Article
PsychologicalPathwaystoOceanConservation:AStudyof MarineMammalParkVisitors
JoãoNeves 1,* ,Jean-ChristopheGiger 2,3 ,JoãoOliveira 1,LeonorPacheco 1,GuilhermeGonçalves 1 , AnaA.Silva 1 andInêsCosta 1
1 DepartmentofScienceandConservation,ZoomarineAlgarve,8201-864Albufeira,Portugal
2 PsychologyResearchCentre(CIP),UniversityofAlgarve,8005-139Faro,Portugal;jhgiger@ualg.pt
3 FacultyofHumanandSocialSciences,UniversityofAlgarve,CampusdeGambelas,8005-139Faro,Portugal
* Correspondence:jpcneves@gmail.com
Citation: Neves,J.;Giger,J.-C.; Oliveira,J.;Pacheco,L.;Gonçalves,G.; Silva,A.A.;Costa,I.Psychological PathwaystoOceanConservation:A StudyofMarineMammalPark Visitors. J.Zool.Bot.Gard. 2024, 5, 465–480. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jzbg5030031
AcademicEditor:AshleyN.Edes
Received:6June2024
Revised:30July2024
Accepted:30July2024
Published:1August2024
Copyright: © 2024bytheauthors. LicenseeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland. Thisarticleisanopenaccessarticle distributedunderthetermsand conditionsoftheCreativeCommons Attribution(CCBY)license(https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
Abstract: Thisstudyinvestigatedthepsychologicalconstructsrelatedtooceanconservationamong visitorstoamarinemammalparkinPortugal.Asurveywasconductedwith335adultvisitors, assessingvalueorientations,awarenessofoceanvulnerability,attributionofresponsibility,personal norms,andbehavioralintentionstowardsoceanconservation.Theresultsrevealedtwodistinct attitudinalprofilesamongthevisitors.‘Anthropocentricvisitors’prioritizehumaninterestsover environmentalconcerns,alongwithheightenedawarenessoftheocean’svulnerabilityandgreater ascriptionofresponsibilitytohumansforenvironmentalproblems.‘Ecocentricvisitors’recognizethe intrinsicworthofnature,reportingdeeperawarenessoftheconsequencesofenvironmentalissues ontheocean,morerobustpersonalnormscenteredonmoralobligationstowardsconservationand higherbehavioralintentionstosupportoceanconservation.Comparedtowhale-watchingtourists fromapreviousstudy,thezoovisitorsexhibitedmorepolarizedanthropocentricandecocentric profiles,suggestingthewhale-watchingtouristsfellsomewherebetweenthetwozoovisitorprofilesintheirpsychologicalorientations.Thesecontrastingprofilesemphasizetheheterogeneityin environmentalattitudesandhighlighttheimportanceoftailoringinterventionstoresonatewiththe distinctpsychologicalmotivationsofdifferentaudiencesegments.Institutionslikezooscanplaya vitalroleinshapingpublicattitudesthroughtargetedcommunicationstrategiesalignedwithvisitors’ uniquevaluesystemsandbeliefs.
Keywords: theory;nature-basedtourism;zoo;oceanconservation;behavioralintentions;anthropocentricvalues;biocentricvalues;marineconservation;marinepark
1.Introduction
Scientificunderstandingandculturalperceptionsoftheoceanhaveevolvedsignificantlyovertime,potentiallyinfluencingpublicawarenessofmarineconservationissues[1]. Whilepinpointingthischangeinthepublicawarenessischallenging,publicattention toandworryaboutmarineconservationhavedemonstrablyriseninrecenttimes[2,3]. Severalfactorshavecontributedtothisshift,includingincreasedoverallknowledgeof environmentalissuesbythegeneralsociety,aswellasrecentandrelevantadvancesin marineandearthscience.Socialmediaandothersourcesofinternet-basedinformation havealsoplayedanincreasinglyrelevantroleindisseminatingnewsonmanyglobal conservation-relatedissues[4].Alongwiththese,mediacoveragehasalsocontributedto raisingawarenessoftheoceanthroughincreasinglyavailabledocumentaries,newsreports andcampaignsaboutthedirestateoftheoceans[5].Addedtoallthese,increasedefforts toclosethegapbetweenscienceandthelaypersonbycommunicatingrecentadvancesin sciencetothepublicinsimplerandmorecomprehensibleformshavehelpedshapepublic opinionandincreasesupportformarineconservationmeasures[6].Asaresult,public interestincreased,alongwithpublicunderstandingofoceanissues,encouragingpeople
tomakeconsciouseffortstoreducetheirimpactonmarineecosystems.Overall,public opiniononmarineconservationhasevolvedfromarelativelyspecificandrestrictedrealm toamainstreamissuethat,today,attractswidespreadattentionandsupport[7].Growing awarenessofthecriticalroleoftheoceansinmaintainingahealthyplanethasstrengthened effortstoaddresschallengesandintroducesustainablesolutionstoprotectthem.
Since2013,significantinternationalattentionhasbeendirectedtowardstheoceans andtheirprotectionasafundamentalelementfortheplanet’sfuture[8].Anexampleof thisistheOceanDecade(2021–2030),recentlyestablishedbytheUnitedNations,where globaleffortstoeducatepeopleontheoceansisafundamentalgoal[9].Thisincreasing awarenessoftheneedtoprotecttheoceans,asprojectedbytheUnitedNations,aimsto changethewayweinteractwiththiscrucialelementofplanetaryecology.
1.1.OtherPromotersofOceanAwareness
Smallerinsizecomparedtootherglobalcontributors,yetsignificantininfluencing localandregionalcommunities,nature-basedtourismsuchaswhale-watchingtoursand zoosandaquariumshaveplayedameaningfulroleinshapingpublicperspectivesaboutthe preservationoftheocean.Whale-watchingcompaniesstrivetoeducateandraiseawareness amongvisitorsaboutmarineecosystems,conservationchallenges,andtheimportance ofsafeguardingoceans.Byprovidingopportunitiesforpeopletowitnessmarinelife upclose,theseventuresfosteremotionalconnectionsthatnurtureempathyandconcern foroceanwell-being,inspiringtouriststotakeproactivestepstowardsenvironmental conservation[10,11].Zoosandaquariumshavealsoincreasinglyrecognizedtheimportance ofconservationawarenessandeducationintheirmissiontopromoteconservationand environmentalstewardship[12].Manyoftheseinstitutions,especiallythosethataremarine focused,gobeyondshowcasingmarinelife,aimingtoactivelyengagevisitorsinocean conservationefforts.Manyoptforimmersingvisitorsintheunderwaterworld,through exhibitsthatfeaturerealistichabitats,marinelifereplicas,andengagingdisplaysthat showcasethediversityandfragilityofoceanecosystems.Interactiveelementssuchastouch poolsandothertechnologymaterials(screens,displays,games,tablets,etc.)areknownto helpvisitorsemotionallyconnectandengagewithmarinelifeandbetterunderstandocean conservationchallenges(e.g.,[13,14]).Throughthetailoringofeducationalprograms, workshops,andguidedtoursfocusedonoceanconservation,cateringtovisitorsofallages, theseinvolvingapproachescoverandengagevisitorsontopicssuchasmarinebiodiversity, climatechange’simpactonoceans,plasticpollution,andsustainablefishingpractices (e.g.,[15,16]).
