Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community Elissa Pearson a,⇑, Sarah Mellish a, Ben Sanders b, Carla Litchfield a a b

School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia, Australia Zoos Victoria, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Available online xxxx Keywords: Marine wildlife entanglement Marine debris Zoo education Conservation psychology

a b s t r a c t Marine debris remains a global challenge, with significant impacts on wildlife. Despite this, there is a paucity of research examining public understanding about marine wildlife entanglement [MWE], particularly within an Australian context. The present study surveyed two hundred and thirteen participants across three coastal sites to assess familiarity with MWE and the effectiveness of a new community education initiative ‘Seal the Loop’ [STL]. Results revealed attitudes toward marine wildlife were very positive (M 40.5, SD 4.12); however 32% of participants were unable to correctly explain what MWE is and risks to wildlife were under-estimated. STL may be one method to enhance public understanding and engagement-if community familiarity with the program can be increased. For those aware of STL (80% of respondents classing this as a moderate or serious threat on a scale of serious, moderate, minor, no threat, or don’t know. In contrast, an earlier study of Scottish residents found only 29.8% and 32.0% rated entanglement in fishing gear and marine debris respectively, as a serious threat. Again in this sample, oil spills were perceived as the greatest serious threat (Scott and Parsons, 2005). This apparent lack of knowledge regarding the magnitude of the issue of marine wildlife entanglement may serve as a significant barrier to greater conservation support. In summarising the available literature McKinley and Fletcher explain ‘‘public perception studies suggest that awareness and knowledge of the marine environment is poor, awareness of what behaviours can reduce personal impact on the marine environment is low, and consideration of the implications of personal behaviour on the marine environment is rare’’ (2012, p. 840). This sentiment is further supported by research that revealed people frequently report ‘litter’ as the greatest beach problem, yet 25% of the sample indicated they themselves had littered at the beach- often blaming wind or children (Santos et al., 2005). Consistent with this finding, a survey of Tasmanian beach users in Australia also reported a self-reported littering rate of 25% (Slavin et al., 2012). A lack of recognition of the severe impacts of marine debris on marine wildlife

3

may be a contributor to such behaviour, with individuals in previous research more likely to focus on human-impacts as the problems caused by marine debris (e.g. health and safety and aesthetic considerations), with only 25% including impacts to marine biota (Santos et al., 2005).

1.4. ‘Seal the Loop’ as a strategy for public education and engagement Given likely gaps in knowledge and a need for greater community engagement and marine citizenship, as highlighted in the aforementioned studies (e.g. Fletcher et al., 2009; McKinley and Fletcher, 2012; Steel et al., 2005), it is unsurprising several programs have been launched to better inform communities about marine issues, to foster more positive attitudes, and to inspire action. While there have been studies of community engagement programs globally, i.e. the Georgia Sea Turtle Centre-Marine Debris Initiative, which sought to educate the public about MWE and to engage the public in monitoring and removal efforts (Martin, 2013) or the Forth Estuary Forum coastal litter project which sought to increase community awareness and involvement in the marine litter issue (Storrier and McGlashan, 2006), there is a lack of such research within the Australian context. This is particularly necessary given the positive impacts of such community initiatives, with the aforementioned Georgia project attracting over 461 volunteer hours to log and remove over 6500 pieces of rubbish from the coast over a 12-month period. Zoos Victoria’s ‘Seal the Loop’ [STL] program is a new innovation in Australia founded on genuine partnerships between multiple stakeholders (zoo, government, councils, and university), as recommended by Wescott (2002), which seeks to (1) raise awareness of the threats marine debris poses to marine wildlife; (2) reduce rates of entanglement; and (3) encourage on-site recycling at Melbourne Zoo to reduce wastage and promote the ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ message advocated by UNEP (2009). The focus of the present research pertains to aim 1. As part of the program, plastics collected onsite at Melbourne Zoo are turned into specially designed Seal the Loop bins for collecting fishing waste along the Victorian coastline (refer to Fig. 1a and b). As well as providing a source for correct disposal of waste, the bins additionally serve to remind coastal users of the importance of correct rubbish disposal and provide education via referring individuals to the ‘Seal the Loop’ website, where further information about marine debris and threats to marine wildlife can be located (see: http://www.zoo.org.au/sealtheloop). This approach is supported by previous research, which has demonstrated that both active littering (immediately littering an object) and passive littering (placing a rubbish item down and then not collecting this upon leaving) can be reduced through the provision of feedback regarding littering levels, as well as the addition of more bins in the area (Sibley and Liu, 2003). Furthermore, injunctive norms (what others approve or disapprove of) and descriptive norms (what others are actually doing), are known to best shape behaviour if these are made salient (Cialdini et al., 1990). Thus in the context of the STL program, the bins were intended to serve as a primer to activate the anti-littering injunctive norm.

1.5. Aims/research plan Given the pervasiveness and severity of the issue of marine debris within Australia, the scarcity of research in the Australian context pertaining to community knowledge and attitudes regarding this issue, and the recent launching of the ‘Seal the Loop’ initiative, this study sought to survey Australian coastal users at three sites with Seal the Loop bins installed in order to fulfil the following three aims:

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014

4

E. Pearson et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. (a) (left) ‘Seal the Loop’ bin installed at Middle Brighton Baths and (b) (right) ‘Seal the Loop’ bin text.

(1) To determine community knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour pertaining to the marine environment/marine protection and MWE specifically. It is presently unclear what Australian coastal users know about the issue of marine wildlife entanglement, how significant they perceive the risk of this to be to marine wildlife, or what their attitudes are toward marine wildlife and their conservation. This aim sought to fill this gap using open-ended knowledge assessments, a risk-perception scale, and a Likert-scale attitude measure. Consistent with the literature outlined previously (Ajzen, 1991; Armitage and Conner, 2001; Frick et al., 2004; O’Connor et al., 1999), these factors are important for their capacity to influence relevant conservation behaviours. Self-reported relevant conservation behaviours were also recorded (i.e. self-reported disposal of waste in coastal locations and use of STL bins). (2) To determine whether any differences existed between selfidentified anglers and non-anglers on knowledge, attitudinal, or behavioural dimensions. Anglers (those who participate in fishing activity) were a particular group of interest for this study as the ‘Seal the Loop’ bins were specifically installed in fishing locations to encourage the correct disposal of fishing waste. Anglers are also reported in previous research as having different attitudes than the general public toward environmental protection (Edgell and Nowell, 1989), and as emphasising different priorities in coastal management, e.g. the general public focused more upon ecological/ethical issues while fishermen and sealers were more likely to emphasise employment considerations (Kellert et al., 1995). Of course heterogeneity also exists within this group, such that fishers themselves show great divergence in their support of conservation measures like the introduction of marine parks (e.g. Sutton and Tobin, 2009) or catch and release areas (Salz and Loomis, 2005). As differing motivations for fishing may be one contributor to such divergent attitudes (i.e. catch-related vs non-catch related), anglers were also asked to record their primary motivations for fishing (Burger, 2002; Henry and Lyle, 2003). (3) To assess community familiarity with, and perceptions of, the ‘Seal the Loop’ initiative. Consistent with the Australian Government’s threat abatement plan (DEWHA, 2009), ‘Seal the Loop’ provides one avenue to enhance community knowledge and build community engagement

