, and this poten-tial should not be overlooked.

The findings from this survey are significant for the debate onhow to engage society with the sea because they provide insightinto the variables which influence public perceptions of themarine environment, and therefore the interpretations whichcan be made by public audiences. Charismatic species may be ofinterest to a large proportion of the public audience, but themotivations for interest may differ considerably across that group.If a species is used to engage an audience, the ‘story’ around thatspecies will influence whether it appeals to utilitarian or intrinsicvalues, and a lack of awareness of that species as a UK species maymean that the audience disconnect from the engagement attempt.Successful campaigns must connect with their audience in order toengage individuals in the intended response. In order to do this,insights such as those provided here enable links to be madebetween particular messages and the target audience, and increasethe likelihood of successful behaviour change.

6. Conclusion

The overall picture that emerges from previous studies is thatthe connection between society and the marine environment islimited to the coastal zone, and that strengthening connectionswith the subtidal seas faces multiple challenges. In order toachieve ‘marine’ rather than ‘coastal’ engagement, these chal-lenges must be more fully understood and addressed in order toachieve marine conservation goals. This study contributes to thedebate about how to engage society with the sea and achievemarine conservation goals [14]. A key outcome from this study isthe need to acknowledge the multiple marine audiences withinthe public which is in line with previous studies that haverecorded this heterogeneity of public audiences [30,31]. A shiftin thinking is essential, from considering the public as a homo-genous group, requiring a single approach to engagement, torecognising the challenge to involve multiple audiences, eachconsidering different elements of the marine environment to bemost interesting, valuable or relevant. It is important to recognisethat these multiple audiences are not necessarily differentiated bytheir demographic characteristics, but also by the values they holdtowards the marine environment or their experiences of the sea.Marine conservationists must use all available tools, includingsocial science methods, in order to ‘see’ the marine world throughmultiple lenses. This is essential if marine conservation hopes toconnect with the audiences whose engagement is essential toachieving healthy marine environments.

A number of opportunities for establishing positive connectionsbetween UK society and the sea (beyond the coast) are identifiedby this study. Charismatic species attracted considerable interestfrom respondents in this survey. UK seas are home to manytraditionally charismatic species. Overcoming the low associationof charismatic species with UK seas may be a starting point forbuilding positive connections. There appears to be capacity,particularly with some audiences, to engage on more complexissues. There may be scope to engage beyond the obvious issues

and aesthetically valuable species to open debates on those issueswhich threaten the ecological functioning of marine ecosystems.This requires further investigation, but could lead to deeperengagement than offered by charismatic species and high profileissues by connecting on messages of how the seas function and theparticular roles behaviour change could play in delivering healthymarine environments.

This study indicates that there is a need to better understandthe role marine experience plays in contributing to the linksbetween society and the sea. As described in the introduction,there are many strong and positive associations between thepublic and the coast. The UK has an extensive coastline, and asthe Marine and Coastal Access Act drives even greater opportu-nities for people to visit this space, there is an opportunity tobetter understand how this may be a resource for catalysing widerchanges in marine engagement.

The results of this study contribute to a developing field withinmarine conservation. The findings highlight a number of keyresearch areas which should be prioritised to further address thechallenge of engaging society with the sea:

�

Further research into establishing positive public connectionswith UK seas beyond the coast in order to overcome theprevailing ‘doom and gloom’ perceptions of UK seas. Thepessimistic perceptions held by the public for UK seas areclearly shown in this study, and are a considerable barrier toengaging audiences with marine conservation issues. It isessential to overcome this barrier through establishing positiveconnections which will form a foundation for further engage-ment, but the mechanisms for achieving this are not yet clear.

�

Identification of how the UK′s many resident charismaticspecies could be used to promote positive connections andavoid reinforcing pessimistic preconceptions through thethreats to these species. The high public interest but low UKassociation with charismatic species recorded here suggeststhis could be a first step for building positive connections.

�

Further investigation of public perceptions of ecological con-cepts and the capacity to engage audiences with some of thecomplex issues which exist in marine conservation. The surveyconducted here revealed a relatively high public recognition ofecological principles of marine health. However, furtherresearch is require to interrogate these perceptions, identifyingwhat the public understand by these concepts and why theyconsider these to be relevant to marine health.

�

Exploration of the role of experience in influencing marinevalues. The results here imply there are links between experi-ence and knowledge of the marine environment. These linksneed further investigating to identify how they can be used topromote stronger connections with UK seas. The difficulty ofengaging with subtidal seas will always present a barrier, butthe extent to which visits to the intertidal zone or aquaria canbe gateways to the marine environment should be assessed as apotentially important tool to overcome this barrier.