Inthepublicsphere,thesenature-basedtouristattractions,byengagingmediaattention,couldfurtherstimulatethedebateonoceanprotection.Inaddition,witnessingin personthebiodiversityandvulnerabilitiesofmarinelifethroughwhalewatching,zoo visitsandaquariumsmayinspirepeopletoassumemoreeco-friendlybehaviorsandback sustainablepractices.
1.2.ThePsychologicalPathbeforeAction
Gainingadeepercomprehensionofthepsychologicalfactorsthatshapepeople’s intentionsregardingoceanconservationisvital.Withsuchknowledge,organizationscan devisespecificinterventionsandapproachesthateffectivelymotivateenvironmentally responsiblebehavior.Byleveragingsuchinsights,institutionscanstrategicallydesigncommunicationcampaigns,educationalinitiatives,andpolicyinstrumentsaimedatbridging thegapbetweenintentionsandactions.Ultimately,thisfacilitatescultivatingamoresustainablerelationshipbetweenhumansocietiesandtheoceans.Harmsetal.[8]investigated thepsychologicalpathofwhalewatchtoursontheparticipants’behavioralintentionsto protecttheoceans.Twocomplementarytheoreticalframeworkswereatthefoundation ofHarmsetal.’s[8]study,i.e.,thecognitivehierarchymodelforhumanbehaviorand theValue–Belief–Norm(VBN)theory.Althoughbothmodelssharecommonelements suchasvaluesandnorms,theydifferintermsofcomplexity,structureandemphasis.As
describednext,thecognitivehierarchymodelprovidesamoredetailedprogressionof decisionmaking,whileVBNtheoryfocusesmoreexplicitlyontheroleofsocialnormsand beliefsaboutenvironmentalimpactsinshapingpro-environmentalbehavior.Thecognitive hierarchymodeloutlinestheprogressionofhumanbehavior,movingfrominternalmental constructstoobservableactions[17](Figure 1).
Cognitivehierarchymodelofhumanbehavior(adaptedfromSchultzandZelezny[18]).
Itconsistsofseveralinterconnectedcomponentsoftheindividual,namely,values, valueorientations,norms,attitudes,behavioralintentionswhichwillshapethefinalbehavior.Atthebaseofthemodelarethevalues,whicharebroad,abstractidealsorprinciples thatguideaperson’sbeliefsaboutwhatisimportantanddesirable.Theyserveasfoundationalconceptsshapingone’sperceptionof,amongothers,theenvironmentalissues,and theirsignificance.Valuesarefollowedbyvalueorientations,whichareclustersofrelated valuesthatformaperson’soverallworldvieworbeliefsystem.Valueorientationsprovide aframeworkforinterpretingtheseenvironmentalissuesanddecidinghowtoengage withthem.Normsaresociallyacceptedstandardsorrulesofbehaviorthatreflectshared valuesandvalueorientations.Theyshapehowindividualsperceiveappropriateactions andbehaviorsinrelationtotheenvironment,asinfluencedbytheircultural,social,and peercontexts.Attitudesrepresentanindividual’sevaluationsorfeelingstowardsspecific aspectsoftheenvironment.Theyareinfluencedbythepreviousconstructs,andtheyplay acrucialroleindetermininghowonerespondsemotionallytoenvironmentalconcerns. Anindividual’sbehavioralintentionsrepresenttheirconsciousplansandmotivationsto engageinspecificenvironmentalconduct.Theseintentionsserveasacriticallinkbetween one’sattitudesandtheiractualbehaviors,signalingareadinesstoactinaparticularmanner.Ultimately,behaviorsthemselvesaretheobservableactionsandchoicespeoplemake throughtheirinteractionswiththeenvironment.Theyareprecededandinfluencedby alltheotherconstructs,andtheyreflecttheculminationofthesecognitiveandemotional factors[18].Usinganexample,letusconsidertheseparationofhouseholdwaste.Atthe core,peoplemayhavedeep-rootedvaluesrelatedtoenvironmentalstewardship.These valuesshapetheirvalueorientations,leadingtoabiocentricviewoftheworld,seeing humanbeingsasanintegralpartofnature.Inaddition,intheircommunity,certainnorms havedevelopedaroundthesesharedvalues—everyoneisexpectedtoseparatehousehold waste.
Influencedbythesenormsandtheirvalueorientations,theydeveloppositiveattitudes towardsseparation,seeingitasaneffectivewayofcontributingtoenvironmentalprotection. Theseattitudes,inturn,fosterbehavioralintentions.Intheend,andalreadyatthetop ofthehierarchicalmodel,theseintentionsmanifestthemselvesasobservablebehaviors, separatingrecyclablewasteandplacingitinthecorrectcontainers.Thesecondtheoretical frameworkistheVBNtheory,firstdevelopedbySternetal.[19].Itseekstoexplain pro-environmentalbehaviorbyexaminingtheconnectionsbetween,asthenameimplies,
Figure1.
values,beliefs,andsocialnorms(Figure 2).Thistheoryproposesacausalrelationship betweenthreefactors,influencingindividuals’pro-environmentalbehaviors.
Figure2. Value–Belief–Normtheory(adaptedfromSternetal.[19]).
Thefirstreferstoanindividual’scorevaluesthatshapeitsoverallworldviewand priorities.Thesevaluesserveasfundamentalguidingprinciplesinaperson’slifeandact asthestartingpointforthecausalchain.Thesecorevaluesdirectlyinformandshape anindividual’sbeliefsregardingenvironmentalconsequences.Thiscausalrelationship influenceshowapersonperceivesandinterpretsinformationaboutenvironmentalissues.Environmentalbeliefs,inturn,affectanindividual’sperceptionsofsocialnorms surroundingenvironmentalaction.Thisconnectionshapesanindividual’sunderstandingoftheenvironmentalsituationandinfluenceshowanindividualinterpretsactions thatareexpectedorapprovedbysociety.Whenaperson’scorevaluesandbeliefsalign withsupportingeco-consciousactions,andtheyviewsuchpro-environmentalbehaviors associallyacceptedandexpected,theyexhibitahigherlikelihoodofengaginginthose environmentallyresponsiblepractices.
Letusconsiderthesameexampleofsortinghouseholdwaste.Atthebeginning areone’svalues—theydeeplyappreciateenvironmentalprotectionandbelieveinthe importanceofsustainableliving.Thesevaluesinformtheirbeliefsabouttheworld.Inthis case,theybelievethatincorrectwastedisposalcontributessignificantlytoenvironmental pollution.Thecombinationofthesevaluesandbeliefsleadstothedevelopmentofpersonal norms—theywilldisplayastrongsenseofpersonalobligationtoactivelyseparateand reducetheirwasteproduction.Thesepersonalnorms,shapedbyvaluesandbeliefs,end upguidingbehavior.Asaresult,theyconstantlyengageinseparationpracticesand consciouslytrytominimizetheireverydaywasteproduction.
Groundedinthesetwocomplementingtheoreticalframeworks,Harmsetal.developedaconceptualmodelofthepsychologicalconstructspredictingthewhalewatchers’ pathfromvaluestobehavioralintentions[8].Themodelproposesthatwhalewatchers’ biocentricvalueorientationsandproblemawarenesswillinfluencetheunderstandingof theimpactofhuman-inducedactivitiesonthemarineenvironment(awarenessofconsequences).This,inturn,leadstoincreasedacknowledgmentofpersonalresponsibilityfor one’sownactionsaffectingthemarineenvironment(ascriptionofresponsibility),followed byastrongerpersonalcommitmenttosafeguardingthemarineenvironment(personal norm),ultimatelyleadingtoapositiveinfluenceontheintentiontoactivelysupportmarine conservation(Figure 3).
