Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 712–723 | Cite as

Ocean use in Hawaii as a predictor of marine conservation interests, beliefs, and willingness to participate: an exploratory study

  • Carlie S. Wiener
  • Genevieve Manset
  • Judith D. Lemus
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Conservation outreach requires an understanding of the socio-ecological dynamics within specific environments and how they affect meaning given to efforts. Nationwide studies of human perceptions are important in typifying how people use and view the marine environment; however, these findings often ignore specific regional differences. The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate whether demographics and ocean use predict environmental concerns, interest in learning, and ocean conservation in Hawaii. Drawing on data from the Ocean Topics Public Attitudes Survey (n = 422), regression analysis was used to create four models that predict participant attitudes on ocean conservation factors. Significant relationships were found between gender, Native Hawaiian ethnicity, types of ocean use, and willingness to participate in conservation activities. Key methodological approaches and findings are shared with the goal of informing better design and implementation of outreach to help understand ocean user needs in Hawaii.

Keywords

Ocean use Recreation Native Hawaiian Conservation Public attitudes Survey 

Introduction

A growing awareness on the importance of socio-ecological dynamics that contribute to how individuals determine the value of conservation efforts has occurred over the past decade (Williams et al. 2013). Examining these socio-ecological contexts in areas with unique ecology and diverse cultures such as Hawaii creates opportunities for better understanding of how to engage ocean users. While nationwide studies such as those completed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2004), Pew Ocean Commission (2003), and U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) have documented public attitudes towards ocean- and climate-related issues, they do not necessarily capture resident values, even though most conservation work requires community involvement in order to have a local impact. In a similar way, marine conservation outreach necessitates an understanding of how attitudes converge and differ within a specific place. Evaluation of how best to inform the public will help to encourage community knowledge and participation in conservation, making localized studies even more critical to understanding society’s motivation towards marine conservation. This study attempts to explore how sociodemographic background and ocean use predict attitudes and perceptions towards ocean conservation in Hawaii. While multiple approaches to place-associated culture in a conservation context have been attempted (Williams 2008), this study emphasizes ocean use as an important variable for engagement in marine issues and willingness to participate.

Hawaii context

The Hawaiian Islands make for an interesting study as they have distinctive, culturally rich traditions, and an indigenous community who continue with traditional practices. Approximately one third of the population identifies as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, while past and current immigration from Asia, Europe, and the Americas has resulted in a diverse culture, a state where the “minority” is the majority. A quarter of Hawaii residents identify as White only, as compared to 77 % of the US population (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

Culture and recreation are formed around the islands’ marine resources, with the ocean no further than 20 miles away from the most inland point (PacIOOS 2013). Hamnett et al. (2004) surveyed Hawaii residents and found that 66 % of households had one or more members involved in ocean swimming, with an average of 28 annual swimming trips. Hawaii offers a plethora of opportunities to engage with the ocean, including several activities that are unique to the islands. A long tradition of Hawaiian culture has preserved marine pursuits, including paddling outrigger canoes, fishing, limu (seaweed) collecting, and surfing. In 2000, Hawaii was ranked as one of the top states for marine recreation, including 4,540,543 visitors and resident ocean users (Leeworthy and Wiley 2001), making it an ideal study site to explore the relationship between ocean use and attitudes towards ocean conservation.

Conservation, ocean use, and conservation attitudes within a local context

Conservation within a local context requires an understanding of the historical and cultural knowledge, emphasizing the framework from which people derive meaning and identity (Williams et al. 2013). Part of this identity is a consequence of the individual’s demographic characteristics, which in turn contributes to environmental values and behavior. Previous research has found sociodemographic correlates of attitudes towards conservation; women, for example, report more pro-environmental behavior and attitudes such as being more likely to eat less fish if it would protect resources (Hunter et al. 2004) and hold more concern towards marine mammal conservation (Howard and Parsons 2006). Youth populations, especially teens, also express greater levels of concern about ocean issues (Ocean Project 2009), while higher education and income levels have also been linked to increased environmental concern (Dennis and Zube 1988). Despite these findings, sociodemographic predictors of environmental concern can also be inconclusive and contradictory (Barker and Dawson 2010; Klineberg et al. 1998). For example, racial/ethnic minorities have been found to associate with more pro-environmental behavior when engaged in outdoor recreation activities (Larson et al. 2011), while other analyses show negative attitudes and behavior towards the environment (Westdal et al. 2013). Results have varied from study to study depending on the ways in which the sociodemographic relationship to the environment is explored, as well as research methodology (Lynch 1993; Whittaker et al. 2005).

In addition to sociodemographic characteristics, how individuals use the ocean environment could affect their attitudes and behaviors towards conservation. Environmental education scholars like Sheppard and McNeely (1997) argue that by providing an opportunity for outdoor learning through experience and use, participants can develop an ethic for nature conservation. Researchers have also demonstrated that increased visitation to the ocean has a positive effect on subjective and objective forms of marine knowledge, with those frequently participating in ocean use holding a greater concern for its conservation (Lehto et al. 2004; Steel et al. 2005). Case studies exploring particular types of recreation such as canoeing (Kauffman 1984), boating (Cottrell 2003), surfing (Lazarow et al. 2008; Pearson 1994), fishing (Chipman and Helfrich 1988), whale watching (Jacobs and Harms 2014), and scuba diving (Meisel-Lusby and Cottrell 2008) suggest that recreational specialization can influence environmentally responsible behavior. As participants become knowledgeable in one particular pursuit, groups can influence behaviors through these organized interests and help to develop social norms (Thapa et al. 2005).