with the issue of marine wildlife entanglement to foster greater conservation action. A lack of evaluation of such programs to date has been noted as a hindrance to progress (DEWHA, 2009), and thus this research aim sought to evaluate levels of awareness about STL among coastal users, their perceptions of the program, and self-reported impacts on relevant behaviour such as waste disposal and/or use of the specially designed STL bins. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Procedure Data were collected between January 15–20 in 2013 at three research sites in Victoria, Australia, where a STL bin was present. The sites included two urban locations (Middle Brighton Baths and Half Moon Bay) located within 30 min of Melbourne city, as well as a smaller coastal town (Barwon Heads). The bins in the Brighton and Half Moon Bay region were installed in October and November of 2010 respectively and thus had been present for >2 years at the time of the research. The bin at Barwon Heads was installed in October of 2011 and thus had been present for 15 months at the time of the research. All locations (see Fig. 2) fell within the broader Port Phillip Bay area. Researchers were present at each research site (located within a 20 m radius of the STL bin) for between 1.5 and 3 days and during this time approached passers-by to invite them to participate in the research using a ‘next to pass’ method. Inclusion criteria for the research included being at least 18 years of age and being fluent in English. Prospective participants were given a brief verbal overview of the research and, if interested, were then provided with a more detailed information sheet about the purpose of the research and what participation would entail. At this time they were also instructed that participation was voluntary and would take approximately 5–10 min, with no identifying information required. In total, 432 individuals were approached to participate in the study and 213 took part (response rate 49.31%). Upon completion of the survey, participants deposited their surveys in a marked return box or provided these directly to the researchers. An additional 7 participants elected to mail their survey back as they did not have sufficient time to complete the survey on-site. 2.2. Materials 2.2.1. Knowledge about MWE and perceptions of risk To assess participants’ knowledge about MWE, contributing factors, affected species, and what people can do to reduce rates of

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014

E. Pearson et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

5

Fig. 2. Google Map of study locations and wider STL bin locations (retrieved from: http://zoo.org.au/get-involved/act-for-wildlife/seal-the-loop). All bins are designed to target areas of high fishing and public use.

entanglement, participants were asked a series of four open-ended questions: ‘what do you understand by the term marine wildlife entanglement’; ‘which are the main human actions that contribute to marine wildlife entanglement’; ‘which animal species are affected by becoming entangled in, or swallowing, waste/rubbish in marine environments’; ‘what can people do to reduce rates of entanglement’? Open-ended questions were selected in this study to assess participant understandings and explanations in their own words for a greater richness in data. This also addresses a gap, with previous research often asking for self-reported knowledge ratings regarding the ocean and conservation issues more broadly (e.g. Steel et al., 2005) or relative risk perceptions about MWE specifically (e.g. Fletcher et al., 2009; Scott and Parsons, 2005), without directly assessing what individuals understand by this term. Consistent with Howard and Parsons (2006) and Scott and Parsons (2005), participants were also asked to give a rating for the threat posed by MWE to marine wildlife. However, in this research, participants were asked to provide a rating on a continuous (rather than categorical) scale (0 = no threat and 100 = extremely high risk).

2.2.2. Attitudes toward marine wildlife As there is no widely accepted attitude measure specific to marine animals and their conservation, a ten-item attitudes toward marine wildlife and conservation scale was developed for this research. The scale was adapted/inspired from relevant previous marine, environmental and/or animal attitudinal research, including the ‘Ocean Attitudes Questionnaire’ and the ‘Ocean Opinions questionnaire’ (Cummins and Snively, 2000), as well as works by Barney et al. (2005), Edgell and Nowell (1989), Herzog et al. (1991), Kellert (1999), and Salz and Loomis (2005). In particular, the scale was designed to provide an overall indication of participant attitudes toward marine wildlife; encompassing aspects such

as interest in marine animals, ecological and moralistic attitudes, as well as attitudes regarding the utility of marine animals for human benefit and whether individuals would be willing to pay more for products or would support restrictions on human activities to benefit marine species. Initial testing of the 10-item scale revealed that the removal of one item would enhance reliability and hence the final attitude measure comprised 9 items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73). Participants responded to statements (i.e. ‘All marine species have a right to exist in their natural environment’) on a 5-point likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Refer to Table 6 for the full list of scale items. Negatively worded items were reverse scored prior to computing the scale scores such that a higher score indicates more positive attitudes toward marine wildlife and conservation. Possible scale scores range from 5 to 45.

2.2.3. Familiarity with STL Initiative and impacts on behaviour In this section participants were asked a series of questions regarding STL and relevant conservation behaviour. Firstly, participants were asked (yes/no) if they were familiar with the STL initiative. For those who answered yes, they were then asked where they heard about this (Melbourne Zoo, seeing the STL bins, the Zoos Victoria website, media coverage), what their opinion is of the initiative (1 very negative to 5 very positive), and to what extent the initiative had impacted on the way they dispose of rubbish/waste near water environment (1 no impact to 5 strong impact). Participants were also asked to respond to two open-ended items regarding their understanding of the purpose/goals of the initiative and whether they learnt anything new. All participants (regardless of familiarity with the STL initiative) were subsequently asked about their disposal of waste near water environments, the distance (in metres) they would be willing to walk to the nearest bin to deposit their rubbish, whether they had seen or used the specially marked