Figure3. Conceptualmodel,adaptedfromHarmsetal.[8],withtheseveralconstructsinfluencing theintentiontoactivelysupportmarineconservationfromwhalewatchers.
1.3.StudyObjectives
Thisresearchinvestigatedtheattitudes(encompassingvalues,beliefs,andnorms)that asampleoftouristsatamarinemammalpark(henceforth,zoovisitors)heldtowardsthe ocean.Lookingmorecloselyatthepsychologicalconstructswithinthevisitors’sample, wesoughtouttoidentifypossiblevisitors’profilesregardingtheseconstructs,aswell asexaminepossiblecorrelationsbetweenthepsychologicalconstructsunderstudy.Additionally,wealsoaimedtocompareiftheseattitudinalprofilesdifferedfromthoseof whale-watchingtourists(henceforth,whalewatchers)studiedbyHarmsetal.[8].
2.MaterialsandMethods
2.1.Sampling
Participantswerealladultsandsystematicallyselectedfromdifferentrestingareas ofthezoo,witheverythirdvisitorbeingchosenforparticipation,followingasystematic randomsamplingapproach.DatawerecollectedatZoomarineAlgarve,amarinemammal parklocatedinsouthernPortugal.Thisstudyranforatotalof60non-consecutivedays. Samplingdayswererandomlyselectedtoensureequalrepresentativenessofweekdays. Anaverageof6surveyswerecollectedeachday,eitherinthemorningorintheafternoon. Participationfollowedtheethicalstandardstowardsresearchonhumansasrequiredby thehostinstitutionandapprovedbyitsScienceCommittee(projectnumberZM_2022ID04). Allsubjectswereinformedabouttheirrightsforparticipation,thepossibilitytostop participationatanymomentwithnoharm.Aninformedconsentformwassignedby allparticipants,statingtheirvoluntaryandanonymousparticipation.Theywerealso informedabouttheethicalprinciplesofconfidentialityandanonymityinresearchstudies. AllproceduresperformedinthisstudywereinaccordancewiththeAmericanPsychological Association(APA)ethicalprinciplesandthePortugueseregulationfordataprotection.
2.2.ProcedureandInstruments
Visitorswereaskedtoansweraquestionnairewheninsidethezoo.Thequestionnaire wasoriginallyadaptedfromHarmsetal.’s[8]studyonthecausalrelationshipbetween whalewatchexperience,awhalewatcher’sawarenessofproblemsandtheirconsequences tofostersupportformarineconservation(forthecompletesetofquestionsused,see TableS1).Participantswerepromptedtoansweraquestionnaireabouttheirpersonal relationwiththeocean.Forbetterflowandengagement,thequestionnairewasdivided intofoursections.Section 1 correspondedtogeneraldemographicquestions(gender,age, countryofresidenceandeducation).Italsoincludedaquestionaboutthemainreason forvisitingthezoo,aimingtounderstandthemainmotivationforthevisit.Theavailable optionswereticketprice(pricesensitivityofvisitors),reputation(impactofthezoo’spublic imageonvisitation),lackofotheralternativesforobservinganimals(ifthezooisseenasa uniqueattractioninthearea),affiliationwithconservationorganizations(ifconservation effortsinfluencevisitation)andotherreasons.Participantswereaskedtochooseonlyone option.
Sections 2–4 correspondedtothepsychologicalconstructsunderstudy.Section 2 was entitled“TheOceanandHumans”andincludedtheAnthropocentricValueOrientations (3items)andBiocentricValueOrientations(3items)variables.Section 3 wasentitled“The OceanandMarineLife”andincludedtheAwarenessofOcean’sVulnerability(3items)and AwarenessofConsequences(3items)variables.Thelastsectionwasentitled“TheOcean andMe”andincludedtheAscriptionofResponsibility(2items),BehavioralIntention (1item)andPersonalNorm(1item)variables.Noitemswerereversecoded.
Participantswereaskedtoindicate,onLikertscale,towhichextenttheyagreed ordisagreedwithasetofstatements.Responsesrangedfrom1—stronglydisagreeto 7—stronglyagreeandincludedanon-substantiveresponseoption(4—neutral).
2.3.DataAnalysis
Toensuretherobustnessandvalidityofthisstudy’smainfindings,agenerallinear model(GLM)analysiswasperformedtocontrolforthepotentialconfoundingeffectsof gender,age,andeducation.Thesevariableswerechosenastheyarecommonfactorsthat couldinfluencetheresultsofthisstudy.Nosignificanteffectwasfoundaftercontrolling forthesevariables.
Normalityassumptionsweremetbyanalyzingskewnessandkurtosisvalues.AllvalueswerebelowthethresholdrecommendedbyCurranetal.[20](i.e.,2and7,respectively). Allvariablesdisplayedgoodinternalreliability(allCronbachalphas>0.60).One-sample t-testanalysiswasperformedbetweeneachvariableandthemiddlepointofthescale(3.5).
Toidentifypossiblevisitors’profiles,ak-meansclusteranalysiswasperformedusing SPSS(version26.0).TheanalysisusedLloyd’salgorithmwithEuclideandistanceasthe similaritymeasure.Initialclustercenterswereselectedasthefirstkcasesinthedata (maximumnumberofiterationswassetto10,andtheconvergencecriterionwasset to0,ensuringthatall10iterationswereperformed).Caseswithmissingvaluesonany clusteringvariablewereexcludedfromtheanalysis.Todefinethenumberofclusters,afirst factoranalysiswascarriedouttodefinetheeigenvalues.Forthis,aPrincipalComponents AnalysisusingSPSS(version26.0)withdefaultsettingswasperformed.Theseeigenvalues werethencomparedwiththosedefinedbyaparallelanalysis.O’Connor’s[21]syntax wasused,wheretheidealnumberofclusterstoanalyzewillbethosewhoseobserved eigenvaluesarehigherthanthoseobtainedatrandom.Thenumberofclusterswasthenset to2(maximumnumberofiterationswaslimitedto10andtheconvergencecriterionwas setto0).Theclusteringvariablesusedwereallconstructsexceptthedependentvariable (BehavioralIntention).AnANOVAanalysiswasthenperformedbetweeneachconstruct andclusterstocheckfordifferences.Thedependentvariablewasthenlinearlyregressed consideringtheidentifiedclusters,accountingalsoforreportedgenderandage.Theenter methodwasusedforvariableselection.Allassumptionsweremet.Pearson’scorrelation analysiswasperformedtoexaminepossiblecorrelationsbetweenallpairsofpsychological constructsunderstudy.Allanalyseswereconductedusinga0.05thresholdforstatistical significance.
AnANOVAanalysis(α =0.05)wasperformedtocheckfordifferencesbetweenthe differenttouristprofiles(visitorsandwhalewatchers)foreachpsychologicalconstruct understudy.Tukey’sHSDtestformultiplecomparisons(α =0.05)wasperformedforeach construct.