Studies looking at various participations in ocean recreation leading to behavior change have generated mixed results in the past (Thapa 2010). According to Thapa (2010), earlier recreation research produced weak outcomes, which has steadily improved over time as methodologies have become more stringent. This has led to studies that provide greater detail relating outdoor recreational participation to developing pro-environmental behavior orientations. For example, Peterson et al. (2008) and Thapa (2010) show that appreciative outdoor recreation activities can lead to changed pro-environment behaviors. This is also true of studies examining appreciative ecotourism activities such as whale watching (Luksenburg and Parsons 2014).

The Ocean Topics Public Attitudes Study will not focus on participant behaviors, but instead highlight how attitudes towards ocean conservation are predicted by ocean activity and the ways that individuals engage with the ocean, including commercial operations, scientific uses, and cultural practices.

Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence Island Earth (COSEE IE)

COSEE is a National Science Foundation program with centers across the USA. Island Earth is the Hawaii-based center affiliated with the University of Hawaii, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology. The Ocean Topics Public Attitudes Study was completed as a needs assessment for COSEE Island Earth education and outreach programming. One of the main objectives was to determine issues crucial to the public, exploring how people wanted to learn more about or participate in ocean sciences and conservation. The findings of this study will allow for better program design and implementation for a variety of recreation users, and to better understand ocean user needs specific to Hawaii. Previous studies focusing on marine recreation attitudes and perceptions have not applied the research to location-specific public education, as they offer national overviews. Place-based learning and outreach is particularly important for unique geographies such as Hawaii that are prone to in-group cultural nuances due to isolation and close proximity to the ocean.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between demographic characteristics and ocean use, with individuals’ environmental concerns, attitudes, and willingness to participate in ocean conservation activities in Hawaii (see Fig. 1). More specifically, this study was designed to address whether ocean use predicts environmental concern, interest in learning, and willingness to participate in conservation activities.
Fig. 1

Demographic and ocean use variables predicting marine conservation attitudes and willingness to participate factors

Materials and methods

Data collection

The Ocean Topics Public Attitudes Survey (OTPAS) was administered in April of 2012 and 2013 at an annual Ocean Expo in Honolulu. The expo attracts many types of local ocean users targeting families, fishermen/women, boaters, and other marine enthusiasts. As a result, survey respondents were mostly island residents (97.1 %) born and raised in Hawaii (70.4 %).

A table was set up with marine science and ocean conservation themed kids’ activities and information. Every person passing by the COSEE table was asked if they would like to participate in the survey. Four volunteers were stationed at the booth to intercept potential respondents. Of the 595 surveys collected (2012: 260; 2013: 335), 422 surveys with a minimum of 95 % completed items were used. It was not clear why some individuals did not finish the survey, which introduces the possibility of a sampling bias. An examination of missing data for those surveys was included in this analysis; however, no patterns were found by gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Both the 2012 and 2013 surveys were conducted in compliance with the University of Hawaii Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board. Survey respondents were all over 18 years of age and were provided with informed consent.

Ocean topics public attitudes survey

The OTPAS contained multiple choice, ranking, and semantic differential items. The three-page instrument was divided into four sections: demographics, preference for obtaining information (not provided here), ocean use and frequency, and attitude towards environmental issues and participation. Demographic items included questions about gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Participants indicated ocean usage by checking from a list of possible pursuits, including broader categories of ocean use (e.g., commercial, scientific) and specific activities (e.g., fishing, surfing). Participants also indicated the frequency they engaged in ocean activities over the previous 3 years. Twenty-nine seven-point semantic differential rating scales (ordinal with equal value between “crucial” vs. “unimportant”) were used to assess participants’ perspectives on the degree environmental issues were “crucial” for the Hawaii ocean environment, whether they were interested in learning about those issues, and the degree they were interested in participating in ocean conservation activities. Surveys were slightly altered in 2013 to distinguish between regular and high ocean users, which may introduce some error into the calculations. To minimize this, principal component analysis was used to examine the stronger components of the responses, therefore reducing sources of variance between ocean use frequency.