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014

6

E. Pearson et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

STL bins (and if so what they had deposited into these bins), and if they knew what the STL bins were constructed from. 2.2.4. Socio-demographic measures A series of items were also included to assess the background characteristics of the sample. This included gender; age (in years); level of education (high school, TAFE, university); whether participants self-identify as vegetarian (defined as eating no fish, chicken, or meat); if they own a pet; if they had visited the zoo in the previous 12 months and seen the seal exhibit where information is provided about STL and marine entanglement; how often participants visit the coast on average (several times a week, about once a week, about once a month, a few times a year); whether participants engage in fishing (never, rarely, a few times a year, about once a month, about once a week, several times a week); motivations for fishing; whether they eat fish; and whether the survey location was their local beach. It was deemed important to consider such differences across survey sites as conceptually and empirically these factors may relate to variables of interest. For example, coastal residents self-report greater familiarity with ocean and coastal policy issues (Steel et al., 2005); women (Herzog et al., 1991; Howard and Parsons, 2006) and vegetarians (Ruby, 2012) often display more positive attitudes toward animals or concern toward animal welfare and conservation; while younger age, lower income, and residency were documented to influence littering behaviour in Slavin et al. (2012). 2.3. Participants A total of 213 participants took part in the research across the three sites, including 70 at Middle Brighton (49% participation rate), 68 at Half Moon Bay (52% participation rate), and 75 at Barwon Heads (47% participation rate). There was a relatively even gender split across the sample (47.4% male overall), with a mean age of just under 49 years of age. Just over a quarter of participants had visited Melbourne Zoo in the previous 12-months, with over one fifth having visited the seal exhibit and/or viewed the show where some information is provided about the issue of marine

debris and entanglement. The fishing participation rate in this study at 39.9% is considerably higher than that observed in the Australian National Recreational and Fishing Survey of approximately 20%, however this is likely attributable to the population of interest in this study being coastal users and the bins being installed at recreational fishing sites (Henry and Lyle, 2003). Consistent with National fishing data, fishing participation was also considerably higher for men, with males accounting for 68% of those who fish overall (Henry and Lyle, 2003). Chi-square analysis and One-way ANOVA were used to determine whether there were any differences in socio-demographic characteristics as a function of survey site (see Table 1). Results indicated the Half Moon Bay sample was significantly younger than those surveyed at Middle Brighton and Barwon Heads, while there were also significant differences between sites for level of fishing, coastal visitation, pet ownership, and zoo visitation. 3. Results Please note: all qualitative/thematic analyses presented in this section were conducted by one researcher for consistency and then a sub-sample of 20% were independently coded into themes by a second researcher to ensure adequate inter-rater reliability. This was acceptable for all analyses, ranging from 90% to 98%. 3.1. Knowledge about MWE and perceptions of risk 3.1.1. What do you understand by the term marine wildlife entanglement? To analyse knowledge about MWE, responses were categorised as being correct, incorrect/incomplete, or don’t know. Responses were classified as correct if participants specifically identified marine animals being caught in, or ingesting, debris (for example processed and manufactured items for human use such as rubbish, plastics, fishing line, nets; Lazar and Gracˇan, 2011). They may or may not have specified the outcomes of this (such as resulting in illness, injury, or death). Incorrect/incomplete responses did not meet the criteria outlined above and did not demonstrate a clear

Table 1 Overview of participant characteristics by site and overall. These were bold as they provide the overall figures for the combined sample (Middle Brighton, Half Moon Bay, and Barwon Heads). Middle Brighton

Half Moon Bay

Barwon Heads

Total

v2/F

Gender (male)

50%

48.5%

44.0%

47.4%

.572

Age Mean in years (s.d.)

53.03 (16.88)

42.90 (13.88)

50.35 (15.10)

48.85 (15.85)

8.07***

Education (High school) (Tafe) (University)

14.3% 15.7% 70.0%

19.4% 10.4% 70.1%

33.3% 8.0% 58.7%

22.6% 11.3% 66.0%

Vegetarian

5.7%

1.5%

2.7%

3.3%

Average coastal visits (A few times/yr) (Once a month) (Once a week) (Several times weekly)

8.6% 15.7% 18.6% 57.1%

23.9% 16.4% 19.4% 40.3%

54.7% 16.0% 5.3% 24.0%

29.7% 16.0% 14.2% 40.1%

Recreational Fishing (yes)

30.0%

54.4%

36.0%

39.9%

9.31**

Average fish serves/wk

1.66 (1.22)

2.02 (1.09)

1.71 (1.19)

1.79 (1.18)

1.78

Pet owners Visited MZ past 12 months Visited seal exhibit

57.1% 24.3% 20%

77.6% 37.3% 31.3%

69.3% 18.7% 13.3%

67.9% 26.4% 21.2%

6.69* 6.57* 6.96*

9.18

2.04 43.36***

Note: Asterisks indicate if there was a significant difference in the proportion of individuals in each characteristic group by survey site. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014

7

E. Pearson et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Table 2 Proportion of correct, incorrect/incomplete, and unsure responses regarding marine wildlife entanglement, across the three survey sites.

Don’t know Incorrect/incomplete Correct

Middle Brighton (N = 70)

Half Moon Bay (N = 68)

Barwon Heads (N = 75)

Overall (N = 213)

14.3% 20.0% 65.7%

5.9% 23.5% 70.6%

9.3% 22.7% 68.0%

9.9% 22.1% 68.1%

understanding of the concept/issue of MWE (e.g. ‘‘danger to the wildlife’’ or ‘‘the way marine wildlife interact with each other and the effects of human coast fishing’’). Those who explicitly indicated having no knowledge about MWE were recorded in the ‘don’t know’ category. Inter-rater reliability for this measure was very high with 98% agreement. Results indicated that a majority (68.1%) of the sample were able to provide a correct definition of what MWE is, with responses including ‘‘when any species becomes caught or tangled in human waste, e.g. nets, lines, plastics etc’’ or ‘‘human debris, i.e. waste products, fishing lines and nets restricting and damaging marine life activity’’. However, approximately 1 in 10 surveyed were unfamiliar with this term (see Table 2). Chisquare analysis revealed there was no association between site surveyed and level of understanding, v2 (4, N = 213) = 2.84, p > .05, and as such subsequent analyses of knowledge about entanglement have been performed on the combined samples. 3.1.2. Risk posed by entanglement to marine wildlife When asked about perceptions of risk posed by entanglement, there was high variability in responses with a mean rating of 67.37 provided (SD 26.35) but with responses spanning almost the full spectrum of the scale, from 1 (near no threat) to 100 (extremely high risk). 3.1.3. Which are the main human actions that contribute to marine wildlife entanglement? Responses to this question were categorised into themes, with the proportion of participants who provided a response within each theme detailed in Table 3. Where participants provided responses spanning multiple themes, all themes within their response were recorded (note: this methodology has been applied to all thematic analysis throughout this section). The most prominent theme reported was littering and dumping of rubbish, closely followed by responses mentioning fishing activity specifically as a cause of marine entanglement. Many participants (>15%) also emphasised negative human traits as being a key contributor, i.e.