3.Results
3.1.SurveySampleDescription
Aresponseratelogwasmaintainedthroughoutthisstudy,showingaparticipation rateof78%.Thefinalsamplewascomposedof46.9%maleparticipants(meanage=40.85; SD =10.55)and52.8%femaleparticipants(meanage=35.80; SD =10.69).Mostparticipants hadacollegedegree(55.8%),followedbyhighschoolgraduates(38.5%),andasmaller proportionwithbasicschooleducation(5.7%).Thisstudyincludedparticipantsfrom variouscountries,withthehighestrepresentationfromPortugal(46%),followedbytheUK (28.4%)andIreland(11.9%).Participantsreportedthemostcommonreasonforvisiting thepark’sreputation(46.6%).Onlyasmallnumbercitedprice(4.8%),affiliationwith conservationorganizations(4.8%),andlackofotheralternatives(3.3%)asmotivationfor visiting.(Table 1 fordetaileddemographicdescription.)
Table1. Demographicdescriptionoftheparticipants.
3.2.GeneralVisitorAttitudinalProfile
Table 2 showsthemeanscores(M)andstandarddeviations(SD)obtainedinthe visitors’sampleofthepresentstudy.Visitorsreportedrelativelylowanthropocentricvalue orientations(M =3.17onascaleof7),differingsignificantlyfromthemiddlepointofthe scale(t = 3.674, p <0.01),suggestingatendencyofnotprioritizinghumaninterestsover environmentalconcerns.Visitorsreportedrelativelyhighbiocentricvalueorientations (M =5.90; t =34.166, p <0.01),indicatingastronginclinationtovaluenatureandecosystems fortheirintrinsicvalue;however,theyreportedalowawarenessoftheocean’svulnerability (M =2.13; t = 17.771, p <0.01),buthighawarenessoftheconsequencesofenvironmental issues(M =5.79, t =32.931, p <0.01).Theyalsoreportedamoderateascriptionofpersonal responsibilitytoaddresstheseissues(M =3.59),beingtheonlyvariablenotsignificantly differentfromthemiddlepointofthescale(t =1.027, p =0.31).Visitorsalsoreported highpersonalnorms(M =5.70; t =28.102, p <0.01)andequallyhighbehavioralintentions (M =5.99; t =36.144, p <0.01),suggestingastrongsenseofmoralobligationandwillingness totakeactiontoprotecttheoceans.
Table2. Descriptivestatisticsofthevariablesforzoovisitors.**=themeandiffersfromthemiddle pointofthescaleat p <0.01(one-sample t-test).
AnthropocentricValueOrientations3353.17**(1.62) 3.674<0.001
BiocentricValueOrientations3355.90**(1.28)34.166<0.001
AwarenessofOcean’sVulnerability3352.13**(1.41) 17.771<0.001
AwarenessofConsequences3355.79**(1.27)32.9310.000
AscriptionofResponsibility3353.59(1.62)1.0270.305
PersonalNorm3355.70**(1.43)28.102<0.001
BehavioralIntentions3355.99**(1.26)36.144<0.001
3.3.DifferentVisitors’Profiles
Theresultsoftheclusteranalysisclearlyidentifiedtwodistinctvisitorprofilesbased ontheirresponsestothepsychologicalconstructsassessedinthisstudy.Figure 4 shows thefinalclustercenters,withtheZscorevaluesofeachconstruct.
Figure4. Comparisonofpsychologicalconstructsbetweentwovisitorclusters:Anthropocentric (Cluster1)vs.Ecocentric(Cluster2).ClusterCentersobtainedafterk-meansanalysis.
Cluster1,consistingof114cases,exhibitedhighermeanscoresforAnthropocentric ValueOrientations,suggestingastrongerbeliefinhumansuperiorityovernature.Additionally,thisclusterdisplayedaheightenedAwarenessoftheOcean’sVulnerability. Moreover,theydemonstratedahigherAscriptionofResponsibility,indicatingatendency toperceivehumansasprimarilyresponsibleforenvironmentalproblems.Thisclusterwas named“Anthropocentricvisitors”.
Cluster2,comprising221cases,hadhighermeanscoresforBiocentricValueOrientations,reflectingagreaterappreciationfortheintrinsicvalueofnatureandecosystems.This clusteralsoshowedamoreprofoundAwarenessoftheConsequencesofenvironmental issuesontheoceanandreportedstrongerPersonalNormsrelatedtooceanconservation obligations(Figure 5;seeTableS2fordetailedinformationinSupplementaryMaterials). Thisclusterwasnamed“Ecocentricvisitors”.
TheANOVAanalysisrevealedsignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwoclustersacrossall thepsychologicalconstructsexamined(AnthropocentricValueOrientations: F (1,333)=78.69, p <0.001;BiocentricValueOrientations: F (1,333)=53.50, p <0.001;AwarenessofOcean’sVulnerability: F (1,333)=196.36, p <0.001;AwarenessofConsequences: F (1,333)=180.00, p <0.001; AscriptionofResponsibility: F (1,333)=90.95, p <0.001;PersonalNorm: F (1,333)=79.10, p <0.001;BehavioralIntentions: F (1,333)=118.88, p <0.001),suggestingthepresenceof twodistinctattitudinalprofilesamongthezoovisitorssurveyed(seeTableS2fordetailed information).
Thisanalysisrevealedtwodistinctvisitormindsets—onemoreanthropocentricwith highervulnerabilityawareness,i.e.,morefocusedonhumanneedsbutwithaheightened awarenessofthefragilityoftheoceans,andtheothermoreecocentric,awareofconsequences,andfeelingastrongerpersonalobligationtowardsoceanconservationbehaviors.
Figure5. AveragescoresofpsychologicalconstructsforAnthropocentricandEcocentricvisitor groups.
AmultipleregressionwasalsoruntopredictBehavioralIntentionsforeachvisitor mindsets,andwithgenderandageascontrolvariablestocheckifoneprofilewasassociated withahigherbehavioralintention.Theproposedmodelexplainedabout28%ofthe variationinthedependentvariable(F (3,329)=41.86, p <0.001,R2 =0.28).Visitormindset showedasignificantpositiveeffectonbehavioralintentions(B =0.514, t =10.924, p =0.000). Passingfromcluster1to2isassociatedwithanincreaseinthebehavioralintentionto protectoceans.Inotherwords,participantscharacterizedbyanecocentricprofilereporta strongerintentiontoengageinconservationactions.Genderandagewerecontrolledfor byincludingthemasvariablesinthemultipleregressionmodelalongsidevisitormindset. Genderhadasignificanteffectonbehavioralintentions(B =0.110, t =2.283, p =0.023), withfemaleparticipantsreportinghigherscoresintheanthropocentricprofile.Agedidnot showanysignificanteffectonbehavioralintentions(B =0.042, t =0.879, p =0.380).
3.4.FromValuestoBehaviorIntentions
ThecorrelationanalysisforCluster1(seeTable 3)revealedfewersignificantrelationshipsamongthevariables.AnthropocentricValueOrientationsshowedaweakpositive correlationwithAwarenessofOcean’sVulnerability(r (221)=0.19, p =0.004),andPersonal Norm(r (221)=0.16, p =0.02).BiocentricValueOrientationsdidnothaveanysignificant correlationswiththeothervariables.AwarenessofOcean’sVulnerabilitydidnothaveany significantcorrelationswiththeothervariables.AwarenessofConsequenceshadaweak positivecorrelationwithPersonalNorm(r (221)=0.19, p =0.01),andBehavioralIntentions(r (221)=0.20, p =0.003).AscriptionofResponsibilitydidnothaveanysignificant correlationswiththeothervariables.PersonalNormhadaweakpositivecorrelationwith BehavioralIntentions(r (221)=0.30, p <0.001).