Independent variables

Demographic characteristics and participants’ reported ocean usage served as the independent variables for this study (see Table 1).
Table 1

Independent variables

Domain

Variable

Gender

Female = 0

Male = 1

Age

18–34

35–54

55+

Race/ethnicity (no = 0, yes = 1)

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

White

Asian

Multi/other

Ocean use (no = 0, yes = 1)

Commercial

Cultural

Scientific

Aesthetic

Sustenance

Activities (no = 0, yes = 1)

Windsurfing

Limu collecting

Scuba

Standup paddle (SUP)

Canoe

Surfing

Fishing

Snorkel

Wading

Swimming

Demographics

Given a list of options, participants were asked to indicate their race/ethnicity and gender. These dichotomous categorical variables were given a score of No = 0 and Yes = 1 (race/ethnicity), and Female = 0, Male = 1 (gender). In both the correlation and regression analysis, they were treated as continuous variables (dummy coded). For the purpose of this study, race/ethnicity categories were considered mutually exclusive. Persons who identified with more than one race category (other than Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander) were included in the Multi/other category. In order to assess whether the survey had reached a representative sample of the Native Hawaiian community, persons who identified themselves in more than one category that included Native Hawaiian were only put in the “Native Hawaiian” category. Participants provided their age in an open-ended item on the survey. Age was treated as both continuous and as a categorical variable (18–34, 35–54, 55+); categories were consistent with previous research, with the exception of those under 18 (Leeworthy and Wiley 2001).

Ocean use variables

Ten ocean use and activity items were included as independent variables on the survey. Broad use categories included commercial, study/research, aesthetic, sustenance, and cultural practices; commercial use comprised of fishing, tour operation, or other ocean-related businesses. Cultural ocean use ranged from religious ceremonies to traditional ways of gaining sustenance. Specific ocean use in the survey listed activities common to the state of Hawaii including surfing, fishing, canoe paddling, and limu (algae) collecting. Some of the activities, such as limu collecting and canoe paddling, may serve more than one category, such as recreational, commercial, or cultural uses. Similar to race/ethnicity, ocean activities were given a score for participation of No = 0 and Yes = 1. Respondents could choose multiple use categories and activities, and had to indicate frequency within the last 3 years in order to be considered. Bivariate correlations were calculated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient to determine patterns of ocean use by demographic characteristics (see Tables 5 and 6).

Dependent variables

Four dependent variables were created by reducing the 29 OTPAS attitude items through a principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation. PCA is a multivariate technique used to simplify an analysis by reducing interrelated variables into a smaller set of uncorrelated variables, i.e., “factors,” while keeping the variation from the original set (Jolliffe 2002). By limiting the number of variables, the reduction of data using PCA aids in interpretation of the findings. In order to account for the most variance, only those factors with eigenvalues greater than one were included. Strong factor loadings (0.532–0.852) and a reliability assessment using Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from α = 0.734–0.954 confirm the internal consistency of each factor (see Table 2).
Table 2

Dependent variables: factors of ocean concerns, interest, and willingness to participate and factor loadings (N = 422)

Survey item

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Cron. alpha

Factor 1: crucial for ocean

    

0.923

 Crucial for ocean environment

     

  Endangered species

0.834

    

  Marine debris

0.826

    

  Coral health

0.819

    

  Land-based pollution

0.761

    

  Ocean acidification

0.760

    

  Recreational impact

0.744

    

  Climate change

0.721

    

  Sustainable fishing

0.699

    

  Invasive species

0.688

    

Factor 2: learning

    

0.954

 Interested in learning about

     

  Land-based pollution

 

0.808

   

  Endangered species

 

0.796

   

  Marine debris

 

0.782

   

  Invasive species

 

0.777

   

  Coral health

 

0.756

   

  Ocean acidification

 

0.750

   

  Climate change

 

0.717

   

Factor 3: participating

    

0.930

 Volunteer train

  

0.852

  

 Join organization

  

0.823

  

 Citizen science

  

0.795

  

 Discuss ocean issues

  

0.792

  

 Ocean course

  

0.781

  

 Beach cleanup

  

0.761

  

 Environment-friendly purchase

  

0.719

  

 Donate money

  

0.693

  

Factor 4: traditional practices

    

0.734

 Crucial preserving traditional practices

0.647

  

0.532

 

 Learning about preserving traditional practices/uses

 

0.589

 

0.577

 

Eigenvalue

13.18

4.041

1.876

1.126

 

Percentage of total variance

47.08

14.43

6.70

4.02

 
The attitude factors that comprise the dependent variables in this study include the following:
  1. Factor 1:

    Environmental issues are crucial for ocean conservation (M = 6.3, SD = 0.84). This variable reflects the degree that participants’ believe that selected environmental issues are crucial for the ocean environment in Hawaii.

     
  2. Factor 2:

    Interest in learning about ocean conservation issues (M = 5.94, SD = 1.2). This variable reflects the degree participants’ reported interest in learning more about the researcher-identified environmental issues that affect the ocean environment in Hawaii.

     
  3. Factor 3:

    Interest in participating in ocean conservation activities (M = 5.1, SD = 1.2). This interest variable is composed of nine items that range from participants reporting a willingness to change personal behaviors to more community oriented activities.

     
  4. Factor 4:

    Preserving traditional Practices as crucial to ocean conservation (M = 5.9, SD = 1.2). This variable reflects the degree of participants’ belief that preserving traditional practices are crucial for Hawaii’s ocean environment, and their interest in learning more about traditional practices as they relate to the ocean.