‘‘sheer and utter laziness & not caring a thing about their environment’’. 3.1.4. Which animal species are affected by becoming entangled in, or swallowing, waste/rubbish in marine environments? The most prominent responses to this question were fish and birds. Where specific species were mentioned, this was primarily for dolphins and seals, although turtles, whales, and sharks were also noted by some participants. Just under a third of the sample also acknowledged that marine entanglement and ingestion would impact nearly all marine species (see Table 4). 3.1.5. What can people do to reduce rates of entanglement? The most frequent response in terms of what people can do to reduce rates of entanglement was to be more careful and dispose of waste appropriately. However, nearly a third of participants also felt greater education and awareness (for example through the provision of signs, or through school education and media campaigns) was important to facilitate more responsible action. Several participants also mentioned the need to phase out plastic products (e.g. bags), to encourage more recycling and environmentally-friendly product development, and suggested more bins would help to alleviate this environmental challenge (see Table 5). 3.2. Attitudes toward marine wildlife Attitudes toward marine wildlife were very positive across all survey sites, with a mean score of 40.5 overall (SD 4.12), and mean scores for the three sites ranging from 40.2 to 40.99 (with a scale maximum of 45). Due to a significant negative skew in this variable, data were reflected and a log transformation applied prior to further analysis. This resolved the issue of non-normality. A oneway ANOVA confirmed there were no differences in attitudes as a function of survey site F(2, 205) = .695, P > .05. As such, a summary of responses to individual attitude items has been presented in Table 6 for the sample as a whole.

Table 3 Proportion of responses for each theme regarding human actions contributing to entanglement. Theme

Example

% Of responses (N = 211)

Littering, dumping rubbish, poor disposal of waste

‘‘Leaving products on the ground, the beach etc which eventually find their ways into waterways/oceans’’ ‘‘Incorrectly disposing of waste’’ ‘‘Dumping of rubbish in waterways’’

66.35

Fishing-activity (recreational and/or commercial)

‘‘Fishermen discarding hooks, lines, nets’’ ‘‘Not taking lines/rubbish home. Many bait bags/fishing lines on piers’’ ‘‘Leaving hooks/lines in water and on banks of rivers/oceans’’ ‘‘Fishing without proper regard to the environment’’

49.76

Carelessness, thoughtlessness, laziness

‘‘Neglect. ‘Don’t care’ attitude’’ ‘‘Carelessness. . . fundamental ignorance of the impacts’’ ‘‘Laziness, carelessness, ignorance. . . not caring about wildlife, seeing the planet as for the individual rather than wildlife’’

15.17

Other (e.g. stormwater drains, pollution, poor management, over-use of plastics)

‘‘The lack of will by the powers that be to tackle the problem’’ ‘‘Not enough dispensaries and their location’’ ‘‘Lack of understanding of how our choices impact on them’’ ‘‘Storm water flowing directly to the bay/sea’’

32.70

Don’t know

‘‘Do not know’’

3.79

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014

8

E. Pearson et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 4 Participant responses to species impacted by entanglement and ingestion. Type of animal listed

% Of total responses (N = 210)

Fish Birds Dolphins Seals Everything/all Turtles/tortoises Whale Shark Mammal (non-specific) Crustacean/shellfish/mollusk Other (e.g. porpoise, otter, seahorse) None/don’t know

57.14 49.52 41.43 33.81 29.05 13.81 11.90 8.10 7.14 3.81 8.10 3.33

3.3. Familiarity with STL Initiative and impacts on behaviour Across the sample, 12.9% indicated they had seen the STL bins, with just under half of these (5.6%) responding they were familiar with the broader STL initiative. Barwon Heads had the highest proportion of respondents reporting seeing the bins (16.4%), followed by 14.5% at Middle Brighton and 7.5% at Half Moon Bay. Meanwhile, Middle Brighton had the most respondents reporting familiarity with the Seal the Loop Initiative (8.6%), followed by 5.3% at Barwon Heads and 2.9% at Half Moon Bay. Only 4.3% of the overall sample reported knowing what the bins are made from (recycled plastic). Given the small proportion of people at each site familiar with STL, the following analyses present combined data from the three research sites for individuals who reported being familiar with the broader initiative and its aims (N = 12). Most commonly individuals (50%) indicated they had heard/ learnt about this through the bins directly, with others citing media coverage and through the zoo. Their understanding of the initiative was reflected in their statements of purpose, including: ‘‘reducing harm to seals (and other marine life) by reducing rubbish in the ocean’’; ‘‘to reduce/eliminate the waste and fishing wire deposited in the water’’; ‘‘placing bins for fishing line in obvious places’’; and ‘‘recycling/reduce rubbish into marine ecosystem- useful to show seals that have been impacted- especially for youth/schools’’. Opinions of the initiative among this group were very positive, with 83.3%

providing the highest rating possible of 5 (a further 8.3% responded with slightly positive, 8.3% neutral). Five individuals (41.6% of the sample familiar with STL) reported they learnt something new from the initiative, including methods of fishing to reduce these issues and how much rubbish got into the sea before it was implemented. It was further noted as a reminder for some of the need to think about their fishing line and what to do with it, as well as the need to collect stray line. Overall, impacts of the program on selfreported disposal of waste near water environments was mixed, with 50.0% of the sample reporting a strong impact, while the remainder of the sample indicated no impact. However, several participants reporting no impact suggested this was because they ‘‘already dispose of waste correctly’’ or ‘‘collect any rubbish I see and always have’’. Such findings were consistent with self-reported waste disposal patterns of the entire community sample, with 97.6% of respondents reporting they never litter or leave waste in marine environments. Only a small minority (2.4%, 5 participants in total) reported they occasionally leave waste behind if there are no bins available. This is consistent with the majority of the sample (56.9%) reporting they would walk an unlimited distance/ until they found a bin or just take their rubbish home when visiting the coast. Where a distance was specified, 20.6% of participants indicated they would walk up to 100 m, 10.3% between 101– 499 m, and 10.8% 500 m or further. A few participants however explicitly noted here that more bins are needed in coastal locations. Of the individuals who had seen/used the STL bins specifically, 12 people (5.6% of the total sample) reported what they had used the bins for. The items they reported depositing into the bins were primarily fishing line and other fishing waste (from personal use or that which they found along the coast/pier), although general rubbish/plastics, and cigarette butts were also reported. Estimates of the volume of waste were approximately 200 m of line, 113 hooks, as well as unspecified sinks and floats. 3.4. Comparisons of anglers and non-anglers As noted in Table 1, nearly 40% of the total sample indicated they participate in fishing activity. The majority of these individuals reported only fishing rarely (52.8%), or a few times a year

Table 5 Proportion of responses within each theme regarding how people can reduce entanglement. Response themes

Examples

Proportion of responses (N = 210)

Be more careful/don’t litter/discard rubbish and fishing waste appropriately/do the right thing

‘‘Be more responsible, observe signs for do not litter, take home your rubbish, stop being lazy, don’t leave it on the sand for others to pick up’’ ‘‘Pick up rubbish, make sure the only thing you leave on the beach are your footprints in the sand’’ ‘‘Be conscious of breeze taking rubbish, careless, be conscious plastics don’t break down’’

77.62%

Be more aware of the issues and impact/educate/raise awareness

‘‘Put up signs, make people more conscious re impacts of actions. Show results of what happens’’ ‘‘Media campaigns- education’’ ‘‘Encourage other people not to throw out rubbish. Tell children why. People think it’s a huge sea so just chuck it in’’