Cluster2revealedseveralsignificantrelationshipsamongthevariables.AnthropocentricValueOrientationsshowedweakrelationshipswithBiocentricValueOrientations (r =0.31, p =0.001),AwarenessofOcean’sVulnerability(r =0.37, p <0.001),Ascription ofResponsibility(r =0.31, p =0.001),PersonalNorm(r =0.47, p <0.001),andBehavioral Intentions(r =0.24, p =0.01).BiocentricValueOrientations,inturn,correlatedweaklywith AscriptionofResponsibility(r =0.34, p <0.001),PersonalNorm(r =0.37, p <0.001),and BehavioralIntentions(r =0.39, p <0.001)buthadnosignificantcorrelationwiththeother variables.AwarenessofOceanVulnerabilitycorrelatedweaklywithAwarenessofConsequences(r =0.32, p =0.001),AscriptionofResponsibility(r =0.25, p =0.01),andPersonal Norm(r =0.38, p <0.001),butnotsignificantlywithBehavioralIntentions.Awareness ofConsequencesshowedaweakpositivecorrelationwithAscriptionofResponsibility (r =0.20, p =0.04),PersonalNorm(r =0.27, p =0.004),andastrongercorrelationwith BehavioralIntentions(r =0.49, p <0.001).AscriptionofResponsibilitycorrelatedweakly
Anthropocentric ValueOrientations
BiocentricValue Orientations
Awarenessof Ocean’s Vulnerability
Awarenessof Consequences
Ascriptionof Responsibility
withPersonalNorm(r =0.39, p <0.001)andBehavioralIntentions(r =0.38, p <0.001). Finally,PersonalNormshowedamoderatepositivecorrelationwithBehavioralIntentions (r =0.56, p <0.001).
Table3. Correlations(Pearson’s r correlationcoefficients)betweenvariableswithinclusters.Cluster1 belowthediagonal.Cluster2abovethediagonal(* p <0.05;** p <0.01).
Anthropocentric Value Orientations Biocentric Value Orientations Awarenessof Ocean’s Vulnerability Awarenessof Consequences Ascriptionof Responsibility Personal Norm Behavioral Intentions
3.5.ComparisonbetweenVisitorsandWhaleWatchers
Theaveragescoresobtainedinthisstudywerealsocomparedwiththoseofthe referencestudy[8].Table 4 showsthemeanvaluesandstandarddeviationsforeach psychologicalconstructquantifiedfortheHarmsetal.study[8].Fromhere,itispossible toseesomedifferencesbetweenthetypesoftourists.
Table4. Descriptivestatisticsofthevariablesforwhalewatchers[8]andthepresentstudyclusters.
Harmsetal.[8]Cluster1Cluster2
AscriptionofResponsibility1072
(a) Meanvaluesdiffersignificantlyfromcluster1(p <0.05). (b) Meanvaluesdiffersignificantlyfromcluster2 (p <0.05).
Lookingatthescoresforanthropocentricvalueorientations,visitorsfromcluster1 scoredsignificantlyhigherthanboththewhalewatchers(p <0.001)andcluster2 (p <0.001), whilecluster2outscoredthewhalewatchers(p =0.001)(F (2,1397)=112.21, p <0.001). Ontheotherhand,visitorswithincluster2demonstratedthehighestbiocentricvalue orientationsscores(F (2,1393)=24.49, p <0.001),significantlyhigherthanboththewhale watchers(p =0.003)andcluster1(p <0.001).Whalewatchersscoredhigherthanvisitors fromcluster1(p <0.001)inthisvariable.
Significantdifferenceswerealsofound(F (2,1416)=104.48, p <0.001)inthescoresrelatingtoawarenessoftheocean’svulnerability.Cluster1visitorsexhibitedthehighestscores,
ratingthisvariablesignificantlyabovewhalewatchers(p <0.001)andvisitorsfromcluster2 (p <0.001),whilethewhalewatchersoutscoredcluster2(p =0.043).Cluster2scoredsignificantlyhigherthanwhalewatchers(p <0.001)andcluster1visitors(p <0.001)regarding awarenessofconsequences(F (2,1407)=77.01, p <0.001).Whalewatchersoutscoredcluster1visitors(p <0.001)inthisvariable.Ascriptionofresponsibilitydidnotdifferbetween thewhalewatchersandcluster1visitors(p =0.104),butbothgroupsscoredsignificantly higherthancluster2visitors(p <0.001)inthisvariable(F (2,1404)=199.94, p <0.001). Asimilarpatternwasobservedforpersonalnorms,wherethewhalewatchersandvisitorsfromcluster1showednosignificantdifference(p =0.095),butthevisitorsfromthe secondclusterscoredsignificantlyhigherthanbothgroups(p <0.001)(F (2,1391)=45.98, p <0.001).Lastly,visitorsfromcluster2demonstratedsignificantlyhigherbehavioral intentionscomparedtothewhalewatchers(p <0.001)andcluster1(p <0.001),whilethe lattertwogroupsdidnotdiffersignificantly(p =0.241)(F (2,1401)=128.99, p <0.001).
4.Discussion
Thisstudyinvestigatedthepsychologicalfactorsunderlyingintentionstosupport oceanconservationamongvisitorstoamarinemammalpark.Theresultsrevealeda complexinteractionbetweenvalues,perceptionsofthreat,feelingsofpersonalobligation andintendedenvironmentalbehavior.
Overall,generalvisitorsheldstrongbiocentricvalues,recognizingtheintrinsicworth ofnatureandecosystems,acknowledgingtheconsequencesofenvironmentalissues,reportingasenseofpersonalobligationtoaddressthem,andexhibitingintentionstosupport oceanconservationefforts.TheseresultspositivelyalignwiththeVBNtheory[18]that guidethisstudy,statingthatvaluesshapebeliefsaboutenvironmentalconsequences, activatingpersonalnormsandinfluencingbehavioralintentions.
Theclusteranalysisfurtherrevealedthepresenceofdistinctattitudinalprofilesamong thezoovisitors,withonegroupleaningmoreanthropocentricandexhibitinghigher vulnerabilityawareness,whiletheotherdemonstratedstrongerbiocentricvalues,greater consequenceawareness,andmorerobustpersonalnorms.