     

Data analysis

Categorical group differences were determined using descriptive statistics to make pairwise comparisons. Stepwise regression was used to create regression models to predict the relationship between gender, age, race/ethnicity, ocean use, and the environmental attitude factors (see Table 7). Using the SPSS standard stepwise regression, all independent demographic and ocean use variables were automatically added and removed into each model, stopping when variables not included in the model had p values less than or equal to 0.05. In these final models, only significant independent variables were included (p < 0.05). The R2 for each model is an indicator of the overall effect of the significant variables on the value of the dependent attitude factor and represents the percent of the variance (e.g., 0.15 = 15 %); for social survey research, a low R2 is common (often less than 0.25). Stepwise regression is appropriate for an exploratory analysis where the goal is to define significant prognosticators within a set of multiple predictors without having a theory to design your model. Pairwise deletion was also used for the missing data in the correlation analysis and list-wise deletion in the regression analysis, resulting in a smaller number of cases in those analyzed. In an examination of the missing data by gender, age, and race/ethnicity, no patterns were found.

Results

Participant characteristics

Demographics

Survey participants embody avid ocean users and consist of a representative sample of demographic groups in Hawaii (see Table 3). Men were overrepresented to a small degree in this sample (53 %), as were those who identified as White only (28 %) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (32 %). Those who identified as Asian only were underrepresented to a moderate degree (28 %). Those that identified as Hispanic/Latino (1.7 %) or Black (<1 %) were also underrepresented in this study; because of their low numbers in Hawaii, they were included in the Mult/other category. Participants in the age ranges of 18–34 (46 %) and 35–54 (36 %) were overrepresented in the sample, and those 55+ (13 %) were underrepresented.
Table 3

Demographic profile variables (N = 422)

 

Number

% Participants

% Hawaii populationa

Gender

 Female

196

47

49.6

 Male

224

53

50.4

 Missing

2

<0.1

Race/Ethnicity

 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

134

32

21 Nat. Haw; 4 Pac Isl.

 White

120

28

25

 Asian

117

28

38

 Other

30

7

12

 Missing

21

5

Age

 18–34

194

46

21

 35–54

152

36

27

 55+

55

13

27

 Missing

21

5

aStatistics taken from U.S. Census Bureau (2010)

Ocean use

Survey results demonstrated that participants were active ocean users (Table 4). Approximately 98 % of participants reported joining ocean-related activities at least a couple times per year in the previous three years, as compared to 43 % of the general population nationally (Leeworthy and Wiley 2001). Most participants explored the ocean recreationally (93 %), while approximately half used the ocean for sustenance or aesthetics. Other use categories included scientific (24 %), cultural practices (16 %), and commercial (10 %). The most common ocean activities were swimming (89 %), followed by wading (67 %), snorkeling (63 %), fishing (61 %), and surfing (46 %).
Table 4

Ocean use and activity variables (N = 422)

Variable

Number

% Participants

Ocean use

 Commercial

41

10

 Cultural

66

16

 Scientific

99

24

 Aesthetic

206

49

 Sustenance

213

51

 Recreation

390

93

Ocean activities

 Windsurfing

12

3

 Limu collecting

75

18

 Scuba

100

24

 SUP

155

37

 Canoe paddling

175

41

 Surfing

196

46

 Fishing

256

61

 Snorkel

264

63

 Wading

284

67

 Swimming

375

89

Missing

32

7

Men in this sample were more likely to use the ocean for sustenance r(414) = 0.153, p = 0.002, and all ocean activities except swimming and wading. The younger the participant, the more likely they were to use the ocean for aesthetic r(388) = −0.135, p = 0.008, scientific r(388) = −0.197, p = 000, or cultural reasons r(388) = −0.138, p = 0.006, and to swim r(388) = −0.141, p = 0.005, surf r(392) = −146, p = 0.004, stand up paddle r(392) = −137, p = 0.006, and snorkel r(392) = −122, p = 0.015. Asian respondents were more likely to fish r(395) = 0.247, p = 000, and less likely to participate in other ocean activities. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders were more likely to be active in sustenance r(399) = 0.181, p = 0.000 and cultural activities, and more likely to collect limu r(399) = 0.181, p = 0.000, swim r(399) = 0.101, p = 0.043, surf r(399) = 0.119, p = 0.018, paddle canoe r(399) = 0.106, p = 0.034, and fish r(399) = 0.211, p = 0.000. White respondents were less likely to use the ocean for cultural reasons, r(395) = −0.101, p = 0.047, and more likely to use it for aesthetic r(395) = 0.259, p = 0.000 and scientific purposes r(395) = 0.326, p = 0.000, as well as swim r(399) = 0.146, p = 0.003, scuba dive r(399) = 0.381, p = 0.000, and snorkel r(399) = 0.201, p = 0.000. While these correlations were significant, they were small and should therefore be interpreted with caution (Tables 5 and 6).
Table 5

Correlations of demographic and ocean use independent variables

 

Sustenance

Commercial

Cultural

Aesthetic

Scientific

Recreation

Gender (F = 0, M = 1)

0.153**

0.083

−0.016

−0.091

0.047

−0.059

Age

−0.011

−0.062

−0.138**

−0.135**

−0.197**

−0.071

Asian

0.003

−0.106*

−0.172**

−0.083

−0.097

−0.038

White

−0.228**

0.092

−0.100*

0.259**

0.326**

0.073

Nat Hawaiian/Pac Island

0.247**

−0.021

0.244**

−0.207**

−0.236**

−0.058

Positive correlation in gender indicates more males engaged in ocean use activity than females