29.52%

Reduce use of plastics/recycle

‘‘Reduce usage of plastic bags’’ ‘‘Stop over-use of plastics’’ ‘‘Reduce/Reuse/Recycle’’

10.0%

Need more bins/better waste management

‘‘Need more bins generally and emptied regularly’’ ‘‘Covers on bins’’ ‘‘Easier access to rubbish disposal’’ ‘‘City councils can/could provide more rubbish bins along the shore’’ ‘‘Better grates on stormwater’’

Other

‘‘More severe penalties for improper disposal of rubbish and incorrect use of fishing gear’’ ‘‘Better design of packaging to prevent loops etc’’ ‘‘Lobby against ghost nets and long-line fishing’’

Don’t know

7.62%

21.43%

2.38%

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014

9

E. Pearson et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 6 Responses to individual attitudes toward marine wildlife and conservation items. Attitude items

Strongly disagree (%)

Slightly disagree (%)

Neutral (%)

Slightly agree (%)

Strongly agree (%)

All marine species have a right to exist in their natural environment I like learning about marine animals I see little wrong with fishing practices that contribute to marine entanglement if they produce jobs for people It is worth paying a little more for seafood products to assist marine conservation When I see marine animals in the wild, I feel relaxed and happy I would support the use of fishing restrictions to assist in the conservation of marine species Each marine species plays an important role in the marine ecosystem It is not humans’ job to protect endangered marine animals from extinction I enjoy watching animals in the ocean

0.5 0.0 55.5

0.5 2.4 23.4

1.0 23.9 16.3

3.3 26.8 4.3

94.7 46.9 0.5

2.9 1.4 2.4

4.3 1.4 4.8

12.0 10.1 9.6

29.2 21.2 25.8

51.7 65.9 57.4

0.0 78.5 0.5

0.5 13.4 0.0

6.2 2.9 4.3

11.0 3.8 18.3

82.3 1.4 76.9

(29.2%). Less than 20% of the sample reported fishing with a frequency of once a month or more. The primary motivations for fishing among this group were to be outdoors/spend time in nature, followed by recreation, and to relax and unwind (rated by P75% of participants as being important or very important to them). The next highest motivations were to get away from demands and to be with family and friends. Fishing for sport, fishing for food, or to sell were reported the least by participants. 3.4.1. Knowledge about MWE Chi-square analysis revealed there was no association between fishing status (anglers vs non-anglers) and knowledge of MWE, v2 (2, N = 213) = 0.31, p > .05. A correct response was provided by 65.88% of anglers compared with 69.53% of non-anglers. Perceptions of the risk MWE poses to marine wildlife were also comparable for anglers (M = 68.13, SD = 27.17) and non-anglers (M = 66.87, SD = 25.90). An independent samples t-test revealed there was no significant difference between these groups, t(201) = 0.33, p > 05. Similarly, both groups answered consistently in terms of the primary human actions leading to MWE, with the most common response being littering and dumping rubbish (68.75% of non-fishers and 62.65% of anglers), followed by fishing activity (48.44% of non-fishers and 51.83% of anglers). 3.4.2. Attitudes toward marine animals Anglers reported marginally lower attitudes toward marine animals and their conservation than non-anglers (M = 40.20, SD = 4.26

compared with M = 40.71, SD = 4.03 respectively). An independent samples t-test using the transformed attitude score confirmed these differences were not significant, t(206) = 0.77, p > .05. 3.4.3. Familiarity with Seal the Loop A majority of anglers and non-anglers (87% and 88% respectively) reported being unfamiliar with ‘Seal the Loop’. There was a noticeable difference however in those that were familiar, with anglers much more likely to have seen the bins, while non-anglers were much more likely to report being familiar with the broader initiative and its aims (refer to Fig. 3). 4. Discussion/conclusions 4.1. Knowledge about MWE and perceptions of risk Overall knowledge levels about MWE were sound, with an understanding of what ‘marine wildlife entanglement’ is evident for over two thirds of this sample (68.1%). This finding is somewhat in contrast to previous research, which has suggested poor public awareness of marine conservation issues (e.g. Eddy, 2014; McKinley and Fletcher, 2012) and low familiarity with terms such as biodiversity (Steel et al., 2005). However, nearly 10% of the sample reported being unfamiliar with this term and a further 22.1% provided an incorrect/vague response, indicating a need still exists for further community education regarding this issue. This is particularly the case given prior studies indicate coastal residents

Fig. 3. Proportion of anglers and non-anglers who were familiar with ‘Seal the Loop’, had seen the bins, or were unfamiliar.

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014

10

E. Pearson et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

may differ from the wider population, with this sample likely to have higher familiarity with ocean issues than non-coastal users or residents (e.g. Steel et al., 2005). Furthermore, participants who elected to participate in the research may have been those individuals who had a greater interest in, or knowledge of, marine environmental issues, and thus findings could potentially overrepresent knowledge amongst the wider community. The general understanding about MWE in this sample was reflected in responses to the human actions leading to entanglement. Unsurprisingly, littering and dumping rubbish were most commonly cited but a substantial proportion of respondents also displayed judgement at such actions, with 15% noting carelessness, thoughtlessness, and laziness as key contributors. This is consistent with strong societal anti-littering injunctive norms (e.g. Cialdini et al., 1990). This was also apparent in responses to what people can do to reduce MWE, with over three quarters of participants noting a need to be more careful, do the right thing, and dispose of waste correctly. However, several participants also emphasised the need for more bins along the coastline to facilitate such action. Despite a lack of awareness about MWE apparent for a third of the sample; interestingly 97.6% of participants indicated (via selfreport) that they never litter near coastal environments, which is in stark contrast to the littering figures around 25% reported in previous research (Santos et al., 2005; Slavin et al., 2012). It is unclear whether social desirability bias may have inhibited participants providing honest responses here, whether self-selection into the study may have caused an over-representation of those who already ‘do the right thing’ in terms of rubbish disposal, or whether participants may have interpreted/responded to the question as referring only to deliberate, rather than passive, acts of littering (neglecting to include occasions where rubbish was inadvertently left behind or blown away). Given this limitation, it will be important for future research to more fully investigate marine littering behaviours amongst the Australian community. Whether participants engage in additional related marine conservation behaviours (e.g. educating others, collecting stray rubbish on beaches), and how this relates to different levels of awareness regarding marine debris and MWE, is also worthy of further exploration. Nonetheless, amongst this sample, there was a clear perspective that more bins and awareness were needed to target the ‘others’ who were presently not disposing of waste correctly and contributing to MWE. Nearly a third of the sample specifically mentioned a need exists for further education so that people fully appreciate the consequences of their actions, as well as suggesting signs that serve to increase awareness in coastal locations. When participants specified an appropriate maximum distance to walk to a bin, up to 100 m was the most common response provided. This may provide some insight for coastal planners and management in relation to ensuring adequate bins and reminders are provided to minimise public littering behaviour and subsequently reduce marine debris. In terms of the impacts of marine debris on other species, fish and birds were most commonly recognised as being impacted, followed by charismatic species such as dolphins and seals, suggesting these are most easily associated in the community with the issue of MWE. Just under a third of the sample included most/anything/all in their response, which may indicate that the remaining participants do not appreciate just how many diverse species are impacted- at least 267 species globally (Laist, 1997) and 77 within Australia (Ceccarelli, 2009; Pemberton et al., 1992). Differing levels of awareness of the breadth of species impacted and extent to which marine species are affected may also explain the high variability found in perceptions of the risk posed by entanglement to marine species. Although the mean score of 67.37 represents a relatively high perception of risk, the standard deviation in responses was also large (26.35) and 30% of the sample provided a risk rating lower than 50. Overall, findings are comparable to Howard and

Parsons (2006), which revealed that 80% of Scottish residents felt entanglement poses a moderate or serious threat, although their sample still rated this risk as lower than that for pollution (e.g. chemicals and oil spills), and therefore both samples as a whole could be said to under-estimate the risk of marine debris and entanglement relative to the opinions of experts who consider this to be a highly significant threat to marine wildlife. 4.2. Attitudes toward marine wildlife Attitudes toward marine animals and their conservation were extremely high in this sample, nearing the maximum of the scale. Given theoretical (e.g. Ajzen, 1991) and empirical support for the influence of attitudes on behavioural intentions/behaviour- including relevant conservation behaviours (e.g. Pearson et al., 2013) – this is an important finding in indicating a high level of public support for marine animals and their conservation. However (although still receiving positive evaluations from a majority of participants), interestingly three of the four items with the lowest level of support were those that asked about support of marine conservation if this was associated with a human cost, e.g. ‘I see little wrong with fishing practices that contribute to marine entanglement if they produce jobs for people’ (this item was reverse coded); ‘it is worth paying a little more for seafood to assist marine conservation’; and ‘I would support the use of fishing restrictions to assist in the conservation of marine species’. Thus it seems participants hold positive attitudes toward marine species, and are generally supportive of their protection; however support is lessened when this has direct impacts on human employment, activity, or the cost of goods and services. Similar mixed opinions associated with human costs of marine protection have also been observed by Kellert et al. (1995), Salz and Loomis (2005), and Sutton and Tobin (2009). 4.3. Familiarity with STL Initiative and impacts on behaviour In relation to the STL program, findings indicate that at the time of the research, penetration of the initiative was fairly low, with only 12.9% of the overall sample reporting any familiarity with STL, either through seeing the specially designed and installed bins or learning more broadly about the initiative and its aims. However, for those who were aware of the initiative the impacts were notable- including positive evaluations of the program and its aims by 91.6% of this group, 41.6% indicating they had learnt something new (such as the magnitude of the MWE problem), and 50.0% claiming this had a strong impact on their disposal of waste in coastal environments. Greater than 5% of the overall sample also reported having used the bins. Furthermore, within this sample it was estimated that at least 200 m of line and 113 hooks had been placed in the STL bins. If the latter figures were applied to a larger population of beach goers, with local populations surrounding the three study sites estimated to be in excess of 45, 000 individuals at the 2011 Australian Census (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011), it is likely that a significant number of individuals are utilising these bins and subsequently reducing the magnitude of waste that enters the marine environment. Evidence for this can be taken from Zoos Victoria’s 2012–2013 STL Report (available from: http://zoo.org.au/sites/default/files/STL%20Report%202012_13.pdf), which indicates that the 140 STL bins installed along the Victorian coast cumulatively collect an average of 25 m of fishing line daily, for a total of 9 km of line, as well as 1680 hooks annually. While the findings overall represent an important start in building further community engagement in Australia with the issue of marine debris and wildlife entanglement, and provides another example of how zoos can contribute to public conservation education and behaviour beyond (as well as within) the zoo environment

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014

E. Pearson et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

(e.g. Pearson et al., 2014), consistent with their changing organisational purpose (Patrick et al., 2007), it is evident that further increasing community awareness of the STL initiative is required to achieve even greater impacts. Since this research was conducted, several projects have commenced to fulfil this need, including a ‘Seal the Loop Action Day’ community event, which was held in November of 2013 with a view to further educate the community about MWE and raise awareness of the STL initiative specifically. The introduction of beach clean-ups as part of a community education and engagement strategy is well-supported by previous programs that have sought to reduce marine debris and MWE internationally (e.g. Martin, 2013; Storrier and McGlashan, 2006) and this event was successful, with over 250 participants across the two selected sites, resulting in the removal of 70 bags of rubbish and 1.4 km of fishing line. Further awareness is also being built through onsite integration at Melbourne Zoo, with a specially designed educational seal show incorporating key STL messages running daily at the seal exhibit. Additional suggestions for strategies to enhance the program can be taken from the sample themselves. Moving forward, they felt it was important to consider a larger bin size and visibility; to consider alternate locations for ease of use by anglers (e.g. on piers rather than at the entrance to the pier); as well as to provide greater signage and information about ‘Seal the Loop’ and MWE with the bins, or more generally along the coast, to encourage people to be more mindful of their actions and to be aware of the potential consequences and impacts on wildlife. It will be important for further research to track the impact of such enhancements on community familiarity with MWE and the STL program, as well as related conservation behaviours, rates of marine debris, and rates of entanglement/ingestion. 4.4. Comparisons of anglers and non-anglers In contrast to previous research (e.g. Kellert et al., 1995), this study found no discernable differences between anglers and non-anglers on various outcome variables, including knowledge regarding MWE, perceptions of risk of entanglement, and attitudes toward marine animals and their conservation. Interestingly, within this sample there was also a slight (non-significant) tendency for those who fish to more often list fishing as a human action causing entanglement than for non-fishing counterparts (51.8% compared with 48.4% respectively). One potential explanation for the finding of no differences between anglers and nonanglers in this research may be the low frequency of fishing reported among this sample, with greater than 80% of this group reporting they only fish rarely/a few times a year. Furthermore, the primary reasons for fishing seen in this sample were spending time outdoors/in nature, recreation, and relaxation, with little emphasis on catch outcomes. Given previous research has established differing motivations for fishing (i.e. catch-related vs noncatch related) likely contribute to attitudinal differences regarding the marine environment and marine protection (Burger, 2002; Henry and Lyle, 2003), further research will be required to determine if anglers in this sample are representative of the wider fishing population, including those who fish with greater frequency and/or are motivated by catch outcomes, and to enhance understandings regarding the relationship between engagement in fishing behaviour and knowledge and attitudes regarding marine animals and MWE. One notable difference to emerge however was in relation to angler and non-angler awareness about STL specifically. While overall familiarity was similar for both groups (12.94% and 11.72% respectively), there was a substantial difference in how the populations were aware of the program, with anglers almost 3 more likely to have seen the bins but 3 less likely to report being aware of the broader purpose and aims of the program.

11

Given that anglers are the key population of interest for reducing fishing waste in coastal locations, and previous literature has emphasised the contribution of recreational fishing to the global challenge of marine debris (McPhee et al., 2002), this represents an important group to target more extensively with further expansion to the STL program to ensure anglers not only see/use the bins but also develop an appreciation of why it is important to do so, in the context of the risk that marine debris (and fishing waste specifically) poses to marine species and environments.

5. Conclusions MWE remains a significant issue for Australian coastal management and a world-wide challenge. As noted previously, this is important for human health, for economic reasons, and for the welfare and ongoing survival of the myriad of animal species documented as being affected (DEWHA, 2009; Gregory, 2009; Jones, 1995; Laist, 1997; Lazar and Gracˇan, 2011; UNEP, 2009). Since human behaviour through improper disposal of waste is a key contributor to this problem, increasing understanding and modifying harmful behaviour is an essential part of any solution; with Sheavly and Register emphasising that there is a common origin for all marine debris, being that ‘‘at a critical decision point, someone, somewhere, mishandled it- either thoughtlessly or deliberately’’ (2007, p. 301). Although previous research provided some general insight into people’s knowledge of coastal conservation issues (Fletcher et al., 2009; Steel et al., 2005), there was a paucity of research which focused upon the issue of MWE specifically and on the Australian context. The findings of this research have revealed that while a majority of individuals are familiar with what MWE is, hold positive attitudes toward marine species and conservation, and self-report correct waste disposal near coastal environments, there is still a considerable sub-section of the population who may not have an adequate understanding of MWE issues, the risk posed by marine debris to diverse species of marine wildlife, or how to minimise the impact of human behaviour on marine environments. While the sample emphasised more careful disposal of rubbish and people not being lazy and irresponsible with rubbish disposal as key strategies for people to take to reduce rates of MWE, they also noted the need for greater awareness/education, which could help to contribute to addressing this knowledge gap. Such knowledge may facilitate greater marine citizenship (McKinley and Fletcher, 2012) and behavioural engagement beyond an absence of personal active littering behaviour (for example reducing accidental/passive littering, collecting others’ rubbish, and educating others/building strong community norms around this issue), in accordance with the positive attitudes displayed toward marine animals and their conservation, since knowledge about a problem (and particularly procedural or action-related knowledge, i.e. knowledge of how to do something about this problem) serves an important role in enabling and facilitating the most effective behavioural action (Frick et al., 2004). ‘Seal the Loop’ provides one potential avenue for such education and the encouragement of further marine conservation behaviour, with positive community perceptions and many of those familiar with this initiative reporting they had learnt something new from this, such as the extent of the problem of marine debris and MWE or methods of fishing to reduce MWE, and nearly half reporting this had strongly impacted their waste disposal behaviours. Those who were familiar with the initiative and had seen/used the bins had also contributed to the effective disposal of >200 m of fishing lone and 100 hooks, which may otherwise have found their way into the ocean. While encouraging, there is a need to build on present foundations to further spread the message of the initiative and increase public awareness/action given only 12.9% of the sample

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014

12

E. Pearson et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

had seen the STL bins or were specifically aware of the program and its aims. It will be important for future research to evaluate the ongoing impact of such additions/developments to the ‘Seal the Loop’ initiative; to collect data to determine impacts on rates of entanglement in target areas; as well as potentially trialling different strategies to further engage the Australian community with the issue of marine debris and MWE- which remains a global health concern and substantial threat to the world’s marine biodiversity, and of course, the welfare of individual animals affected. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Zoos Victoria for their partnership in this research and the participating councils (Bayside and Barwon Heads) for allowing data collection at the research sites. This work was supported by funding from Zoos Victoria. References Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T. Ajzen, I., 2011. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychol. Health 26, 1113–1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995. Ajzen, I., 2014. The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: a commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychol.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.883474 (Advance online publication). Armitage, C.J., Conner, M., 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 471–499. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1348/014466601164939. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011. 2011 Census ‘Community Profiles’. . Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Biolog. Sci. 364, 1985–1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205. Barney, E.C., Mintzes, J.J., Yen, C.-F., 2005. Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward charismatic megafauna: the case of dolphins. J. Environ. Educ. 36, 41–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.36.2.41-55. Beaumont, N.J., Austen, M.C., Mangi, M.T., 2008. Economic valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 386–396. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.11.013. Breckler, S.J., 1984. Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47, 1191–1205. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1191. Burger, J., 2002. Consumption patterns and why people fish. Environ. Res. Sect. 90, 125–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/enrs.2002.4391. Ceccarelli, D.M. 2009. Impacts of plastic debris on Australian marine wildlife. Report by C&R Consulting for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. . Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., Kallgren, C.A., 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.58.6.1015. Clayton, S., Litchfield, C., Geller, E.S., 2013. Psychological science, conservation, and environmental sustainability. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 377–382. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1890/120351. Cummins, S., Snively, G., 2000. The effect of instruction on children’s knowledge of marine ecology, attitudes toward the ocean, and stances toward marine resource issues. Can. J. Environ. Educ. 5, 305–324. Cunningham, D.J., Wilson, S.P., 2003. Marine debris on beaches of the Greater Sydney Region. J. Coastal Res. 19, 421–430. Derraik, J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025326X(02)00220-5. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2009. Background Paper for the Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life. . Eddy, T.D., 2014. One hundred-fold difference between perceived and actual levels of marine protection in New Zealand. Marine Policy 48, 61–67. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.004. Edgell, M.C.R., Nowell, D.E., 1989. The new environmental paradigm scale: wildlife and environmental beliefs in British Columbia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2, 285–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941928909380692. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. 1999 (Cth) (Austl.).

Fletcher, S., Potts, J.S., Heeps, C., Pike, K., 2009. Public awareness of marine environmental issues in the UK. Marine Policy 33, 370–375. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.08.004. Frick, J., Kaiser, F.G., Wilson, M., 2004. Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality Individ. Differ. 37, 1597–1613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2004.02.015. Frost, A., Cullen, M., 1997. Marine debris on Northern New South Wales beaches (Australia): sources and the role of beach usage. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34, 348–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(96)00149-X. Gregory, M.R., 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings- entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Biol. 364, 2013–2025. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1098/rstb.2008.0265. Henry, G.W., Lyle, J.M., 2003. The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey. Australian Government Department of Agriculture. Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, ACT. Herzog Jr., H.A., Betchart, N.S., Pittman, R.B., 1991. Gender, sex role orientation, and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoos 4, 184–191. Howard, C., Parsons, E.C.M., 2006. Attitudes of Scottish city inhabitants to cetacean conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 15, 4335–4356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10531-005-3740-6. Ivar do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2007. Marine debris review for Latin America and the Wider Caribbean Region: from the 1970s until now, and where do we go from here? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 1087–1104. http://dx.doi.org/10.10l6/ j.marpolbul.2007.05.004. Jacobsen, J.K., Massey, L., Gulland, F., 2010. Fatal ingestion of floating net debris by two sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 765–767. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.03.008. Jones, M.M., 1995. Fishing debris in the Australian marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 30, 25–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(94)00108-L. Kellert, S. 1999. American Perceptions of Marine Mammals and Their Management. . Kellert, S.R., Gibbs, J.P., Wohlgenant, T.J., 1995. Canadian perceptions of commercial fisheries management and marine mammal conservation in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Anthrozoos 8, 20–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/ 089279395787156518. Laist, D.W., 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer, New York, USA, pp. 99–139. Lazar, B., Gracˇan, R., 2011. Ingestion of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, in the Adriatic Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 43–47. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.09.013. Lebreton, L.C.-M., Greer, S.D., Borrero, J.C., 2012. Numerical modelling of floating debris in the world’s oceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 653–661. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.10.027. Martin, J.M., 2013. Marine debris removal: one year of effort by the Georgia Sea Turtle Center-Marine Debris Initiative. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 74, 165–169. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.009. McKinley, E., Fletcher, S., 2012. Improving marine environmental health through marine citizenship: a call for debate. Marine Policy 36, 839–843. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.11.001. McPhee, D.P., Leadbitter, D., Skilleter, G.A., 2002. Swallowing the bait: is recreational fishing in Australia ecologically sustainable? Pacific Conserv. Biol. 8, 40–51. O’Connor, R.E., Bord, R.J., Fisher, A., 1999. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal. 19, 461–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007004813446. Page, B., McKenzie, J., McIntosh, R., Baylis, A., Morrissey, A., Calvert, N., Goldsworthy, S.D., 2004. Entanglement of Australian sea lions and New Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris before and after Government and industry attempts to reduce the problem. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 49, 33–42. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.01.006. Patrick, P.G., Matthews, C.E., Ayers, D.F., Tunnicliffe, S.D., 2007. Conservation and education: prominent themes in zoo mission statements. J. Environ. Educ. 38, 53–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.38.3.53-60. Pearson, E., 2013. Conservation psychology: a gap in current Australian undergraduate psychology education. Sustainability 5, 1266–1281. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3390/su5031266. Pearson, E.L., Dorrian, J., Litchfield, C.A., 2013. Measuring zoo visitor learning and understanding about orangutans: evaluation to enhance learning outcomes and to foster conservation action. Environ. Educ. Res. 19, 823–843. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13504622.2012.763112. Pearson, E.L., Lowry, R., Dorrian, J., Litchfield, C.A., 2014. Evaluating the conservation impact of an innovative zoo-based educational campaign: ‘Don’t Palm Us Off’ for orang-utan conservation. Zoo Biol.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21120 (Advance online publication). Pemberton, D., Brothers, N.P., Kirkwood, R., 1992. Entanglement of Australian fur seals in man-made debris in Tasmanian Waters. Wildlife Res. 19, 151–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR9920151. Ribic, C.A., Sheavly, S.B., Rugg, D.J., Erdmann, E.S., 2010. Trends and drivers of marine debris on the Atlantic coast of the United States 1997–2007. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 1231–1242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.03.021.

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014

E. Pearson et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Ruby, M.B., 2012. Vegetarianism: a blossoming field of study. Appetite 58, 141–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019. Ryan, P.G., Moore, C.J., van Franeker, J.A., Moloney, C.L., 2009. Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Biol. Sci. 364, 1999–2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0207. Salz, R.J., Loomis, D.K., 2005. Recreation specialization and anglers’ attitudes towards restricted fishing areas. Human Dimensions Wildlife: Int. J. 10, 187– 199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871200591003436. Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C., Wallner-Kersanach, M., Fillmann, G., 2005. Influence of socio-economic characteristics of beach users on litter generation. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48, 742–752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.08.006. Scott, N.J., Parsons, E.C.M., 2005. A survey of public opinion in south-west Scotland on cetacean conservation issues. Aquat. Conserv.: Marine Freshwater Ecosyst. 15, 299–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.662. Sheavly, S.B., Register, K.M., 2007. Marine debris & plastics: environmental concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. J. Polym. Environ. 15, 301–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10924-007-0074-3. Sibley, C.G., Liu, J.H., 2003. Differentiating active and passive littering: a two-stage process model of littering behavior in public spaces. Environ. Behavior 35, 415– 433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916503035003006. Slavin, C., Grage, A., Campbell, M.L., 2012. Linking social drivers of marine debris with actual marine debris on beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 1580–1588. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.05.018. Smith, H.D., 2002. The role of the social sciences in capacity building in ocean and coastal management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 45, 573–582. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0964-5691(02)00087-X. Steel, B.S., Smith, C., Opsommer, L., Curiel, S., Warner-Steel, R., 2005. Public ocean literacy in the United States. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48, 97–114. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.01.002. Storrier, K.L., McGlashan, D.J., 2006. Development and management of a coastal litter campaign: the voluntary coastal partnership approach. Marine Policy 30, 189–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2005.01.002.

13

Sutton, S.G., Tobin, R.C., 2009. Recreational fishers’ attitudes towards the 2004 rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Environ. Conserv. 36, 245–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892909990270. Tarpley, R.J., Marwitz, S., 1993. Plastic debris ingestion by cetaceans along the Texas coast: two case reports. Aquatic Mammals 19, 93–98. Thompson, R.C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R.P., Davis, A., Rowland, S.J., John, A.W.G., McGonigle, D., Russell, A.E., 2004. Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 304 (5672), 838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1094559. Thompson, R.C., Swan, S.H., Moore, C.J., vom Saal, F.S., 2009. Our plastic age. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. 364, 1973–1976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0054. Tomás, J., Guitart, R., Mateo, R., Raga, J.A., 2002. Marine debris ingestion in loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from the Western Mediterranean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 211–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00236-3. United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. 2009. Marine Litter: A global challenge. Nairobi: UNEP. . Wescott, G., 2002. Partnerships for capacity building: community, governments and universities working together. Ocean Coast. Manag. 45, 549–571. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(02)00086-8. Wescott, G., 2006. The long and winding road: the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of highly protected marine protected areas in Victoria, Australia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 49, 905– 922. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.08.001. Whitmarsh, L., 2008. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J. Risk Res. 11, 351–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13669870701552235. Zoos Victoria. 2013Seal the Loop. .

Please cite this article in press as: Pearson, E., et al. Marine wildlife entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014