�

Development of engagement approaches which are tailored tothe heterogeneity of public values and understanding. It isnecessary to recognise that the public is a grouping of multipleaudiences, rather than one homogenous audience. These needto be fundamental shifts in the approach to researching andcatalysing public engagement with the marine environment.

�

To address these priorities, research in this field needs to besupported by academic and practitioner contributions. This willenable the development of relevant and applicable solutions tothe challenge of engaging society with the sea. Additionally,social science methods, both qualitative and quantitative, areessential to explore in greater detail the influences of socio-demographic and social values variables.

R.L. Jefferson et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 327–337 337

This study contributes to the debate on the challenge ofengaging society with marine conservation. These research prio-

rities, and those highlighted by other authors in this field, requirecontributions from many disciplines, some traditionally marine,some not, in order to connect the expertise which is required toaddress the challenges facing the marine environment. Addressingthese research priorities through interdisciplinary approaches canadvance the debate on engaging society with the sea [14] whilstdeveloping concepts such as marine citizenship [13]. Continuedefforts are required to advance this nexus of ecological and socialresearch and deliver relevant solutions to catalyse societal engage-ment with marine conservation goals.

Acknowledgements

Rebecca Jefferson was supported by funding from NaturalEngland and the Higher Education Innovation Fund. The authorsthank Cultural Dynamics, particularly L. Higgins, for support withthe Maslow group method and two anonymous reviewers for theircomments.

References

[1] Beaumont NJ, Austen MC, Atkins JP, Burdon D, Degraer S, Dentinho TP, et al.Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided bymarine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach. Mar Pollut Bull2007;54:253–65.

[2] Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Halpern BS, et al. Impactsof biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 2006;314:787–90.

[3] Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, D′Agrosa C, et al. Aglobal map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 2008;319:948–52.

[4] Lotze HK, Coll M, Magera AM, Ward-Paige C, Airoldi L. Recovery of marineanimal populations and ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 2011;26:595–605.

[5] Rogers A, Laffoley DdA. International Earth system expert workshop on oceanstresses and impacts. Summary report. 2011.

[6] Vincent ACJ. Saving the shallows: focusing marine conservation where peoplemight care. Aquat Conserv 2011;21:495–9.

[7] Schultz PW. Conservation means behavior. Conserv Biol 2011;25:1080–3.[8] Costanza R. Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health. Ecosystem

health: new goals for environmental management.Island Press; 239–56.[9] Rogers SI, Tasker ML, Earll R, Gubbay S. Ecosystem objectives to support the

UK vision for the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 2007;54:128–44.[10] Tett P, Gowen R, Mills D, Fernandes T, Gilpin L, Huxham M, et al. Defining and

detecting undesirable disturbance in the context of marine eutrophication.Mar Pollut Bull 2007;55:282–97.

[11] Rapport DJ, Costanza R, McMichael AJ. Assessing ecosystem health. Trends EcolEvol 1998;13:397–402.

[12] Gubbay S. A review of marine environmental indicators reporting on biodi-versity aspects of ecosystem health. Sandy, UK 2004:78.

[13] Fletcher S, Potts J. Ocean citizenship: an emergent geographical concept. CoastManage 2007;35:511–24.

[14] McKinley E, Fletcher S. Improving marine environmental health throughmarine citizenship: a call for debate. Mar Policy 2012;36:839–43.

[15] Fletcher S, Jefferson R, McKinley E. Exploring the shallows: a response to‘Saving the shallows: focusing marine conservation where people might care’.Aquat Conserv 2012;22:7–10.

[16] Parsons ECM, Favaro B, Draheim M, McCarthy J-B, Aguirre A, Bauer AL, et al. 71Important questions for conservation of marine biodiversity. Conserv Biol2013.

[17] Rees S, Fletcher S, Glegg G, Marshall C, Rodwell L, Jefferson R, et al. Priorityquestions to shape the marine and coastal policy research agenda in theUnited Kingdom. Mar Policy 2013;38:531–7.

[18] Jefferson RL. Communicating marine environmental health: connectingscience, social and policy values. Plymouth: University of Plymouth; 2010.

[19] Barr S, Gilg AW. A conceptual framework for understanding and analyzingattitudes towards environmental behaviour. Geogr Ann Ser B 2007;89B:361–379.

[20] Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally andwhat are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res2002;8:239–60.

[21] Kellert SR. The value of life: biological diversity and human society.IslandPress; 1996.

[22] Miller JR. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. TrendsEcol Evol 2005;20:430–4.

[23] Lindemann-Matthies P. ‘Loveable’mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: how children′s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observationof nature. Int J Sci Educ 2005;27:655–77.

[24] Maiteny P. Mind in the gap: summary of research exploring ‘inner’ influenceson pro-sustainability learning and behaviour. Environ Educ Res2002;8:299–306.

[25] Balmford A, Cowling RM. Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biologyConserv Biol 2006;20:692–5.

[26] Nisbet M. Communicating climate change: why frames matter for publicengagement. Environ Sci Policy Sustainable Dev 2009:1–9.

[27] Johnson B. Overcoming “doom and gloom”: empowering students in courseson social problems, injustice, and inequality. Teaching Sociology2005;33:44–58.

[28] Gifford R, Comeau LA. Message framing influences perceived climate changecompetence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environ Change2011;21:1301–7.

[29] Defra. A framework for pro-environmental behaviours. London: Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; 2008. p. 109.

[30] Rose C, Dade P, Scott J. Qualitative and quantitative research into publicengagement with the undersea landscape in England. Nat England 2008.

[31] Natural England. Marine protected areas, qualitative value mode research. NatEngland 2008:101.

[32] Boyes E, Stanisstreet M. Environmental education for behaviour change:which actions should be targeted? Int J Sci Educ 2012;34:1591–614.

[33] Simberloff D. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species manage-ment passé in the landscape era? Biological conservation, 83; 247–57.

[34] Hinds K, Carmichael C, Snowling H. Public attitudes to the environment inScotland 2002. Edinburgh, Scottish Executive. 2002.

[35] Spruill VN. US public attitudes toward marine environmental issues. Oceano-graphy 1997;10:149–52.

[36] UK Tourism Survey. The UK tourist statistics 2006. In: Visit Britain, editor;2006. p. 45.

[37] Knapp H, Kirk SA. Using pencil and paper, Internet and touch-tone phones forself-administered surveys: does methodology matter? Comput Hum Behav2003;19:117–34.

[38] Office for National Statistics. Key population and vital statistics. local andhealth authority areas. Population and vital statistics by area of usualresidence in the United Kingdom, 2007. In: Warth C, Wiles A, editors. SeriesVS No 34/ PPPI No 30: Office for National Statistics; 2007.

[39] Cultural Dynamics. Cultural Dynamics’ British Values Survey. The MaslowGroup handbook Cultural Dynamics Strategy and Marketing; 2009. p. 40.

[40] Caro TM, O′Doherty G. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology.Conserv Biol 1999;13 (805-14).

[41] Ward PI, Mosberger N, Kistler C, Fischer O. The relationship betweenpopularity and body size in zoo animals. Conserv Biol 1998;12:1408–11.

[42] Wandersee JH, Schussler E. Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Sci Bull2001;47:2–9.

[43] Kellert SR. Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conserv Biol1993;7:845–55.

[44] Bowen-Jones E, Entwistle A. Identifying appropriate flagship species: theimportance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 2002;36:189–95.

[45] Miller KK, McGee TK. Sex differences in values and knowledge of wildlife inVictoria, Australia. Hum Dimens Wildl 2000;5:54–68.

[46] Thompson TL, Mintzes JJ. Cognitive structure and the affective domain: onknowing and feeling in biology. Int J Sci Educ 2002;24:645–60.

[47] Bogeholz S. Nature experience and its importance for environmental knowl-edge, values and action: recent German empirical contributions. Environ EducRes 2006;12:65–84.

[48] Penning M, Reid GM, Koldewey H, Dick G, Andrews B, Arai K, et al. Turningthe tide: a global aquarium strategy for conservation and sustainability.Worldassociation of zoos and aquariums. Bern, Switzerland: World Association ofZoos and Aquariums; 90.

[49] Ogden J, Heimlich JE. Why focus on zoo and aquarium education? Zoo Biol2009;28:357–60.

[50] Price EA, Vining J, Saunders CD. Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in a nonformalenvironmental education program. Zoo Biol 2009;28:361–79.

[51] Patel A, Rapport D, Vanderlinden L, Eyles J. Forests and societal values:comparing scientific and public perception of forest health. The Environmen-talist 1999;19:239–49.

[52] Nassauer JI. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy.Landscape Ecol 1992;6:239–50.

[53] Montgomery CA. Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration ofrelative values. J Environ Manage 2002;65:313–26.

[54] Czech B, Kausman PR, Borkhataria R. Social construction, political power,and the allocation of benefits to endangered species. Conserv Biol1998;12:1103–12.