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Table 6

Correlations of demographic and ocean activities independent variables

 

Swim

Wade

Surf

SUP

Canoe

Fishing

Limu collect

Windsurf

Scuba

Snorkel

Gender (F = 0, M = 1)

−0.060

−0.116*

0.205**

0.013

0.113*

0.200**

0.107*

0.103*

0.103*

0.141**

Age

−0.141**

−0.019

−0.146**

−0.137**

−0.089

0.042

0.019

0.000

−0.021

−0.122*

Asian

−0.241**

−0.038

−0.110*

−0.135**

−0.124*

0.110*

−0.060

−0.041

−0.196**

−0.207**

White

0.146**

0.008

0.007

0.057

0.007

−0.324**

−0.081

0.057

0.381**

0.201**

Nat Hawaiian/Pac Island

0.101*

0.050

0.119*

0.097

0.106*

0.211**

0.181**

0.010

−0.178**

−0.064

Positive correlation in gender indicates more males engaged in ocean use activity than females

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Regression models

The stepwise regressions resulted in four significant models presented in order of strength (see Table 7). Age, gender, and ocean use variables played noteworthy roles in accounting for variance in the attitude factor scores. Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander was the only significant race/ethnicity variable.
Table 7

Summary of stepwise regression models for variables predicting environmental attitude factors (N = 312)

 

Participate conservation activities

Crucial: environmental issues

Crucial: trad practices

Learn

Indep. variable

B

SE B

β

B

SE B

β

B

SE B

β

B

SE B

β

Gender (F = 0, M = 1)

−0.516

0.102

−0.264**

−0.234

0.112

−0.116*

Age

0.014

0.004

0.181**

Nat Haw/ Pac Islander

0.472

0.120

0.221**

0.408

0.120

.191**

Commercial

−0.507

0.184

−0.149**

Scientific

0.356

0.118

0.158**

Aesthetic

0.244

0.114

0.121*

Cultural

0.384

0.153

0.139*

Fishing

0.0291

0.112

0.143*

Surfing

0.421

0.109

0.216*

Swimming

0.396

0.162

0.127*

0.364

0.183

0.112*

Canoe

0.272

0.107

0.136*

0.275

0.112

0.135*

Snorkel

0.224

0.116

0.111*

R2

0.20

0.10

0.09

0.02

F

14.08**

8.31**

11.76**

4.83**

a0 = female ,1 = male; negative values indicate females are more likely to be interested or feel issues as more crucial

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

  1. Model 1:

    Willingness to participate in ocean conservation activities. Gender (β = −0.264, p = 0.000), Scientific activities (β = 0.158, p = 0.003), Surfing (β = 0.216, p = 0.000), Swimming (β = 0.127, p = 0.015), Canoe paddling (β = 0.136, p = 0.012), and Snorkeling (β = 0.111, p = 0.054) were all significant predictors of the factor Participate (R2 = 0.20, p < 0.01), with this model predicting approximately 20 % of the variance.

     
  2. Model 2:

    Degree environmental issues are crucial for ocean conservation. Gender (β = −0.116, p = 0.037), Age (β = 0.181, p = 0.002), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (β = 0.221, p = 0.000), Commercial ocean use (β = −0.149, p = 0.000), and Canoe paddling (β = 0.135, p = 0.014) were significant predictors of the Crucial Issues factor (R2 = 0.10, p < 0.01), with this model predicting approximately 10 % of the variance.

     
  3. Model 3:

    Preserving traditional practices as crucial to ocean conservation. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (β = 0.191, p < 0.001), Cultural Practices (β = 0.139, p = 0.013), and Fishing (β = 0.143, p = 0.010) were all significant predictors of Preserving Traditional Practices (R2 = 0.09, p < 0.01), with this model predicting 9 % of the variance.

     
  4. Model 4:

    Interest in learning about ocean conservation issues. Those participants who reported using the ocean for Aesthetic reasons (β = 0.121, p = 0.033) and Swimming (β = 0.112, p = 0.048) were significant predictors of the Learn factor (R2 = 0.02, p < 0.01), with this model predicting 2 % of the variance.

     

Discussion

The results of this study have applications for ocean science and conservation outreach. They suggest that sociodemographic characteristics in combination with ocean use variables are significant predictors of belief in the urgency of current environmental issues, interest in learning more about these issues, and willingness to participate in ocean conservation activities. These data can be used for more informed program development, particularly for Hawaii audiences. In Hawaii, many marine science community initiatives exist and the information presented in the OTPAS can help to augment programs to bring in new audiences by targeting specific kinds of participants. The COSEE Island Earth program is using this information to better understand community participation in marine science programming and to share with other organizations for improved community outreach. The outcomes of this survey will better inform community partners about specific groups such as young canoe paddlers that have interest in conservation, so that they can target their messages, improving efficiency and maximize impact.