4.1.ContrastingVisitorMindsets
Theclusteranalysisofzoovisitorsrevealedtwodistinctgroups—onemoreanthropocentric(cluster1)andtheothermoreecocentric(cluster2).Thecluster1visitors,with noticeablyhigherscoresforanthropocentricvalueorientations,suggestastrongerbeliefin humansuperiorityovernature.Additionally,thisgroupdisplayedaheightenedawareness oftheocean’svulnerability.Moreover,theydemonstratedahigherascriptionofresponsibility,indicatingatendencytoperceivehumansasprimarilyresponsibleforenvironmental problems.Visitorsbelongingtocluster1,referredtohereasanthropocentricvisitors,may viewenvironmentalprotectionmorethroughautilitarianperspectivefocusedonmitigatingthreatstohumanwell-being,suggestingabeliefsystemthatprioritizeshumaninterests overnature[22].However,thisgreaterawarenessofthevulnerabilityoftheoceansand tendencytoattributeresponsibilityforenvironmentalproblemstohumansindicatean environmentalistmindsetaimedataddressingthreats,albeitfromananthropocentric perspectivecenteredonhumanimpacts.However,thisgreaterawarenessoftheocean’s vulnerabilitydidnotdirectlytranslateintostrongerbehavioralintentions.Thisfinding alignswithotherstudies,suchasMossetal.[23],whichfoundonlyaweaklinkbetween biodiversity-relatedknowledge/awarenessandself-reportedproconservationbehavior. Thissuggeststhatsimplybeingmoreawareaboutoceanvulnerabilitymaynotbesufficient todrivebehavioralchange,andotherfactorsplayanimportantroleinmotivatingconservationactions.Theseresultscanbelinkedtotheconceptofthe‘bystandereffect’,asdescribed byMills[24]inhisstudyontheecologicalcrisisandmoralresponsibility.Millsarguesthat, despitewidespreadawarenessofenvironmentalthreats,thereisatendencyforindividuals andsocietiestoremainpassiveobserversratherthanactiveparticipantsinsolvingthese challenges.Thisphenomenonalignswithourobservationsthatincreasedawarenessof
oceanvulnerabilitydoesnotdirectlytranslateintogreaterbehavioralintention.Thisglobal bystandereffectprovidesabroadercontextforunderstandingthisdisconnect,suggesting thatthescaleandcomplexityofenvironmentalissuescanleadtoadiffusionofresponsibilityandafeelingofpowerlessnessamongindividuals.Coherentwiththiseffectisa viewbasedontechnologicaloptimism,i.e.,thebeliefthatenvironmentalproblemswill somehowbesolvedthroughtechnology(asaby-productofhumanity),andthatitisonly amatteroftimebeforetheyaresolved[25].Thiscounterintuitivefindingsuggeststhat merelyrecognizingenvironmentalproblemsmaynotbeenoughtomotivateaction,which underscorestheimportanceoffosteringdeeperconnectionsandemotionalengagement withnature[26].
Ontheotherhand,thecluster2visitorshadhighermeanscoresforbiocentricvalueorientations,reflectingagreaterappreciationfortheintrinsicvalueofnatureandecosystems. Thisgroupalsoshowedamoreprofoundawarenessoftheconsequencesofenvironmental issuesontheoceanandreportedstrongerpersonalnormsrelatedtooceanconservation obligations.Furthermore,thislattergroupdemonstratedhigherbehavioralintentions comparedtothatofcluster1.Thisgroup,herecalledecocentricvisitors,seemstohave amoreecocentricworldviewthatvaluesecologicalpreservation,reflectinganethicalpositionthatrecognizestheintrinsicvalueofnatureandecosystems,regardlessofhuman utility.Thisgroup’sdeeperawarenessoftheenvironmentalconsequencesontheocean, coupledwithstrongerpersonalnorms,exemplifiesaconservationistworldviewdriven bymoralobligationstoprotectthenaturalenvironment.Thisalignswiththefindings ofAmérigoetal.[27]onthecontrastingeffectsofbiocentricandanthropocentricbeliefs. Theseauthorsalsofoundthatindividualswithstrongerbiocentricorientationsweremore likelytoexpressintentionstoadoptpro-environmentalbehaviors,reinforcingtheresult ofnormativepersonalbeliefsthatpositivelypredictedbehavioralintentionsinrelationto oceanconservation.Thus,visitorswithalesshuman-centeredview,andastrongerpersonalnorm,i.e.,thebeliefinthemoralrightnessofoceanconservation,willbemorelikely toactforoceanconservation.Thisisinlinewiththetheorythatpersonalmoralbeliefsare themaindriversofpro-environmentalactions[28,29].Accordingtoarecentreviewstudy, nature-basedtourism,includingzoosandaquariums,canenhanceenvironmentalknowledge,behaviorattitudes,andintentionsthroughmeaningfulfirst-handexperienceswith wildlife,naturalhistory,andconservationmessagesthatarewell-planned[30].Somewhat paradoxical,ecocentricvisitorsdidnotreportahighawarenessofthevulnerabilityofthe oceans,thismayberelatedtoamerelyinformativeperceptionofthisvariableandtherefore lessrelevantwhenaccompaniedbyahighawarenessofconsequencesandpersonalnorm. Alsointerestingisthelowerscoresofascriptionofresponsibility.Althoughsurprisingat afirstglance,itmayreflectaphenomenonknownasthediffusionofresponsibility[31], whereindividualsfeelfewerpersonalobligationswhentheyperceivetheresponsibility foraddressinganissueissharedamongmanyothers.Inthecontextofocean-related problems,whichofteninvolvecomplexglobalchallenges,thediffusionofresponsibility mayundermineindividuals’senseofpersonalresponsibility.
Thecleardelineationbetweenthesetwoprofileshighlightsthediverseperspectives andmindsetsthatexistamongparkvisitors.Thesetwopsychologicalapproachesare consistentwiththegeneralunderstandingofanthropocentricandbiocentricorientationsin environmentalattitudesandbehavior[32,33].
Theseresultsthusunderlinetheheterogeneityofthevisitorpopulationwithregardto ocean-relatedattitudesandvalues.Understandingandaddressingthedifferentpsychologicalmotivationsbehindeachgroup’senvironmentalattitudescanbecrucialfordesigning targetedinterventionsormessagestoeffectivelypromoteoceanconservationbehaviors amongdifferentvisitorsegments[34–36].
Foranthropocentricvisitors,emphasizingtheutilitarianbenefitsofoceanconservation, suchassafeguardingresourcesforhumanwell-beingandeconomicsustainability,maybe moreeffectiveinfosteringengagement.Simultaneously,reinforcingpersonalnormsand addressingthediffusionofresponsibilitycouldhelpstrengthentheirsenseofindividual
agencyandmoralobligationtowardsconservationefforts.Ontheotherhand,ecocentric visitorsmaybemoreresponsivetocampaignsthathighlighttheintrinsicvalueofmarine ecosystemsandtheethicalapproachofprotectingtheoceanforitsownsake.Enhancing theirawarenessoftheconsequencesofenvironmentalissuesontheoceancouldfurther solidifytheirpersonalnormsandtranslateintostrongerbehavioralintentions.
4.2.ComparisonbetweenZooVisitorsandWhaleWatchers
Thisstudyalsocomparedthepsychologicalconstructsbetweentheidentifiedvisitors’ profilesandthewhale-watchingtouristsfromtheoriginalstudy.Althoughitisnotpossible toknowthedifferentprofiles,ifany,ofwhalewatchersfromtheoriginalstudy,which wouldmakethisstudymorein-depth,weneverthelessconsidereditimportanttomakea comparisonbetweentheavailableprofiles.
Basedontheresultspresented,therearedistinctattitudinalprofilesobservedbetween zoovisitorsandwhalewatchers.Thislattergroupseemtofitinbetweenthetwoidentified zoovisitorprofiles,butclosertotheattitudinalframeworkoftheanthropocentricvisitor. Thisprofilescored,nevertheless,significantlyhigherinanthropocentricvalueorientations, indicatingastrongerbeliefinhumansuperiorityovernaturecomparedtowhalewatchers. Additionally,theformerprofilealsodemonstratedaheightenedawarenessoftheocean’s vulnerability,ratingitsignificantlyabovewhalewatchers.However,theirascriptionof responsibilityforenvironmentalproblemsdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromwhalewatchers, aswellaspersonalnormsandbehavioralintentions.
Incontrast,theecocentricvisitorconvergemorecloselywiththewhalewatchers’ attitudinalframeworkinsomevariables.Justaswhalewatchers,thisgroupexhibited relativelyhighbiocentricvalueorientations,reflectingasharedappreciationfortheintrinsicvalueofnatureandecosystems.Althoughecocentricvisitorsoutscoredwhale watchersintheirawarenessoftheconsequencesofenvironmentalissuesontheocean, suggestingadeeperunderstandingoftheimpacts,whalewatcherssignificantlyoutscored theanthropocentricvisitorsinthisregard.Akeydivergenceemergesinthepersonalnorms relatedtooceanconservation.Ecocentricvisitorsalsoshowedhigherpersonalnormsthan thoseofwhalewatchers,indicatingastrongersenseofpersonalobligationandmoral responsibilitytowardsconservationefforts.Perhapsthemostnotabledivergencebetween ecocentricvisitorsandwhalewatchersliesintheirbehavioralintentions.Inthisregard, whalewatchersalignedmorecloselytotheanthropocentricprofile,bothwithsignificantly lowerscoresthanecocentricvisitors.
Whilebothvisitorgroupsatthezoosharesomesimilaritieswithwhalewatchers intheirattitudinalframeworks,theanthropocentricvisitorsseemtoalignmoreclosely overall.Theirlowerascriptionofresponsibility,personalnormsandbehavioralintentions whencomparedtoecocentricvisitorssuggestamoredistantpsychologicalframeworkto thatmorewillingtoassumeoceanrelatedconservationbehaviors.Bothhave,nevertheless, strongscoresindicatingapotentiallyreceptiveaudienceforenvironmentaleducationand engagementefforts.
4.3.LimitationsandFutureDirections
Itisimportanttonotethatthelimitationsofthisstudy,suchasthespecificsample ofvisitorstoamarinemammalparkanditslimitedgeographicallocation,shouldbe consideredwheninterpretingandgeneralizingtheresults.Futurestudiescouldexplore theserelationshipsindifferentcontextsandpopulationstogainamorecomprehensive understandingofthepsychologicalfactorsthatinfluencemarineconservationattitudes andbehaviors.
Afinalreflectionconcernsthecomparisonbetweentourists,specificallythetiming betweensamples,i.e.,10yearsbetweenthetwostudies.Culturaldifferencesaside,this timegapmayindicateagreatersocietalawarenessoftheproblemoftheoceans,leadingto aconstructionofvaluesmoreinlinewithpressingconservationneeds.
References
5.Conclusions
Thisstudyprovidesvaluableinsightsintothepsychologicalpathwaysthatshapeindividuals’intentionstoengageinoceanconservationbehaviors.Byexaminingtheintricate relationshipbetweenvalueorientations,environmentalawareness,perceivedresponsibility andpersonalnorms,theseresultsunderlinetheimportanceoffosteringbiocentricvalues andnurturingemotionalconnectionswithnaturetomotivatepro-environmentalactions.
Theidentificationofdistinctvisitorprofiles,withdifferentlevelsofanthropocentrism andbiocentrism,highlightstheneedfortailoredapproachesinenvironmentaleducation andcommunicationefforts.Institutionssuchaszoosandaquariumscanplayacrucialrole inthisregard,craftingtargetedinterventionsandmessagesthatresonatewiththeunique motivationsandmindsetsofdifferentaudiencesegments.
Thisstudyalsoemphasizestheneedtogobeyondmerelyraisingawarenessofenvironmentalproblems.Whilerecognizingvulnerabilitiesisessential,itmaynotbeenoughto motivateaction.Instead,fosteringdeeperemotionalconnectionsandcultivatingasense ofpersonalresponsibilityemergeascriticalfactorsinmotivatingindividualstoactively supportoceanconservationefforts.
Overall,thisresearchcontributestoabetterunderstandingofthepsychologicalfactors thatdetermineenvironmentalbehavior.Thishopefullycancontributetomoreeffective strategiestopromotesustainablerelationshipsbetweenhumansandtheocean.Bydrawing onthisknowledge,institutionssuchasmarinemammalparksandotherzooscanplay avitalroleinshapingpublicattitudesandinspiringpositivechangetowardsamore sustainablefuture.
SupplementaryMaterials: Thefollowingsupportinginformationcanbedownloadedat: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jzbg5030031/s1,TableS1:Listofitemsusedtomeasureeach variable(adaptedfromHarmsetal.[8]),TableS2:Mean(andstandarddeviation)valuesforall variablesineachcluster.ANOVAanalysisbetweenclusters.
AuthorContributions: Conceptualization,J.N.;methodology,J.N.andJ.-C.G.;validation,J.N.and J.-C.G.;formalanalysis,J.N.andJ.-C.G.;investigation,J.O.,L.P.,G.G.,A.A.S.andI.C.;writing— originaldraftpreparation,J.N.;writing—reviewandediting,J.-C.G.Allauthorshavereadandagreed tothepublishedversionofthemanuscript.
Funding: ThisworkwasfundedbynationalfundsthroughFCT—FundaçãoparaaCiênciaea Tecnologia—asparttheprojectCIP—RefªUIDB/PSI/04345/2020.
InstitutionalReviewBoardStatement: ThisstudywasconductedinaccordancewiththeDeclaration ofHelsinkiandapprovedbytheZoomarine’sScienceCommittee(projectnumberZM_2022ID04).
DataAvailabilityStatement: Dataavailableuponrequest. ConflictsofInterest: Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.
1. Rock,J.;Sima,E.;Knapen,M.Whatistheocean:Asea-changeinourperceptionsandvalues? Aquat.Conserv. 2020, 30,532–539. [CrossRef]
2. Lotze,H.K.;Guest,H.;O’Leary,J.;Tuda,A.;Wallace,D.Publicperceptionsofmarinethreatsandprotectionfromaroundthe world. OceanCoast.Manag. 2018, 152,14–22.[CrossRef]
3. Jefferson,R.;McKinley,E.;Griffin,H.;Nimmo,A.;Fletcher,S.Publicperceptionsoftheocean:Lessonsformarineconservation fromaglobalresearchreview. Front.Mar.Sci. 2021, 8,711245.[CrossRef]
4. McKinley,E.;Burdon,D.;Shellock,R.J.Theevolutionofoceanliteracy:AnewframeworkfortheUnitedNationsOceanDecade andbeyond. Mar.Pollut.Bull. 2023, 186,114467.[CrossRef][PubMed]
5. Johns,L.N.;Jacquet,J.Doomandgloomversusoptimism:Anassessmentofocean-relatedUSsciencejournalism(2001–2015). Glob.Environ.Change 2018, 50,142–148.[CrossRef]
6. Österblom,H.;Wabnitz,C.;Tladi,D.;Allison,E.H.;Arnaud-Haond,S.;Bebbington,J.;Bennett,N.;Blasiak,R.;Boonstra,W.; Choudhury,A.;etal.TowardsOceanEquity.In TheBlueCompendium;Lubchenco,J.,Haugan,P.M.,Eds.;Springer:Cham, Switzerland,2023;pp.485–521.[CrossRef]
7. Ryabinin,V.;Barbière,J.;Haugan,P.;Kullenberg,G.;Smith,N.;McLean,C.;Troisi,A.;Fischer,A.;Aricò,S.;Aarup,T.;etal.The UNdecadeofoceanscienceforsustainabledevelopment. Front.Mar.Sci. 2019, 6,470.[CrossRef]
8. Harms,M.;Asmutis-Silvia,R.;Rosner,A. WhaleWatching:MorethanMeetstheEyes;ReporttoNOAA’sFisheriesNortheastRegion ProgramOffice(NERO);WDC:Gloucester,MA,USA,2013;113p.
9. IntergovernmentalOceanographicCommission. OceanLiteracywithintheUnitedNationsDecadeofOceanScienceforSustainable Development:AFrameworkforAction;UNESCO:Paris,France,2021;pp.22–29.
10. Hoberg,R.;Kannis-Dymand,L.;Mulgrew,K.;Schaffer,V.;Clark,E.Humpbackwhaleencounters:Encouragingpro-environmental behaviours. Curr.IssuesTour. 2021, 24,1918–1929.[CrossRef]
11. Schuler,A.R.;Pearson,H.C.ConservationbenefitsofwhalewatchinginJuneau,Alaska. Tour.Mar.Environ. 2019, 14,231–248. [CrossRef]
12. Patrick,P.G.;Tunnicliffe,S.D.;Matthews,C.E.;Ayers,D.F.;Patrick,P.G.;Tunnicliffe,S.D.;Matthews,C.E.;Ayers,D.F.Mission statementsofAZA-accreditedzoos:Dotheysaywhatwethinktheysay? Int.ZooNews 2007, 54,90–98.
13. Ogle,B.Valueofguestinteractionintouchpoolsatpublicaquariums. Univers.J.Manag. 2016, 4,59–63.[CrossRef]
14. Miranda,R.;Escribano,N.;Casas,M.;Pino-del-Carpio,A.;Villarroya,A.Theroleofzoosandaquariumsinachangingworld. Annu.Rev.Anim.Biosci. 2023, 11,287–306.[CrossRef][PubMed]
15. Wyles,K.J.;Pahl,S.;White,M.;Morris,S.;Cracknell,D.;Thompson,R.C.Towardsamarinemindset:Visitinganaquariumcan improveattitudesandintentionsregardingmarinesustainability. Visit.Stud. 2013, 16,95–110.[CrossRef]
16. Grajal,A.;Goldman,S.R. ClimateChangeEducation:APrimerforZoosandAquariums;ChicagoZoologicalSociety:Chicago,IL, USA,2012;145p.
17. Vaske,J.J.;Donnelly,M.P.Avalue-attitude-behaviormodelpredictingwildlandpreservationvotingintentions. Soc.Nat.Resour. 1999, 12,523–537.[CrossRef]
18. Schultz,P.W.;Zelezny,L.Valuesaspredictorsofenvironmentalattitudes:Evidenceforconsistencyacross14countries. J.Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19,255–265.[CrossRef]
19. Stern,P.C.;Dietz,T.;Abel,T.;Guagnano,G.A.;Kalof,L.Avalue-belief-normtheoryofsupportforsocialmovements:Thecaseof environmentalism. Hum.Ecol.Rev. 1999, 6,81–97.
20. Curran,P.J.;West,S.G.;Finch,J.F.Therobustnessofteststatisticstononnormalityandspecificationerrorinconfirmatoryfactor analysis. Psychol.Methods 1996, 1,16–29.[CrossRef]
21. O’Connor,B.P.SPSSandSASprogramsfordeterminingthenumberofcomponentsusingparallelanalysisandVelicer’sMAP test. Behav.Res.MethodsInstrum.Comput. 2000, 32,396–402.[CrossRef]
22. Godfrey-Smith,W.Thevalueofwilderness. Environ.Ethics 1979, 1,309–319.[CrossRef]
23. Moss,A.;Jensen,E.;Gusset,M.Probingthelinkbetweenbiodiversity-relatedknowledgeandself-reportedproconservation behaviorinaglobalstudyofzoovisitors. Conserv.Lett. 2017, 10,33–40.[CrossRef]
24. Mills,J.TheGlobalBystanderEffect:MoralResponsibilityinOurAgeofEcologicalCrisis. J.FuturesStud. 2020, 25,61–76. [CrossRef]
25. Basiago,A.D.Thelimitsoftechnologicaloptimism. Environmentalist 1994, 14,17–22.[CrossRef]
26. Lumber,R.;Richardson,M.;Sheffield,D.Beyondknowingnature:Contact,emotion,compassion,meaning,andbeautyare pathwaystonatureconnection. PLoSONE 2017, 12,e0177186.[CrossRef]
27. Amérigo,M.;Aragonés,J.I.;deFrutos,B.;Sevillano,V.;Cortés,B.Underlyingdimensionsofecocentricandanthropocentric environmentalbeliefs. Span.J.Psychol. 2007, 10,97–103.[CrossRef]
28. Fornara,F.;Molinario,E.;Scopelliti,M.;Bonnes,M.;Bonaiuto,F.;Cicero,L.;Admiraal,J.;Beringer,A.;Dedeurwaerdere,T.; deGroot,W.;etal.TheextendedValue-Belief-NormtheorypredictscommittedactionfornatureandbiodiversityinEurope. Environ.ImpactAssess.Rev. 2020, 81,106338.[CrossRef]
29. Tian,H.;Liu,X.Pro-environmentalbehaviorresearch:Theoreticalprogressandfuturedirections. Int.J.Environ.Res.Public Health 2022, 19,6721.[CrossRef][PubMed]
30. Ardoin,N.M.;Wheaton,M.;Bowers,A.W.;Hunt,C.A.;Durham,W.H.Nature-basedtourism’simpactonenvironmental knowledge,attitudes,andbehavior:Areviewandanalysisoftheliteratureandpotentialfutureresearch. J.Sustain.Tour. 2015, 23,838–858.[CrossRef]
31. Darley,J.M.;Latane,B.Bystanderinterventioninemergencies:Diffusionofresponsibility. J.Personal.Soc.Psychol. 1968, 8, 377–383.[CrossRef][PubMed]
32. Thompson,S.C.G.;Barton,M.A.Ecocentricandanthropocentricattitudestowardtheenvironment. J.Environ.Psychol. 1994, 14, 149–157.[CrossRef]
33. Loreau,M.Reconcilingutilitarianandnon-utilitarianapproachestobiodiversityconservation. EthicsSci.Environ.Politics 2014, 14,27–32.[CrossRef]
34. Ballantyne,R.;Hughes,K.;Lee,J.;Packer,J.;Sneddon,J.Facilitatingzoo/aquariumvisitors’adoptionofenvironmentally sustainablebehaviour:Developingavalues-basedinterpretationmatrix. Tour.Manag. 2021, 84,104243.[CrossRef]
35. Ballantyne,R.;Hughes,K.;Lee,J.;Packer,J.;Sneddon,J.Visitors’valuesandenvironmentallearningoutcomesatwildlife attractions:Implicationsforinterpretivepractice. Tour.Manag. 2018, 64,190–201.[CrossRef]
36. Ballantyne,R.;Hughes,K.;Packer,J.;Lee,J.Doesvalues-basedinterpretationmakeadifference?Testingimpactsonvisitors’ environmentallearningandreportedadoptionofenvironmentallyresponsiblebehaviors. Visit.Stud. 2023, 26,181–201.[CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’sNote: Thestatements,opinionsanddatacontainedinallpublicationsaresolelythoseoftheindividual author(s)andcontributor(s)andnotofMDPIand/ortheeditor(s).MDPIand/ortheeditor(s)disclaimresponsibilityforanyinjuryto peopleorpropertyresultingfromanyideas,methods,instructionsorproductsreferredtointhecontent.