Sociodemographic predictors of attitude towards ocean conservation

Consistent with past research (Howard and Parsons 2006), gender was a significant predictor of environmental attitudes. In this study, women reported a greater degree of importance for the environmental issues identified in the survey and were more interested in participating in ocean conservation activities, despite the fact that men were more likely to be involved in ocean use. More men may be encouraged to become involved in environmental outreach if participation opportunities were better aligned with men’s ocean use such as fishing activities. Several examples of this exist with recreational fishing contests for sustainable fish, or fishermen working with scientists to provide information and input on community-based fisheries management plans (Hartley and Robertson 2009). For women participants who are already more likely to value environmental issues, marine conservation programs should use specific promotions towards females, cueing existing interest to generate participation in specific conservation activities such as beach cleanups and community water quality monitoring programs. Targeting gender-specific recreational programs, such as canoe paddling or surfing teams and clubs, should also help reinforce conservation messaging for readily receptive audiences.

After accounting for other variables, age was another significant predictor in this study. As participants aged, they indicated greater concern for environmental issues related to ocean conservation. Again, this is similar to previous studies that imply older groups have more concern for the environment (Biodiversity Project 2002; Howard and Parsons 2006), suggesting a need for directed outreach relevant to specific age groups of ocean users. Older participants could be involved in ocean conservation programs that appeal to senior audiences, such as lectures and continuing education courses. This can be applied to existing Hawaii-based programs such as the Ocean Awareness Training (OAT),1 a marine conservation course for the community that encourages volunteerism. Generating new interest could be achieved by targeting volunteer organizations and clubs outside of marine conservation such as local chapters of Lions2 or Rotary3 clubs.

Younger participants demonstrated less interest in ocean conservation activities, justifying a more aggressive outreach plan targeting younger age groups supported by family and community. Several studies have shown that positive attitudes and involvement towards the environment is heavily influenced by childhood action experiences, coupled by encouragement from parents, friends, and communities (Arnold et al. 2009; Jensen 2002). A 2003 study performed by Volk and Cheak conducted on Molokai, Hawaii, showed that community involvement and values of Hawaiian culture helped to influence youth participation. One way to engage these younger groups may be to pair them with older ocean recreation participants, who have statistically shown to be more interested in marine conservation. Another can be through ocean recreation, specifically aiming messages at activities popular among youth such as surfing and standup paddling. Examples of this currently exist with ocean conservation organizations like Surfrider4 and Surf Aid.5

Survey participants who identified as Hawaiian and/or Pacific Islander showed the greatest belief in preserving traditional Hawaiian practices for ocean conservation and were more likely to use the ocean for cultural activities such as limu collecting. Given the strong cultural ties present in the survey, and the Hawaiian/Pacific Islander connection to place, not only are traditional practices important to ocean conservation but to the place-specific connection of survey participants. A growing awareness on the importance of place-based conservation and environmental education has occurred over the past decade, acknowledging the local context and specific socio-ecological dynamics that contribute to how individuals determine the value of conservation efforts (Williams et al. 2013). A place-based approach is important for ocean conservation outreach in Hawaii, whose unique ecology, diverse cultures, and opportunities for ocean engagement necessitates a localized, nuanced approach (Lemus et al. 2014).

Based on the results of the survey, COSEE plans to further develop outreach that includes traditional practices related to marine conservation. The importance of issues to the Native Hawaiian community combined with the growth in education programs surrounding traditional practices underscore the need to include culturally relevant education concepts. Activities tied to specific Hawaiian management techniques such as fish ponds may resonate with this group, helping to bridge the connection between cultural practices and ocean conservation.

Ocean use as predictor of attitude towards ocean conservation

In this study, ocean use was examined as one indicator of how participants related to the local ocean environment. The findings suggest that involvement in particular uses, whether they be commercial, scientific, cultural, or recreational has some relationship to participants’ attitudes towards ocean conservation. Outreach activities and programs targeted at raising interest and participation in ocean conservation may need to be developed for several distinct audiences. Commercial tour operators, for instance, may have different ways of participating in ocean conservation, such as putting up awareness posters on their boats or subscribing to eco-certifications. Recreation groups, on the other hand, who may do better with conservation efforts related to their sport (e.g., surfing tournament fundraiser). Recreation activities were the predominant ocean use type in Hawaii and proved to be significant predictors of reported importance of environmental issues and willingness to learn or participate in environmental activities. This is consistent with other studies that have linked participation in outdoor recreation activities to positive attitude and behavior changes towards the environment (Barker and Dawson 2010; Larson et al. 2011). Surfers, swimmers, and snorkelers were more likely to report interest in participating in ocean conservation activities, and swimmers were more likely to be interested in learning about ocean conservation issues. The underlying reasons for this distinction with swimmers are currently unclear, but may be related to the broader demographic variability of swimmers as a group in this survey.

Those who indicated participation in paddling activities scored significantly higher in valuing preservation of traditional practices for ocean conservation. This example illustrates that there can be overlapping uses for certain activities like paddling, which can be viewed as a recreational activity, cultural practice, or both. Canoe paddlers were also more likely to report that environmental issues in the survey were crucial to Hawaii conservation and were more interested in participating in ocean conservation. Canoe paddling is a highly social activity with clubs and competitions throughout the state. Given these findings, focusing on paddlers and their organizations may prove to broaden local environmental outreach. COSEE Island Earth has begun partnering with ocean conservation organizations such as Eyes of the Reef6 to provide educational outreach programming at paddling competitions.

Many participants also reported professional use of the ocean; ocean scientists were more interested than other marine-related career groups in engaging in ocean conservation activities. It may be that conservation work is a part of their profession, or that they have an understanding of the negative impact of issues such as climate change or ocean acidification. If true, then this argues for including scientists in ocean conservation outreach activities, as well as extending research opportunities to the community through citizen science-type activities (Barlow et al. 2015; Crain et al. 2014; Thorson et al. 2014). Allowing community members to develop a close relationship to their environment through science may change their relationship to the ocean and in turn support a change in their habits. In contrast, those participants who used the ocean commercially were significantly less likely to report that the environmental issues in the survey were crucial to Hawaii ocean conservation. Since commercial operators often introduce individuals to ocean recreation, this is an important group to better target for marine conservation messaging and provide educational opportunities. More research is needed to explore these differences in perceived urgency of ocean environmental issues, but as a first step towards encouraging this user group, COSEE Island Earth recently provided a 10-week ocean communication workshop for tour operators in the Kona district of Hawaii Island.

Limitations to the study

All efforts to survey a heterogeneous section of the population were made when designing the study; however, since participants already had existing interest in ocean recreation (as a result of being at the Ocean Expo) and were 97.1 % local, an inherent bias in the study population must be acknowledged. Marino et al. (2010) recommend the incorporation of participant comparison groups when working with a nonrandom sample. Unfortunately, due to the time and financial limitations, no additional sampling was completed. However, the survey was distributed over a 2-year period to capture variation from year to year in the expo participants, and the survey was shared with other marine education partners on different Hawaiian Islands for distribution and use. As noted earlier, an additional sampling bias may also be at work due to the nonrandom nature of survey distribution without a control sample, and the number of surveys that were not included in analysis because they were not complete. For instance, those individuals who did not complete their survey may overall be less interested in ocean conservation issues. Additionally, all ocean enthusiasts that were sampled had the socioeconomic means to pay admission for the expo ($7) and had to live or reside within traveling distance to where the event was held. While appropriate for an exploratory study, findings from stepwise regression should be viewed with caution because of the possibility of overestimating significance tests. For these reasons, generalization of these finding should be made carefully.

Conclusions

These findings help to support the premise that an individual’s background, including how they engage with the ocean, can predict their attitude towards ocean conservation, and their willingness to participate in conservation activities. With a clearer understanding of these relationships, marine educators can better focus outreach and support change towards more conservation-minded practices. This study has implications for universities, nonprofits, government agencies, and especially for those organizations who seek to target a specific location or issue. The research presented can also be used to help evaluate how best to inform various sectors of the public and encourage broader participation in future ocean conservation. These preliminary results are already providing valuable information for guiding the efforts of COSEE Island Earth and other educational outreach providers in Hawaii.

Footnotes

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research would not have been possible without the generous funding the National Science Foundation Grant No. OCE1039352 and the University of Hawaii.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2004) Survey of American adults attitudes and opinions of marine issues. www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/aaas_survey_report.pdf. Accessed on 20 January 2014
  2. Arnold HE, Cohen FG, Warner A (2009) Youth and environmental action: perspectives of young environmental leaders on their formative influences. J Environ Educ 40:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker L, Dawson C (2010) Exploring the relationship between outdoor recreation activities, community participation, and environmental attitudes. Proceedings of the 2010 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-94. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr-p-94papers/28barker-p94.pdf Accessed on 22 March 2015
  4. Barlow KE, Briggs PA, Hayson KA, Hutson AM, Lechiara NL, Racey PA, Walsh AL, Langton SD (2015) Citizen science reveals trends in bat populations: The national bat monitoring programme in Great Britain. Biol Conserv 182:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biodiversity Project (2002) Americans and biodiversity: new perspectives in 2002. Belden Russonello and Stewart, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Census Bureau (2010) Census Summary File 1, Tables QT-P8 and QT-P9; extracted by the Hawaii State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Hawaii State Data Center. Accessed on 20 January 2014Google Scholar
  7. Chipman B, Helfrich H (1988) Recreational specialization and motivations of Virginia river anglers. N Am J Fish Manag 8:390–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cottrell SP (2003) Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environ Behav 35:347–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crain R, Cooper C, Dickinson JL (2014) Citizen science: a tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39:641–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dennis S, Zube EH (1988) Voluntary association membership of outdoor recreationists: an exploratory study. Leis Sci: Interdiscip J 10:229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamnett MP, Liu M, Johnson DB (2004) Fishing, ocean recreation, and threats to Hawaii’s coral reefs: Results from a December 2004 household survey. The Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  12. Hartley TW, Robertson RA (2009) Stakeholder collaboration in fisheries research: integrating knowledge among fishing leaders and science partners in northern New England. Soc Nat Resour 22:42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howard C, Parsons ECM (2006) Attitudes of Scottish city inhabitants to cetacean conservation. Biodivers Conserv 15:4335–4356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunter L, Hatch M, Johnson A (2004) Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Soc Sci Q 85:677–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacobs MH, Harms M (2014) Influence of interpretation on conservation intentions of whale tourists. Tour Manag 42:123–131Google Scholar
  16. Jensen BB (2002) Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behavior. Environ Educ Res 8:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jolliffe IT (2002) Principal component analysis, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Kauffman R (1984) The relationship between activity specialization and resource related attitudes and expected rewards for canoeists. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  19. Klineberg SL, McKeever M, Rothenbach B (1998) Demographic predictors of environmental concern: It does make a difference how it's measured. Soc Sci Q 79:734–753Google Scholar
  20. Larson LR, Whiting JW, Green GT (2011) Exploring the influence of outdoor recreation participation on pro-environmental behaviour in a demographically diverse population. Local Environ 16:67–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lazarow N, Miller ML, Blackwell B (2008) The value of recreational surfing to society. Tour Mar Environ 5:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leeworthy VR, Wiley PC (2001) Preliminary estimates from versions 1-6: Coastal recreation participation, national survey on recreation and the environment (NSRE) 2000. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office. www.srs.fs.fed.us/trends/nsresum.html. Accessed on 20 January 2014
  23. Lehto XL, O’Leary JT, Morrison AM (2004) The effect of prior experience on vacation behavior. Ann Tour Res 31:801–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lemus JD, Seraphin KD, Coopersmith A, Correa CKV (2014) Infusing traditional knowledge and ways of knowing into science communication courses at the University of Hawai‘i. J Geosci Educ 61:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luksenburg JA, Parsons ECM (2014) Attitudes towards marine mammal conservation issues before the introduction of whale-watching: a case study in Aruba (southern Caribbean). Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 24:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lynch BD (1993) The garden and the sea: U.S. Latino environmental discourses and mainstream environmentalism. Soc Probl 40:108–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marino L, Lilienfeld SO, Malamud R, Nobis N, Broglio R (2010) Do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American zoo and aquarium study. Soc Anim 18:126–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meisel-Lusby C, Cottrell S (2008) Understanding motivations and expectations of scuba divers. Tour Mar Environ 5:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ocean Commission PEW (2003) Americas living oceans: charting a course for sea change, recommendations for new ocean policy. PEW Ocean Commission, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PacIOOS) (2013) Voyager Project Map Data. University of Hawaii, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  31. Pearson M (1994) Saving the wave: San Franciscan‘s love of surfing is an environmental passion. ABA J 80:79Google Scholar
  32. Peterson M, Hull N, Mertig V, Jianguo AG, Jianguo L (2008) Evaluating household-level relationships between environmental views and outdoor recreation: the Teton Valley case. Leis Sci 30:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sheppard D, McNeely JA (1997) Education and protected areas: a perspective from the IUCN. In: Hale WHG, Carvalho C, Hale WH (eds) Environmental Education in Protected Areas. Parthenon Publishers, New York, pp 139–147Google Scholar
  34. Steel BS, Smith C, Opsommer L, Curiel S, Warner-Steel R (2005) Public ocean literacy in the United States. Ocean Coast Manag 48:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thapa B (2010) The mediation effect of outdoor recreation participation on environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. J Environ Educ 41:133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thapa B, Graefe AR, Meyer LA (2005) Moderator and mediator effects of scuba diving specialization on marine-based environmental knowledge-behavior contingency. J Environ Educ 7:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. The Ocean Project (2009) America, the ocean, and climate change: new research insights for conservation, awareness, and action – results of a national survey. http://theoceanproject.org/communication-resources/market-research/reports/. Accessed on 20 January 2014
  38. Thorson JT, Scheuerell MD, Semmens BX, Pattengill-Semmens CV (2014) Demographic modeling of citizen science data informs habitat preferences and population dynamics of recovering fishes. Ecology 95:3251–3258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) Ocean blueprint for the 21st century. http://oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/00b_executive_summary.pdf. Accessed on 20 January 2014
  40. Volk TL, Cheak MJ (2003) The effects of an environmental education program on students, parents, and community. J Environ Educ 34:12–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Westdal KH, Higdon JW, Ferguson SH (2013) Attitudes of Nunavut Inuit toward killer whales (Orcinus orca). Arctic 66:279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whittaker M, Segura GM, Bowler S (2005) Racial/ethnic group attitudes toward environmental protection in California: is “environmentalism” still a white phenomenon? Political Res Q 58:435–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams DR (2008) Place concepts, theories, and philosophies in natural resource management. In: Kruger L (ed) Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management, general technical report. USDA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams DR, Steward WP, Kruger LE (2013) The emergence of place-based conservation. In: Stewart WP et al (eds) Place-based conservation: perspectives from the social sciences. Springer Science, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlie S. Wiener
    • 1
    • 2
  • Genevieve Manset
    • 3
  • Judith D. Lemus
    • 1
  1. 1.COSEE Island EarthUniversity of HawaiiKaneoheUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Environmental StudiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Literacy ServicesHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations