Studying the most effective modes of marine on in the oceans

by Simone A. Burton

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

Honors College

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Biology (Honors Scholar)

Presented May 28, 2021 Commencement June 2021

1

2

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Simone A. Burton for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Biology presented on May 28, 2021. Title: Studying the most effective modes of marine on in the oceans.

Abstract approved: ______Diana Rohlman

The ocean provides many ecosystems services and yet humans have viewed the ocean as a black hole for trash since the 1950s. With not getting to the source of the problem, smarter consumer choices are being targeted, specifically choices centered around the use of plastic. Thus efficient, useful communication is needed to inform consumer choices. This thesis project studied the most effective modes of marine science communication regarding plastic pollution in the ocean. We hypothesized that visual modes of science communication would be more effective at increasing of plastic pollution in the oceans and inspiring changes in plastic use. In a survey, participants viewed 4 communication products on marine plastic pollution (video, , , and text) and ranked those products, as as how likely they were to complete different action items. The survey was distributed through environmental science list-servs, resulting in a high proportion of respondents self-identifying as having high knowledge around marine plastic pollution. A literature review and the results from the survey identified the following key concepts when communicating: use visuals, provide , identify solutions, keep visuals simple and free of “clutter”, and keep the succinct. While there was a general agreeance that visual modes of science communication are preferred over text modes, we found that context and solutions must also be included with the visuals to accomplish effective communication. A higher knowledge of the topic was related to more action towards the issue, a statement supported by previous studies. Additionally, location, measured here as in Oregon, or outside Oregon, may have some impact on willingness to complete anti-plastic action items, with respondents outside Oregon rating their willingness higher. This survey informed a COVID-19 specific carousel product, evaluated with a 2nd survey. Participants of the 2nd survey were similarly highly-educated and highly rated their knowledge of marine plastic pollution. Respondents requested data-driven and , aggressive imagery communicating the effects of marine plastic pollution on wildlife. However, these desires are in contrast with accepted science communication strategies that highlight solution-oriented actions. Because of our highly educated sample, this indicates a discord between highly educated members of our society and skills in science communication. Science communication is of great importance to all STEAM (science, , , arts, and math) fields, making the realization of this discord startling. Future work would incorporate a more diverse population, specifically amongst people rating their knowledge of marine plastic pollution as average, or less than most people.

Key Words: science communication, marine science, marine plastic pollution, environmental literacy, change, COVID-19 pandemic

Corresponding e-mail address: [email protected] 3

©Copyright by Simone A. Burton May 28, 2021

4

Studying the most effective modes of marine science communication on plastic pollution in the oceans

by Simone A. Burton

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

Honors College

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Biology (Honors Scholar)

Presented May 28, 2021 Commencement June 2021

5

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Biology project of Simone A. Burton presented on May 28, 2021.

APPROVED:

______Diana Rohlman, Mentor, representing Environmental and Occupational Health

______Ehren Helmut Pflugfelder, Committee Member, representing School of , Literature, and

______Holly V. Campbell, Committee Member, representing Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation

______Toni Doolen, Dean, Oregon State University Honors College

I understand that my project will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University, Honors College. My signature below authorizes release of my project to any reader upon request.

______Simone A. Burton, Author

6

Studying the most effective modes of marine science communication on plastic pollution in the oceans

By Simone A. Burton

7

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the following people and groups for their wonderful guidance, advice, and support while completing my honors thesis! o Ehren Pflugfelder, committee member o Holly Campbell, committee member o Kerry Carlin-Morgan, Director of Education, Oregon o Katharine Nalven, Alaska Marine Representative, Defenders of Wildlife o Briana Goodwin, Oregon Field Manager, Surfrider o Hillary Esquina, Director of Digital , Defenders of Wildlife o Kassena Hillman, Honors College Advisor, Oregon State University o Cynthia Leonard, OSU Ocean11 Marine Club advisor o Andrea Norris, OSU Waste Watchers club o Diane Laundry, Coordinator for the Bainbridge Island Newsletter o Natalie Harris, Honors College Videographer and Designer o Hamza Molvi, Honors College Coordinator o Tara Dubois, Coordinator for The Cape Perpetua Collaborative o Flaxen Conway, Professor and Director of the Marine Resource program, Oregon State University o Honors College Monday Message team o International Marine Listserv o National Udall Scholarship Alumni o NOAA Ernest F. Hollings Scholars and Alumni o OSU Science Communication Listserv

A special thank you to my family and friends who gave me encouragement on the hardest days. And to Diana, my mentor, without whom this endeavor and my graduation as an honors scholar would not be possible. Thank you for believing in me and turning the hopeless into the hopeful.

“Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.” -Howard Zinn

8

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction to Marine Plastic Pollution ...... 10 Impacts on marine life ...... 11 Impacts on ecosystem services ...... 12 Steps to reduce plastic pollution ...... 13 Science communication and plastic pollution education ...... 15

Chapter 2: Evaluating the effectiveness of marine plastic pollution communication products…………………………………………………………………………………………17 Introduction ...... 17 Methods ...... 17 Results ...... 21 Discussion and Conclusion...... 29

Chapter 3: Developing messaging around COVID-19 related marine plastic pollution…………………..………………………………………………………………..……32 Introduction ...... 32 Methods ...... 33 Results ...... 35 Discussion and Conclusion...... 43

Chapter 4: Conclusions…...……………………………………………………………………45 Overall conclusions ...... 45 Caveats to this study ...... 45 Limitations to science communication and best practices ...... 46

Bibliography…………..…...……………………………………………………………………48

Appendix A: Tables from Chapter 1……………..……………………………………………52

Appendix B: Figures from Chapters 1 and 2…...……………………...………..……………57

9

Chapter 1: Introduction to Marine Plastic Pollution

Ocean health and human health are inextricably linked (Poe et al. 2014; Plymouth Mouth Laboratory 2015; Borja et al. 2020; Friedman et al. 2020; Rock et al. 2020). The ocean provides countless services, such as provisioning, occupations, values and identities, mental and emotional benefits, control, storm protection, sequestration, and production (Poe et al. 2014; Plymouth Mouth Laboratory 2015; Barbier 2017; Borja et al. 2020; Friedman et al. 2020). Ecosystem values provided by the ocean are currently valued at $24 trillion (Borja et al. 2020), with seafood feeding three billion people worldwide and fisheries and aquaculture providing 59.6 million jobs globally (Friedman et al. 2020). However, as the human population continues to skyrocket, the ocean is continually affected by anthropogenic actions. Specifically, anthropogenic poses a significant threat to not only the marine environment, but human health (Borja et al. 2020). For millennia, humans have viewed the oceans as black holes for our trash, thinking that the oceans are so vast that they will not be affected (Borja et al. 2020). Humans have dumped organic matter, chemicals, and litter into the oceans with the belief that oceans have the capacity to absorb and recycle all the contaminants (Borja et al. 2020). But new and have changed the way we understand the oceans and their processes (Borja et al. 2020), exposing the problems we as humans have imposed on the natural world through the of plastic. Plastic pollution is one of the most abundant categories of pollution in our world’s oceans (Borja et al. 2020). This is significant, as plastic has only been manufactured since the 1950’s (Borja et al. 2020). From 1950 to 2013, plastic production increased from 1.9 tons to 330 million tons of plastic (Seltenrich 2015). In 2014, it was estimated there was 5.25 trillion particles of plastic, weighing 269,000 tons, floating on the ocean surface (Seltenrich 2015). Since half of all are negatively buoyant, they will instead of float (Seltenrich 2015), this value is only the tip of the plastic “iceberg”. Plastic is prevalent even in coastlines that are sparsely developed, such as the Bodega Marine Reserve in northern California which is sheltered between multiple marine protected areas and whose nearest large population center is located roughly 50 miles away (Saley et al. 2019). , tiny fragments of degraded plastic, have been found in large quantities in Artic ice and marine organisms of all trophic levels are affected either directly or indirectly by plastic debris (Seltenrich 2015). Thus, plastic pollution is 10 mobile and moving through the ocean to impact remote areas otherwise free of pollution. Plastic pollution collects in the world’s oceans through a variety of ways. Negligent management practices and careless behavior have resulted in large masses of plastic being released into the environment and entering the world’s oceans (Isangedighi et al. 2018). Ghost nets (plastic nets that have been left or lost in the ocean) continue to catch animals while riding the currents or sinking (Derraik 2002). Plastic “scrubbers” used in and hand cleaners can float and most are transported by ocean currents after being discharged from sewage treatment (Derraik 2002). Nurdles, small plastic pellets used to manufacture larger plastics, can spill from or land-based containers, and end up in the ocean (Derraik 2002). Plastic from toothpastes, shampoos, and skin cleaners may also escape from water-treatment facilities (Derraik 2002). The result is a of plastic, starting with the tiniest of consumers called zooplankton and working up to the of the food web: humans. It is then unsurprising that the most direct consequence of plastic pollution in the oceans is ingested toxins, which humans acquire through the consumption of a contaminated organism (Beaumont et al. 2019). The same qualities that make plastic so useful in the human world, such as durability, make it hazardous to the natural world. Some plastic particles can take 500 years to decompose (Derraik 2002) and plastics residing the oceans degrade at a significantly slower rate than plastics on land (Isangedighi et al. 2018). Most plastics are not biodegradable and the plastics that are need the right conditions (correct light, amount of oxygen, correct temperature levels, etc.) as well as the right micro-organisms to degrade it (Hopewell et al. 2009).

Impacts on marine life Plastic debris is dangerous to at least 43% of marine mammal species, 44% of seabird species, and 86% of sea turtle species (Derraik 2002). In the Southeastern Pacific alone, 97 species were found to interact with plastic, including 5 species of sea turtles, 20 species of fish, 19 species of marine mammals, and 53 species of seabirds (Thiel et al. 2018). Up to 80% of accidents involving marine mammals are caused by plastic waste (Isangedighi et al. 2018), many ending in fatalities. However, this statistic is likely underestimated, as most victims of plastic debris sink or are eaten by predators (Derraik 2002). Plastics and microplastics

11 mainly affect marine organisms through entanglement or ingestion (Derraik 2002). Many of the effects of plastic ingestion are indirect, such as reduced stomach volume leading to decreased food intake and (Derraik 2002). Limited energy storage further leads to decreased fitness, inhibition of long-distance migration, and reproductive effort (Derraik 2002). A pygmy sperm whale who died in a holding 11 days after stranding was found to have plastic debris filling its 2 stomach compartments entirely (Derraik 2002). A corn chip wrapper, a wrapper, plastic sheeting, and a garbage can were among the items found in its stomach (Derraik 2002). Additionally, plastic ingestion can block the secretion of necessary enzymes, lower steroid hormone levels, delay ovulation, and lead to reproductive failure (Derraik 2002). If marine organisms do manage to produce offspring, the parents’ plastic ingestion may also affect their offspring. This is observed in Laysan , 90% of which have plastic debris in their stomachs (as of 2002) and regurgitate their “food” into the chicks’ mouths, leading to their mortality (Derraik 2002). Marine animals are also more at risk of plastic accumulation through ingestion because many marine organisms are generalists, meaning they feed on a large range of prey, leading to a higher risk of plastic ingestion (Andrades et al. 2019) either directly (mistaking plastic for prey) or indirectly (ingesting prey that has previously ingested plastic itself). Another concerning quality of plastic pollution is its ability to sorb toxins. Plastics have a tendency to sorb (take up) toxic substances, such as DDT, because of the toxins’ hydrophobicity (Seltenrich 2015). , antimicrobials, , and chemicals have accumulated in many consumer products by piggybacking on plastics, coming full circle and potentially creating negative consequences for humans using these products (Derraik 2002). Plastic scrubbers can sorb dangerous contaminants like which are then ingested by filter feeding animals in marine waters (Derraik 2002). Plastic ingestion by itself can cause alteration of gene expression, immunotoxicological responses, and cell death, so the added toxins and contaminants only create further negative consequences for marine organisms (Seltenrich 2015).

Impacts on ecosystem services Beyond the health impacts to oceans, marine and human health, there are economic considerations related to plastic pollution. Marine plastic pollution is reducing ecosystem services, which will have negative impacts on the well-being of humans, particularly coastal

12

communities (Beaumont et al. 2019). The provision of seafood and aquaculture will likewise be compromised by plastic pollution in the oceans through the reduced productivity of commercial fisheries (Beaumont et al. 2019). Plastic can damage marine industrial equipment and it is estimated that marine debris damage has cost the marine industry in the Asia-Pacific region $1.26 billion (Isangedighi et al. 2018). Plastic pollution also inflicts direct harm on fish stocks, negatively affecting the global economy (Beaumont et al. 2019). Therefore, plastic pollution has global ecological, social, and economic impacts (Beaumont et al. 2019).

Steps to reduce plastic pollution To protect marine health and human health, there is an urgent need to reduce the amount of plastic pollution being deposited into the oceans and waterways. Plastic waste may be reduced in a variety of ways. Packaging is the main source of plastic waste; 50% of plastic is designed in single-use forms (Hopewell et al. 2009). The simplest way to reduce plastic waste is to simply not produce plastic, but because of how widely used this is and its beneficial attributes, other options should be considered. • Downgauging: Designing product packaging to decrease waste volume by reducing the amount of packaging used by each item, called downgauging, could be a successful option (Hopewell et al. 2009; Thompson et al. 2009). • Recycling: Recycling of plastic is successful at keeping plastic waste out of the environment and and reducing the fossil fuels used in the production of new plastic (Hopewell et al. 2009), air pollution from plastic , and water pollution from landfills (Isangedighi et al. 2018). Researchers have concluded that “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” is the most effective strategy for eliminating plastic waste in our environments (Hopewell et al. 2009; Thompson et al. 2009; Isangedighi et al. 2018). • Regulation: The use of plastic use can be regulated through policies, laws, and management strategies. A few policies to regulate plastic pollution are the adequate disposal of plastic by marine vessels; reduction, reutilization, and recycling should result in a minimal amount of plastic sent to landfills; open dumps are prohibited and are not permitted in flooding- prone areas; waste management must have environmental impact assessments (González Carman et al. 2015); biodegradable or reusable are required at grocery stores; plastic straw use is banned in shops and restaurants; etc.

13

• Education: Examples of plastic pollution education can be seen in social media posts, or newspaper articles, museum exhibits, advertisements, event management, informal outreach such as “Science in the Pub”, formal outreach such as workshops or webinars, science camps, , participatory meetings, etc. (Kelly et al. 2018).

Figure 1.1 The NIOSH Hierarchy of Controls is formatted to the marine plastic pollution problem, replacing the category of “PPE” with “Education” (NIOSH 2015).

These options can be viewed using the Hierarchy of Controls. As shown in Figure 1.1, the Hierarchy of Controls, used by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to improve occupational settings, can be adapted for the marine plastic pollution problem. As shown, the hierarchy begins with the most effective to the least effective strategies. Each option has associated logistic considerations, as discussed above. While education by itself may be less effective, there is evidence that increasing education can increase an individual’s to make personal changes, or even to take action on improving policy (Nutbeam 2000). In order to curb the use of plastic and support new management practices, educational campaigns should be strengthened. If a community is aware of the problem, they may be more willing to act on it (Derraik 2002). However, many studies have shown that the public’s knowledge of marine plastic pollution is limited. While scientists have access to this knowledge

14 directly, the public must gain it second-hand (Borja et al. 2020). Henderson and Green (2020) conducted 6 focus groups, targeting people with no knowledge of microplastics and people who had a special interest in the topic. Of those who had a special interest in microplastics, most had heard of it through the media (Henderson and Green 2020). Furthermore, few people connected the plastic pollution problem to their own personal uses and many recalled their associations with plastic pollution through the media instead of in-person experiences, suggesting that plastic pollution is considered a distant problem (Henderson and Green 2020). When presented with potential remedies to the problem, the researchers encountered social barriers. For example, solutions such as returning plastic packaging to the store were deemed irregular and socially unacceptable by participants of the study, and many felt uncomfortable taking that action (Henderson and Green 2020). Easman et al. (2017) similarly found that there is a “value-action” gap within the public towards marine conservation efforts and concluded that the public had awareness of the issues threatening marine environments, but not the knowledge of their impacts. the impacts of threats to marine environments, such as plastic waste, is the first step in holding management, politicians, and accountable for their actions and consequences. Increased knowledge of the problem and its solutions has been found to be a necessary in enacting environmental conservation behavior change (Frick et al. 2004).

Science communication and plastic pollution education Many strategies have been employed in the mission to communicate marine science to the public, to increase overall knowledge on the topic of plastic pollution and its impact on marine and human health. Science communication is a discipline that attempts to the gap between and the public. Effective science communication is largely dependent on a trusted messenger with a clear message. Scientists ought to communicate their science to the public themselves in order to foster trust between them, as third-party communication detaches the public from the science and creates doubt (Kelly et al. 2018). While the research is the central message, the delivery and whom the messenger is factor greatly into the successful understanding of the research by the audience (Kelly et al. 2018). This can be a substantial barrier, as many scientists struggle with effective communication. Reliance on jargon and minute details can result in ineffective communication, discouraging listeners and losing the scientific message in the process. Secondly, the manner of presentation, such as using a tool like

15

PowerPoint, is often too text heavy and fails to engage learners (Dewan 2015). Thus, both the messenger and the message must be carefully curated to be effective. There are several methods of science communication: i) oral delivery (in-person or video); ii) written delivery (, brochures, fact sheets); iii) graphic delivery (pictures, ) and iv) hybrids of these methods (i.e. oral and graphics). Marine science centers often employ all these tactics. Consider the display at the Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC) in Newport, Oregon: the center uses eye-catching paired with short text descriptions of the displays. Short videos highlight scientists discussing their research and more is presented in posters and brochures. Even the HMSC website uses video, text and imagery (https://hmsc.oregonstate.edu/). The goal of science communication is to use methods that will effectively increase education, and therefore increase action on preventing plastic pollution. The mode of science communication that works most effectively in improving the public's risk of marine plastic pollution and inspiring desire to change their plastic use behavior in response to this problem has not yet been thoroughly studied. Generally, there is evidence that visual modes of education are more effective. Previous research has shown that pictures are stored in two places in the brain, while text is stored in only one, making the probability of information encoded in a picture being recalled higher (Dewan 2015). In this study, we will observe the effectiveness of 3 science communication modes (oral, text-based, and graphical) to better understand how people learn about plastic pollution, and what motivates them to change their plastic use behavior. We will identify the action items people most engage in for plastic pollution prevention and mitigation. We collected co-variates based on geographic location and self-assessed knowledge in addition to standard demographic data. We hypothesize that the visual modes of science communication will be more effective at increasing knowledge of the plastic pollution in the oceans than the text-based forms. We also hypothesize that the visual forms of science communication will be more effective at increasing desire to change plastic use behavior as compared to the text-based forms.

16

Chapter 2: Evaluating the effectiveness of marine plastic pollution communication products

Introduction Since the onset of COVID-19, plastic use has significantly increased (Patrício Silva et al. 2021). Efforts to reduce plastic use should recognize the changing landscape around plastic use during COVID-19. Traditional methods used to collect information regarding plastic use and consequent have utilized in-person surveys (Nalven 2019). However, the nature of the pandemic necessitated online data collection. To test the science communication mode that was most popular and increased knowledge of marine plastic pollution, we disseminated a survey to numerous online groups and social media. Participants were instructed to view four different science communication products (video, text, image, and infographic, seen in Figure A2.1) and rank them based on a variety of factors. The video was a 3 minute long video by the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, IL (Shedd Aquarium 2017). The text was an excerpt from the NOAA Ocean Service (NOAA Ocean Service n.d.). The image and infographic were from the NOAA Marine Debris Program (NOAA CREP n.d.; NOAA Marine Debris Program n.d.). These products were chosen due to similar around marine plastic debris.

Methods Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this thesis project used only online science communication products and participant engagement. Survey 1: Evaluating the effectiveness of marine plastic pollution communication products (hereby referred to as “Survey 1”) was created using online survey from Qualtrics. Survey questions were created using survey techniques by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (NOAA Coastal Services Center 2015) and a workshop by the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve entitled “ Basics: Understanding Stakeholders and Asking Effective Survey Questions”. The questions were assigned a variable and answer options were coded (i.e., no = 0, yes =1). The survey was sent virtually to several groups, with the major groups being the Ocean11 Marine Club (listserv) at Oregon State University, the National Udall Scholarship listserv, the 2019 NOAA Ernest F. Hollings and NOAA Ernest F. Hollings Alumni Facebook

17 groups, the Science Communication listserv at Oregon State University, the Oregon State University Honors College (Monday Message and Instagram stories), and the international Marine Debris listserv. These groups were a convenience sample; they were mainly selected for their interest in marine, environmental, or issues and were groups the researchers had access to or were members of.

Study population A total of 151 survey responses were received. All survey responses were recorded, counted, and processed using Microsoft Excel (version 16.45). All responses that did not complete the survey (defined as no answers from Q6#1_1 and on or left more than 50% of the survey uncompleted) were removed (n=50) for a total of 101 questions used in analysis. Q6 was the question “On a scale of 1 to 5, please select your level of confidence on the issues below BEFORE and AFTER viewing the products. (1=no confidence, 2=very little confidence, 3=some confidence, 4=quite a of confidence, 5=complete confidence)”, while Q6#1_1 was the first option in Q6 asking them to rank their confidence for this statement, "I can explain what ocean pollution is”, before they viewed the products.

The demographics of Survey 1 can be seen in 2.1 and Appendix A. Briefly, the majority of participants were 18-35 years old (56%), followed by participants 35-65 years of age (38%) (Table 2.1). The majority of the participants were female (74%), with males making up 20%, transgender participants making up 1%, and genderqueer participants making up 1% (Table 2.1). This question was open ended, and participants could type in the gender they identified as. Participants were also asked to identify their race and ethnicity. The majority of participants were White/Caucasian (80%) and not Hispanic or Latino (77%) (Table 2.1).

Participants were relatively highly educated, with nearly half (49%) of participants reporting they held a graduate degree (masters or doctoral) (Table 2.1). Finally, despite recruiting via largely Oregon-specific channels, over half of the participants (53%) were from outside of Oregon, based on zip data (Table 2.1). Only one-quarter of participants (25%) were identified as being in Oregon at the time of taking the survey.

18

Science communication product ranking A weighted ranking process was used to rank the science communication products. For each product, the following formula was used in Microsoft Excel to find each product’s rank score:

Rank score = (n1* 4) + (n2 * 3) + (n3 * 2) + (n4 * 1)

where n1=the number of responses ranking that product #1 (Favorite), n2= the number of nd responses ranking that product #2 (2 Favorite), n3=the number of responses ranking that rd product #3 (3 Favorite), and n4=the number of responses ranking that product #4 (Least favorite). Then, the rank scores of each product were divided by the number of total respondents (n=99) to produce their total scores (Table 2.2), as seen in the equation below. Total score= Rank score / (n) The highest total score meant that product was ranked #1 (favorite) by the participants overall, while the lowest total score meant that product was ranked #4 (least favorite) by the participants overall.

Likelihood to complete action items Participants were presented with 4 action items related to reducing plastic use on the individual or national level (Q12_1, Q12_2, Q12_3, Q12_4, Table A2.1). Using a Likert scale, participants selected their likelihood of doing these action items (0 = not at all likely, 4 = very likely).

Knowledge self-assessment Using a Likert scale, individuals rated their knowledge of marine plastic pollution (0=I have never heard of plastic pollution, 5 = Much more than most). The self-assessment data (Q4, Table A2.1) was analyzed using a Kruskal Wallis test for each action item (Q12, Table A2.1) to evaluate how self-assessed knowledge correlated with likelihood of completing each action item. Significance was evaluated at p ≤ 0.05. Additionally, geographic location data was utilized to identify participants from Oregon, outside Oregon, and outside the United States. A Mann Whitney U-test was applied to identify potential differences in the likelihood of completing action items based on geographic location. Significance was evaluated at p ≤ 0.05.

Qualitative analysis of science communication products

19

Following the weighted ranking question, participants were asked to describe why they ranked the products the way they did. A thematic analysis using an inductive approach was used to identify the Top 5 common themes using an inductive approach (Table 2.4). Additional common themes were identified (Table 2.5).

Table 2.1. Demographic data of Survey 1. n % Total responses 151 100 Responses excluded (deleted) 50 33 Responses in data set 101 67

n % (out of 101 responses) Age 18-35 57 56 36-65 38 38 65+ 6 6 Skipped 0 0

Gender N % Female 75 74.2 Male 20 19.8 Transgender 1 1 Genderqueer 1 1 Skipped 4 4

Race American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 0.99 Asian 4 3.96 Black/African American 1 0.99 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2 1.98

20

White/Caucasian 81 80.2 Multiple Races 5 4.95 Unknown 1 0.99 Prefer not to answer 2 1.98 Skipped 4 3.96

Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 9 9 Not Hispanic or Latino 78 77 Prefer not to answer 5 5 Skipped 9 9

n % Education 8th grade 0 0 High school 1 1 Some college 19 18.8 Associate degree 4 4 Bachelor’s degree 25 24.7 Master’s degree 32 31.7 Doctoral degree 17 16.8 Prefer not to answer 0 0 Skipped 3 3

Results

Participant self-assessment of knowledge of marine plastic pollution is high. Figure 2.2 shows the participants’ self-assessment of their marine plastic pollution knowledge in relation to others. 52% said they knew more than most, 27% said they knew the same as most,

21

20% said they knew much more than most, 1% said they knew less than most. “Much less than most”, “Never heard of plastic pollution”, and those who skipped the question were all 0%.

Skipped Never heard Much less than most 0% 0% 0% Less than most Self Assessment 1% of Knowledge Much more than most 20% Never heard The same as most Much less than most 27% Less than most The same as most More than most Much more than most More than most Skipped 52%

Figure 2.2. Pie chart of the participants’ self-assessment of knowledge on marine plastic pollution in Survey 1.

Participants are motivated to change their behavior around individual plastic use. Figure 2.3 shows the ranking of action items on a Likert scale. When presented with the action item of using recyclable or reusable dishware, a strong majority of participants (87%) said they were very likely to do this. When presented with the action item of eliminating all plastic for personal use, half of the participants (23%) said they were somewhat likely and very likely (23%) to do this, while the other half said they were likely (20%) and more than likely (21%) to do this. When presented with the action item of participating in a beach cleanup for plastic, majority of participants (47%) said they were very likely to do this. When presented with the action item of contacting their congressperson to enact marine plastic pollution solutions, majority said they were very likely to do this (26%) while other popular options were “somewhat likely” (22%) “likely” (18%), and “more than likely” (15%).

22

Ranking of Action Items 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Numberresponses of 20 10 0 Use recyclable or reusable Eliminate all plastic for Participate in a beach Contact your dishware. personal use. cleanup for plastic. congressperson to enact marine plastic pollution solutions. Action Item

Not at all likely Somewhat likely Likely More than likely Very likely Not applicable

Figure 2.3. Bar graph of the ranking of action items from Survey 1.

The results of the Mann-Whitney U-test on geographic location versus willingness to complete the action items show that responses from Oregon and outside of Oregon have a p-value of 0.50, meaning that self-assessed knowledge of marine plastic pollution is not associated with a respondent’s location (first bar graph, Figure 2.4). Further analysis was conducted, to evaluate differences in location and likelihood of completing certain action items. The hypothesis was that individuals living in Oregon, a coastal state, may be more aware of marine plastic pollution.

Action item 1, using recyclable dishware, did not show a significant difference between Oregonians and other Americans, with a p-value of 0.55. Action item 2, eliminating plastic for personal use, also did not show a significant difference between Oregonians and other Americans. Action items 3 and 4, which were participating in a beach cleanup and calling their congresspeople, respectively, did show significant differences between Oregonians and other Americans. From the bar graphs, non-Oregonians were more likely to complete action items 3 and 4 than Oregonians.

23

Figure 2.4. From Survey 1, the Mann-Whitney U-test run on geographic location and willingness to complete the action items, along with the corresponding bar graph.

The results of the Kruskal Wallis test on self-assessed knowledge versus willingness to complete the action items (Figure 2.5) shows that while self-assessed knowledge did not significantly influence the participants’ willingness to complete action 1 (recyclable or reusable dishware, p-value=0.50), self-assess knowledge did influence their willingness to complete action items 2, 3, and 4 (eliminate all plastic for personal use, p-value=0.03; participate in a beach cleanup, p-value=0.02; and their congressperson to enact marine policies, p- value=0.0003). From the bar graph, among action items 2, 3, and 4, the higher the self-assessed knowledge of marine plastic pollution, the more likely the participant is to complete the action item.

24

Figure 2.5. From Survey 1.4, the Kruskal Wallis test run on the self-assessed knowledge and willingness to complete the action items, with a corresponding bar graph.

Visual science communication products are preferred. Participants were asked to rank 4 science communication products, shown in Figure A2.1, where 1 = most preferred choice and 4 = least preferred. Participants were then asked to describe why they ranked the products the way they did. Figure 1.7 shows the weighted ranking of the science communication products shown in Survey 1. The video was ranked first, infographic second, image third, and text fourth (Figure 2.6). Table 2.2 shows how the products were weighted using the methods described previously.

25

Rank of Products

1. Video

2. Infographic

3. Image

4. Text

Figure 2.6. The weighted rank of science communication products from Survey 1.

Table 2.2. The weighted ranking of science communication products in Survey 1. Science Rank Total Weighted Product score score Rank

Video 372 3.76 1

Infographic 245 2.47 2

Image 244 2.46 3

Text 159 1.61 4

Total respondents

(n=99, 2 skipped)

Visual products are preferred for marine plastic pollution communication.

26

While the video was ranked as the most preferred product using a numeric weighted ranking , participant responses were thematically analyzed to learn more about what was most preferred in a science communication product for marine plastic pollution. Most participants preferred the video. All visual modes of communication scored well, with the common complaint that the example infographic presented too much information in a cluttered manner, and the image alone lacked context. Five top common themes were identified from the participants’ as to why they had ranked the science communication products as they did (Table 2.5). The top five themes were as follows:

Table 2.5. The most common themes from the participants’ ranking of the products. Theme Quote 1) Theme: Video was most engaging. “The video was overall the most informative and provided explanations and actions.” "The video felt directed towards me and involved me in the process." 2) Theme: Infographic cluttered. “The infographic had too much in too small of a leading to cognitive overload.” 3) Theme: Text needs visuals. “Text info was well presented and easy to understand, it just was not all that engaging or attractive.” "The text document was boring and did not make the me want to engage and I was more apt to just skim over it." “The image has emotional impact but didn’t 4) Theme: Image strikes emotion. provide context.”

5) Theme: Image needs context. “Lastly, if I didn't know anything, I might wonder what the photo was trying to say.” "The photograph is very impactful, I would have rated it #1 if there had been a message attached to it."

27

Additional themes were identified regarding best-practices for developing science communication products in general (Table 2.5). Overall, participants recommended visuals, short communications (under 3 minutes for a video), unique imagery, avoidance of specialized terminology (jargon), and simple formats such as infographics. Representative quotes for each theme are provided in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5. Other common themes identified through the participant’s comments while ranking the products. Other Common Themes Quote Theme: Visuals needed in general. “Anything visually striking is more helpful.” "Picture speaks 1000 words." Theme: Video too long/complex. “Seeing the text and length of the video, I lost interest very quickly.” Theme: Image too commonplace. “While the photo was shocking and triggered an emotional response, it seemed strangely commonplace, like I had seen it before.” Theme: Text had jargon. “The text was the least useful overall. Several parts were unnecessarily jargon-y, and little emphasis was placed on reducing plastic pollution. It was very much a cut- and-dry education piece, but I wouldn't say the intent of the text really elevated to .” Theme: Infographic easy to reference. “Infographic was the next easiest to digest a lot of info without having to spend time .”

28

Discussion and Conclusion Overall, study participants exhibited an existing knowledge related to marine plastic pollution, and a willingness to participate in actions to reduce individual plastic use. In general, increased knowledge of the marine plastic pollution problem led to more action taken to prevent or mitigate plastic pollution. This conclusion supports existing concepts of marine literacy (Martin et al. 2016); more knowledge on the leads to more action. The results from Survey 1 show that location may be associated with the likelihood of participating in certain plastic pollution action items. In this sample, Oregonians are less likely to participate in beach cleanups and contact their congresspeople to enact marine policies than non- Oregonians. This is surprising, given that Oregon is a coastal state and many organizations have been conducting campaigns to limit plastic pollution, such as the NOAA, the Oregon Coast Aquarium, the Surfrider Foundation, SOLVE, the Oregon Sea Grant, the Marine Debris Collaborative, and (Annual Oregon Marine Debris Action Meeting 2021). Of note, this survey was disseminated during November – December 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited activities. Additionally, the option of saying “I already do this” for the action items was not included in this survey, which may have influenced these results. Upon viewing the four science communication products, most participants identified the video as their preferred mode of communication. However, thematic analysis noted that visual modes of communication were preferred over text, and many participants noted that an infographic was a good concept, but the example infographic was too cluttered, while the image was noted to be emotional but lacking context. It was deemed that while visuals are very important, so is context, leading us to conclude that videos or infographics are the best modalities to use when communicating the plastic pollution problem. This conclusion strengthens the statement that infographics are far more successful that text-based science communication (Dewan 2015). Infographics are more effortless to process than words and easier to recall (Dewan 2015). By using a combination of words and images, the viewer is engaged and information is easily understood (Dewan 2015).

Best Practices in Science Communication

29

From the thematic analysis of the ranking of science communication products from Survey 1, we compiled a list of science communication best practices. These practices include always using visuals, including context and solutions, not cluttering the graphics, not overstimulating the viewers visually, and keeping the message succinct. These findings reinforce existing best practices in science communication (Dewan 2015). When keeping the message succinct, the public responds best to an “inverted” scientific approach (seen in Figure 2.7), where the bottom-line is given first, followed by the “so what?” and the supporting details (AAAS 2021).

Figure 2.7. The inverted pyramid approach to science communication with the public, adapted from Nancy Baron’s Escape from the Tower by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 2021).

Positive versus Negative Messaging The participants from Survey 1 found the video by the Shedd Aquarium (Shedd Aquarium 2017) and the image by the NOAA Marine Debris Program (NOAA CREP) to invoke an emotional response. A few participants even commented that they wished more negative images had been used to get the point across, stating “…if the photo had been of a sea turtle full of plastic bags or having a deformed shell from six pack rings, I would have placed the photo in second place rather than last.” However, the use of negative images in science communication, while evocative, may not actually ignite action among viewers. The outlier to this statement is animal activism, where aggressive imagery does help to convince viewers of the seriousness of

30 their cause (Fernández 2020). Among other sciences, the use of intense imagery can be off putting for viewers, while conversely in those with existing sympathies. There is strong evidence that after the initial emotional response, negative imagery alone does not usually generate action or behavior change, and instead creates maladaptive behaviors (Nabi et al. 2018). Images that elicit positive emotional responses, like hope, are perceived to be of high personal relevance (Schultz et al. 2018). These images are solution-oriented and show people taking action, such as an image of people cleaning up stormwater after a flood (Schultz et al. 2018). If a negative image is to be used in science communication, the inclusion of context with guidance on actions for the viewer to take is needed to avoid cases of the “helpless hopeless” response in viewers (Corner et al. 2016). The “helpless hopeless” is a condition viewers of negative images experience in which they feel powerless to act and view the situation as too dire to be solved (Corner et al. 2016). The “helpless hopeless” person views their actions as futile and therefore may not act at all. The emotional flow concept (Nabi 2015) suggests pairing pieces of information inciting different emotions (i.e. fear to promote awareness and hope to produce proactive behaviors) in subsequent portions of the delivered message to enhance the persuasive effect of the message (Nabi et al. 2018).

31

Chapter 3: Developing messaging around COVID-19 related marine plastic pollution

Introduction There has been a substantial increase in the amount of marine pollution as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (Patrício Silva et al. 2021). Specifically, disposable masks, gloves and plastic containers of hand sanitizer are finding their way into the ocean (Patrício Silva et al. 2021). In the current pandemic, many people are using more plastic through masks, gloves, and shipping (, plastic pillows, Styrofoam). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic may have changed the way individuals feel about their personal plastic use, specific to the use of disposable personal protective equipment (PPE), which is necessary to prevent transmission of the virus. In the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, any group activity was seen as an increased risk for the virus. Due to this, people may be afraid to clean-up this pandemic marine debris because of concerns regarding contagion through either the marine debris or the group contact. Because the COVID-19 pandemic is so pertinent to plastic pollution of our times, it may be best to focus on alternatives to these materials. Disposable masks can be replaced with reusable, masks. Disposable gloves can be replaced with travel-size hand sanitizer. Shipping materials can be reduced by shopping locally or opting to have all your packages delivered in the smallest number of boxes possible. While the main goals of developing an effective science communication product remain the same, incorporating a focus on COVID-19-related plastic pollution ensures the product is timely and relevant. From the results of Survey 1, the best science communication practices highlighted in Chapter 2, and information gathered during informal interviews with social media experts and marine debris organizations, an original product (Figure B3.1) was developed related to the impact of COVID-19 on personal plastic use. The product was evaluated using an online survey, Survey 2: Developing messaging around COVID-19 related marine plastic pollution (hereby referred to as Survey 2).

32

Methods Interviews Informal interviews with various representatives from marine conservation organizations and social media experts were used to inform the creation of the new science communication product. These representatives evaluated the potential for a new science communication product aimed at changing consumer behaviors around COVID-19-related plastic use. Interviews were informal and conducted over Zoom. Broadly, questions revolved around the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of ; better consumer choices and the avoidance of plastic altogether; civic engagement as a conservation tool; the increase in plastic pollution due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for COVID-19 specific messaging; social media as a venue for science communication; and creating an enjoyable user experience with social media products.

Development of a COVID-19 marine plastic pollution social media carousel Using advice in the informal interviews, marine science communication should not be cluttered and should embody the “less is more” approach. A graphic should include only 2-3 choices, or action items, and 30 words or less should be used to get the point across. Science communication products should be up to date with current social media platforms, like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. Graphics should be made with the user’s experience in . For example, if an Instagram thread is the dissemination platform, the viewer will swipe through the graphics from left to right. Therefore, a continuous element should be placed within each graphic to connect individual graphics and deliver an undisturbed, attention-holding experience. The background of the graphic should catch the viewer’s attention but not be overbearing. Unless the images are licensed under Creative Commons, for pictures on the graphic should be decreased to the smallest size possible or the copyright “©” should be used. This decreases the clutter on the graphic. Using Canvo, an online site, the COVID-19 specific product was created. The product (Figure B3.1) was composed of 4 panels descending vertically for viewing in Survey 2. A trail of white bubbles falls down the panels as the continuous element, creating the undisturbed experience. The first panel explains how COVID-19 is impacting marine plastic pollution. The second panel explains how plastics in the ocean can affect wildlife as well as

33 humans. The third panel introduces 3 new action items for individuals to complete, such as wearing a reusable face mask, carrying hand sanitizer instead of plastic gloves, and shopping in person or opting to have items shipped together. The fourth panel thanked the viewers for their effort. The textured background was chosen to be a picture of a calm ocean. The photos used on the panels were selected from the Creative Commons site and were chosen because they were not negative or aggressive but were relevant to the issue. Each panel contained approximately 30 words, with a simple design aesthetic.

Development of the Survey 2: Developing messaging around COVID-19 related marine plastic pollution Survey 1 was adapted to evaluate the original science communication product, and to collect information about behaviors related to COVID-19 plastic use. The methods as previously described in Chapter 2 were used, with the following changes: Only the COVID-19 carousel product (Figure B3.1) was presented to the survey viewers. A few survey questions were added to, omitted from, or adapted from Survey 1 to create Survey 2. Specific questions changed were Q5, Q7, Q8, Q9, and Q10 e-g (Table B3.1). As in Survey 1, participants were asked to rate their likelihood of completing certain action items. Three additional action items were added. These action items were “wear a reusable mask instead of a disposable mask”, “carry hand sanitizer instead of plastic disposable gloves”, and “Shop locally or opt to have all of your packages sent together if ordering online”. To all the action items, the option of “I already do this” was added for the participants to choose from.

Study population A total of 165 survey responses were received. All survey responses were recorded, counted, and processed using Microsoft Excel (version 16.45). Respondents that did not answer the question related to evaluation of the COVID-19-specific product were removed, or respondents that left more than 50% of the survey uncompleted were removed (n=28). Therefore, 137 responses were used in the data analysis. The demographics of Survey 2 can be seen in Table B3.2. Briefly, the majority of participants were 18-35 years old (64%), followed by participants 35-65 years of age (26%), and those 65 years and older (11%). Most of the participants were female (66%), with males making

34 up 28%. This question was open ended, and participants could type in the gender they identified as. Participants were also asked to identify their race and ethnicity. The majority of participants were White/Caucasian (78%) and not Hispanic or Latino (77%). Participants were relatively highly educated, with nearly half (40%) of participants reporting they held a graduate degree (masters or doctoral) while the majority (51%) reported they had a bachelor’s degree or had gone through some college. Finally, despite recruiting via largely Oregon-specific channels, over half of the participants (63%) were based outside of Oregon but still in the U.S.A., based on zip code data (Table B3.2). Only one-fifth of participants (20%) were identified as being in Oregon at the time of taking the survey.

Analysis Statistical and thematic analysis were conducted as previously described (Chapter 3). Additionally, the data from Q6 and Q7 (Table B3.1) was graphed. These questions asked the participants how much value they the COVID-19 specific product had in terms of both educating people on marine plastic pollution and changing people’s behavior surrounding plastic, respectively. The graph was used to compare and contrast the data to the participant’s written comments.

Results Informal Interviews These interviews suggested that the surrounding plastic use must be changed. Recycling is no longer a relevant, consumer-friendly solution to plastic pollution, as recycling is limited to each ’s regulations and only about 10% of single-use plastics get recycled. The avoidance of plastics altogether and the use of reusable items needs to be pushed. We need to encourage the public to make better consumer choices, such as buying a drink in a rather than a drink in a . Civic engagement should also be encouraged by producing guidelines showing how to contact your government official’s office or “cold calls” teaching members of the public how to talk to their officials. In Oregon, officials are more likely to be moved through personal interactions rather than an email sent to their office staff, whereas federal level officials are more responsive to pre-written form letters.

35

Participant self-assessment of knowledge of marine plastic pollution is high. Figure 3.2 shows the participants’ self-assessment of their marine plastic pollution knowledge in relation to others. 58% said they knew more than most, 22% said they knew much more than most, 18% said they knew the same as most, 2% said they knew less than most. “Much less than most”, “Never heard of plastic pollution”, and those who skipped the question were all 0%. Is this similar to the results from Survey 1? You can add a sentence or two here describing any similarities or differences.

Self Assessment of Knowledge, Survey 2

Less than most 2% Much less than most…

Much more than Never most The same as most heard… 22% 18%

Skipped 0%

Never heard

Much less than most Less than most

More than most The same as most 58% More than most

Much more than most

Figure 3.2. Pie chart of the participants’ self-assessment of knowledge on marine plastic pollution in Survey 2.

Participants are motivated to change their behavior around individual plastic use. Figure 3.3 shows the ranking of action items on a Likert scale. When presented with the action items (using recyclable dishware, wearing a reusable mask, carrying hand sanitizer instead

36 of disposable gloves, and shopping locally/opting to have all packages shipped together), an overwhelming majority of participants (approx. 60-87%) said they already do this. When presented with the action item of eliminating all plastic for personal use, participants (approx. 20%) said they were somewhat likely and very likely (20%) to do this, while another 20% said they already do this. When presented with the action item of participating in a beach cleanup for plastic, majority of participants (approx. 37%) said they already do this. When presented with the action item of contacting their congressperson to enact marine plastic pollution solutions, the responses were split almost evenly across very likely to do this (19%), “somewhat likely” (18%), “I already do this” (18%), “more than likely” (15%), “not at all likely” (14%), “likely” (12%), “not applicable” (1%), and 1% skipped the question.

Ranking of Action Items, Survey 2

90

80

70

60

50

40

30 Percentage Percentage of Responses 20

10

0 Use recyclable Eliminate all Participate in a Contact your Wear a Carry hand Shop locally or or reusable plastic for beach cleanup congressperson reusable mask sanitizer opt to have all dishware. personal use. for plastic. to enact instead of a instead od of your marine plastic disposable wearing plastic packages sent pollution mask. disposable together if solutions. gloves. ordering online. Action Item

Not at all likely Somewhat likely Likely More than likely Very likely I already do this. Not applicable Skipped

Figure 3.3. Bar graph of the ranking of action items from Survey 2.

37

To better understand variables that may drive these differences, the results were filtered based on self-assessed knowledge, and geographic location. The results of the Mann-Whitney U- test on geographic location versus willingness to complete the action items show that responses from Oregon and outside of Oregon have a p-value of 0.0356, meaning that self-assessed knowledge of marine plastic pollution is associated with a respondent’s location. Specifically, individuals outside of Oregon were more likely to rate their knowledge higher than those within Oregon.

Further analysis was conducted, to evaluate differences between geographic location and the likelihood of completing action items (Figure 3.4). The hypothesis was that individuals living in Oregon, a coastal state, may be more aware of marine plastic pollution. However, none of the action items besides Action item #7 (shopping locally or opting to have all packages shipped together) showed a significant p-value (p < 0.05). Action item #7 had a significant p-value of 0.0485, with non-Oregonians (still in the U.S.) more willing to complete the action item than Oregonians, or already doing the action item. Note that the numbers on the bar graphs of Figure 3.4 do not add up to 137, the total number of responses in the data set, due to people skipping the question or selecting “Not applicable” (a response not included in the analysis).

38

Figure 3.4. From Survey 2, the Mann-Whitney U-test run on geographic location and willingness to complete the action items, along with the corresponding bar graph.

To determine if self-assessed knowledge was correlated with willingness to undertake lifestyle changes related to reducing plastic pollution, a Kruskal Wallis test was run. Here, the results of the test assessed a relationship between self-assessed knowledge versus willingness to complete the action items. Figure 3.5 shows that self-assessed knowledge did not significantly influence the participants’ willingness to complete any action items except action items #3 and #4 (participating in a beach cleanup, p = 0.027; contact your congressperson to enact marine plastic pollution solutions, p = 0.0034).

39

Figure 3.5. From Survey 2, the Kruskal Wallis test run on the self-assessed knowledge and willingness to complete the action items, with a corresponding bar graph.

Participants desired more data, , and negative images in the product. From the thematic analysis of the participants’ comments (Q8, Table B3.1), five top common themes were identified from the participants’ reasons as to why they had ranked the COVID-19 carousel product as they did (Table 2.5). The top five themes were as follows:

Table 3.3. From Survey 2, the most common themes from the participants’ ranking of the products. Theme Quote 6) Theme: Product should have offered “I think that it could include some more statistics. information (maybe some scary statistics) …” (18%) “There is basically no real information that would make me change mind (theoretically). It's just broad, general statements. I believe

40

good communication in this field needs to come with data/numbers/strong pictures, show links to relevant analyses, etc.” 7) Theme: Product should have used more “I also don't think the pictures at the end were very effective at making the point that this is a graphic images. major issue in the oceans- slightly more 8) (15%) serious/graphic images could have been used.”

“I don’t think it really showed how bad the problem is.” 9) Theme: The product focused on the wrong “Ditching (some of) the disposables is only plastic issue. part of the solution.” (16%) “This poster fails to mention the structural sources of plastic pollution (plastic production that is 99% fossil fuels), and only presents individual consumer/behavior change solutions.” “For some of the information, the connection is not clear, ex. how will plastic wind up on Theme: The product needs to include more my ?” information. (16%) “doesn't emphasize the single use catastrophe; doesn't address producer responsibility; doesn't mention microplastic and their sources; reference to human ingestion from seafood vague” Theme: The product was too mainstream. “It looks like lots of environmental/pollution (7%) awareness campaigns, so people have seen it before.”

“Usual arguments/kind of pictures.”

41

The most common theme was the need for data and statistics (18%), followed by explanation that the product had focused on the wrong plastic pollution issue (16%) and that the product should have included more information (16%). The last common themes were the need for negative, graphic images (15%) and that the product looked to mainstream (7%).

Figure 3.6 compares how the participants’ valued the product in terms of how likely it was to educate them on marine plastic pollution and change plastic use behavior. The majority of people said the product had “much value” or “average value” in terms of educating viewers (38% and 39% respectively) while majority of participants said the product had “average value” in terms of changing viewers’ plastic use behavior (51%). When the averaged response for each question was graphed (third bar graph, Figure 3.6), the participants viewed the product as more likely to educate viewers on the topic than change their plastic use behavior (though the 95% confidence interval error bars show the difference was not significant). However, the participants ranked the education and change likelihoods for the COVID-19 specific carousel product near or at “average value” (code=3, Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6. From Survey 2, the participants’ on how much value the product has to educate and change plastic use behavior.

42

Discussion and Conclusion

Overall, Survey 2 had a highly educated, white, female majority. In general, study participants exhibited an existing knowledge related to marine plastic pollution, and a willingness to participate in actions to reduce individual plastic use. However, the action item data (Figure 3.3) was very different from that of Survey 1. Because of the addition of the option “I already do this” to the action item questions, the “very likely” answers were quite reduced on the majority of the action items and as a whole the responses were much more spread out over the options. We believe those who were already completing the actions selected “very likely” in Survey 1 because that was the option most closely related to “I already do this”. Whereas in Survey 2, that option was available and thus the “very likely” responses diminished. We found that while increased knowledge of the marine plastic pollution problem led to more action taken to prevent or mitigate plastic pollution in Survey 1, this association was not as strong among the participants in Survey 2. From Figure 3.6, we can see that as self-assessed knowledge increases, the willingness to complete action items 2-4 increased (however, only significantly in action items 3 (p=0.027) and 4 (p=0.0034)). No such trend is seen in action items 1 or 5-7. The significantly different action items, 3 and 4, were participating in a beach cleanup and calling their congressperson to enact marine policies, respectively. These action items may be more difficult for people to complete, due to the time, resources, and knowledge of marine (in the case of calling congresspeople). Because marine literacy studies have found that more knowledge on the subject leads to more action (Martin et al. 2016), those with a higher self-assessed knowledge of marine plastic pollution would have the knowledge and confidence necessary to partake in action item 4 and more motivation to partake in action item 3. The results from Survey 2 show that location is not associated with the likelihood of participating in certain plastic pollution action items (Figure 3.5). Only action item #7 (shopping locally or opting to have all packages shipped together) showed a significant difference among likeliness to complete this action item by Oregonians and non-Oregonian Americans. This is surprising, given the significant relationship between location and half of the action items in Survey 1. We believe that the addition to Survey 2 answer options of “I already do this” for the action items impacted this relationship. Upon viewing the COVID-19 specific carousel product, most participants wished that data and statistics had been present as well as negative imagery to show “how bad the problem

43 is” (Table 3.3). However, the use of data, statistics, and negative imagery in science communication over media to the public have all been shown to be ineffective at causing behavior change by previous studies (Crompton and Flanders 2006; Nabi 2015; Corner et al. 2016; Hunter 2016; Schultz et al. 2018). The themes we found are surprising, given that the participant sample was highly educated, indicating they should have some knowledge of science communication. This indicates a rift between highly educated members of society and the reality of science communication. Another common theme was that participants felt the product was focused on the wrong plastic pollution issue and should have instead focused on plastic pollution produced by corporations, for example. However, this carousel product was designed to be specific to the plastic pollution increase caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although production of plastic items and packaging is at the of marine plastic pollution created by the pandemic, individuals make the consumer choice to support these practices. As a result, the product was designed to influence individual behavior change, rather than systemic policies. However, the participants still ranked the product above average in terms of educating and changing viewers’ plastic use behavior. Thus, despite the participants’ requests for various additions to the product, they still found the product to have value.

44

Chapter 4: Conclusions

Overall conclusions Overall, the participants of this study have shown themselves to be highly motivated and educated on the topic of marine plastic pollution. While there was a general agreeance that visual modes of science communication are preferred over textual modes, we found that context and solutions must also be included with the visuals to accomplish effective communication. A higher knowledge of the topic is related to more action towards the issue, a statement supported by previous studies (Maibach 1993). Additionally, location may have some impact on willingness to complete anti-plastic action items. Participants in this study were data-driven and desired negative, aggressive imagery communicating the effects of marine plastic pollution on wildlife. However, these desires are in contrast with accepted science communication strategies that highlight solution-oriented actions that combat the “helpless hopeless” concept (Corner et al. 2016), as discussed previously. Because of our highly educated sample, this indicates a discord between highly educated members of our society and skills in science communication. Science communication is of great importance to all STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and math) fields, making the realization of this discord startling. It also suggests discords between environmentally focused people and in science communication. Future work would incorporate a more diverse population, specifically amongst people rating their knowledge of marine plastic pollution as average, or less than most people.

Caveats to this study This study did not have a very diverse group of participants. The majority of our responses were from highly educated, white females ages 18-35. As a result, the only covariate of behavior changes the study was able to look at was geographic location. The majority of our participants were outside of Oregon (in the U.S.), though we heavily utilized media channels focused on Oregonians. Survey bias is of concern. The participants were a very motivated, knowledgeable group that were already interested in marine plastic pollution or environmental issues, as evidenced by their membership in these media channels. Members of the public who were not interested in environmental issues may not have been as willing to take these surveys and therefore the

45 conclusions drawn from this study may not be representative of the whole population. Though the products in Survey 1 were selected because they covered the effects of plastic pollution on marine wildlife and solutions to reduce marine plastic pollution, they did not cover the exact same content. Future studies may benefit from replicating this study and standardizing the content in all 4 different modes, thus creating less variables in the study.

Limitations to science communication and best practices Science communication is an essential tool in marine conservation, but it does have its limitations. Every person experiences, learns, and interacts with the world differently. It is difficult to make a “one size fits all” product for viewers, as there are too many types, personality ranges, and personal opinions to incorporate into one product. Many participants in our surveys had differing opinions on all the communication products. When viewing the original graphic created for this study, many felt that more information and statistics on plastic marine debris should have been included to spike their interest and change their plastic use behavior. Others liked the simplicity and said that more information would deter them from reading the rest of the graphic. There were some participants that stated the graphic had too much information already and needed portions removed. At times, participants wanted more aggressive imagery to get the point across and invoke an emotional call to help. Other participants even mentioned that those who were going to change their plastic use behavior already had and communicating to others wouldn’t change their . In order for science communication to operate efficiently, it must be targeted towards a specific group of people with a localized issue that also connects to the bigger picture (Corner et al. 2016). In addition, the audience should be studied thoroughly for different covariates relating to education and behavior change beforehand to accomplish the actions desired from the viewers or listeners. “A movement starts with not a message first, but with an audience first” (Maibach 1993). Because members of the public who do not think the particular movement is relevant to their needs are less likely to expose themselves to the messages of the movement, their knowledge of the problem is therefore limited (Maibach 1993). Asking the important questions of “Just who are the viewers?”, “What do they want?”, “What do they identify with?”, and “How do they feel about this topic?”, one can inform their approach to these viewers (Maibach 1993).

46

The most effective incentive for viewers is self-incentive; people rewarding their own, good actions with positive self-assessments (Maibach 1993). This incentive has the greatest long- lasting effects that are resilient to change (Maibach 1993). Campaigns that utilize multiple channels (social media, , , , posters, etc.) have been found to be significantly more successful than one-channel campaigns (Maibach 1993). The reach, specificity, and rate of influence of each channel are important to consider before investing your time into promoting your movement (Maibach 1993). Here, we developed a social media product aimed at reducing COVID-19 related plastic pollution. Despite limitations of a highly knowledgeable study population, we found that the product was considered to be effective. Unintentionally, we identified a discord between best practices in science communication, and how individuals with a high level of knowledge about a topic may want to communicate. This is best illustrated by the multiple requests for “negative” imagery. While this may invoke emotion, it is less effective at changing behavior. Here, the original science product was identified to be useful in educating people about marine plastic pollution related to COVID-19, yet slightly less useful in changing behavior. Ultimately though, behavior change starts with awareness. Additional marine plastic pollution campaigns should consider messages that pair problem statements with solution-oriented approaches.

47

Bibliography AAAS. 2021. AAAS Communication Toolkit | American Association for the Advancement of Science. [accessed 2021 Mar 23]. https://www.aaas.org/resources/communication-toolkit. Andrades R, dos Santos RA, Martins AS, Teles D, Santos RG. 2019. Scavenging as a pathway for plastic ingestion by marine animals. Environ Pollut. 248:159–165. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.02.010. Annual Oregon Marine Debris Action Plan Meeting. 2021. Annual Oregon Marine Debris Action Plan Meeting. Barbier EB. 2017. Marine Ecosystem Services. Curr Biol. 27:507–510. Beaumont NJ, Aanesen M, Austen MC, Börger T, Clark JR, Cole M, Hooper T, Lindeque PK, Pascoe C, Wyles KJ. 2019. Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Mar Pollut Bull. 142:189–195. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022. Borja A, White MP, Berdalet E, Bock N, Eatock C, Kristensen P, Leonard A, Lloret J, Pahl S, Parga M, et al. 2020. Moving Toward an Agenda on Ocean Health and Human Health in Europe. Front Mar Sci. 7:37. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00037. Corner A, Webster R, Teriete C. 2016. Climate Visuals. Glob Environ Chang. 9(2):1–41. Crompton V, Flanders J. 2006. COMMUNICATING STATISTICS TO THE MEDIA: TELLING THE STORY BEHIND THE NUMBERS. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS-7). [accessed 2021 May 13]. http://nilesonline.com/stats. Derraik JGB. 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Mar Pollut Bull. 44(9):842–852. doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5. Dewan P. 2015. Words Versus Pictures: Leveraging the Research on . Partnersh Can J Libr Inf Pract Res. 10(1):1–10. doi:10.21083/partnership.v10i1.3137. Fernández L. 2020. Images That Liberate: Moral Shock and Strategic Visual Communication in Animal Liberation Activism. J Commun Inq. doi:10.1177/0196859920932881. Frick J, Kaiser FG, Wilson M. 2004. Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Pers Individ Dif. 37(8):1597– 1613. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015. Friedman WR, Halpern BS, McLeod E, Beck MW, Duarte CM, Kappel C V., Levine A, Sluka RD, Adler S, O’Hara CC, et al. 2020. Research Priorities for Achieving Healthy Marine

48

Ecosystems and Human Communities in a Changing Climate. Front Mar Sci. 7:5. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00005. González Carman V, Machain N, Campagna C. 2015. Legal and institutional to mitigate plastic pollution affecting marine species: Argentina as a case study. Mar Pollut Bull. 92(1– 2):125–133. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.047. Henderson L, Green C. 2020. Making of microplastics? Public understandings of plastic pollution. Mar Pollut Bull. 152:110908. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.110908. Hopewell J, Dvorak R, Kosior E. 2009. Plastics recycling: Challenges and opportunities. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 364(1526):2115–2126. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0311. Hunter P. 2016. The communications gap between scientists and public. EMBO Rep. 17(11):1513–1515. doi:10.15252/embr.201643379. Isangedighi IA, GS, Obot O. 2018. Plastic Waste in the Aquatic Environment: Impacts and Management. [accessed 2020 May 25]. www.itspoa.com/journal/envi. Kelly R, Fleming A, Pecl GT. 2018. Social Licence for Marine Conservation Science. Front Mar Sci. 5(NOV):414. doi:10.3389/fmars.2018.00414. [accessed 2020 May 25]. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2018.00414/full. Maibach E. 1993. Social marketing for the environment: using information campaigns to promote environmental awareness and behavior change. University Press. [accessed 2020 Jun 17]. https://academic.oup.com/heapro/article-abstract/8/3/209/629424. Martin V, Smith L, Bowling A, Christidis L, Lloyd D, Pecl G. 2016. Citizens as Scientists. Sci Commun. 38(4):495–522. doi:10.1177/1075547016656191. [accessed 2020 May 25]. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1075547016656191. Nabi RL. 2015. Emotional Flow in Persuasive Health Messages. Health Commun. 30(2):114– 124. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.974129. [accessed 2021 Apr 5]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25470436/. Nabi RL, Gustafson A, Jensen R. 2018. Framing : Exploring the Role of Emotion in Generating Advocacy Behavior. Sci Commun. 40(4):442–468. doi:10.1177/1075547018776019. [accessed 2021 Apr 5]. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1075547018776019. Nalven KB. 2019. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Title: Adapting the Community Based Social Marketing Framework to Create Actionable Messages About Plastic Pollution at the

49

Oregon Coast Aquarium. [accessed 2021 Jan 5]. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/4q77fx06r?locale=en. NIOSH. 2015. Hierarchy of Controls | NIOSH | CDC. [accessed 2020 Jul 6]. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/default.html. NOAA Coastal Services Center. 2015. Introduction to Survey Design and Delivery. https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/survey-design.pdf. NOAA CREP. DisentanglingAlbatross.jpg (1500×1002). [accessed 2021 Mar 23]. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/1500wide/public/DisentanglingAlbatross.j pg?itok=bGXbHo9H. NOAA Marine Debris Program. Impacts Poster Infographic. [accessed 2021 Mar 23]. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/ImpactsPoster.pdf. NOAA Ocean Service. A Guide to Plastic in the Ocean. [accessed 2021 Mar 23]. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-in-the-ocean.html. Nutbeam D. 2000. as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century | Health Promotion International | Oxford Academic. Heal Promot Int 15(3).:259–267. [accessed 2020 Jul 10]. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/15.3.259. Patrício Silva AL, Prata JC, Walker TR, Duarte AC, Ouyang W, Barcelò D, Rocha-Santos T. 2021. Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and recommendations. Chem Eng J. 405. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2020.126683. Plymouth Mouth Laboratory. 2015. Introducing marine ecosystem services. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgtkM7wim9Q&feature=youtu.be. Poe MR, Norman KC, Levin PS. 2014. Cultural dimensions of socioecological : Key connections and guiding principles for conservation in coastal environments. Conserv Lett. 7(3):166–175. doi:10.1111/conl.12068. Rock J, Sima E, Knapen M. 2020. What is the ocean: A sea-change in our perceptions and values? Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 30(3):532–539. doi:10.1002/aqc.3257. Saley AM, Smart AC, Bezerra MF, Burnham TLU, Capece LR, Lima LFO, Carsh AC, Williams SL, Morgan SG. 2019. Microplastic accumulation and in a coastal marine reserve situated in a sparsely populated area. Mar Pollut Bull. 146:54–59. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.065.

50

Schultz T, Fielding K, Newton F. 2018. Images That Engage People With Sustainable Urban Water Management. Sci Commun. 40(2):199–227. doi:10.1177/1075547018760902. Seltenrich N. 2015. New link in the food chain? Marine plastic pollution and seafood safety. Environ Health Perspect. 123(2):A34–A41. doi:10.1289/ehp.123-A34. Shedd Aquarium. 2017. (160) The Problem with Plastics - YouTube. [accessed 2021 Mar 23]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=526gMLHDVLg. Thiel M, Luna-Jorquera G, álvarez-Varas R, Gallardo C, Hinojosa IA, Luna N, Miranda-Urbina D, Morales N, Ory N, Pacheco AS, et al. 2018. Impacts of marine plastic pollution from continental to subtropical gyres-fish, seabirds, and other vertebrates in the SE Pacific. Front Mar Sci. 5:238. doi:10.3389/fmars.2018.00238. Thompson RC, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS, Swan SH. 2009. Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 364(1526):2153– 2166. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0053. [accessed 2020 May 25]. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2009.0053.

51

Appendix A: Tables and Figures from Chapter 2

Table A2.1. Survey 1 Questions 1. Select the age group that applies to you. 1. 0-17 2. 18-35 3. 36-65 4. 66 or older 2. Would you like to participate in this study? By marking Yes, you indicate that you understand the study and that you agree to take part in the study. You may leave at any time. - If YES: Thank you! We’re going to ask you a few questions about the study. - If NO: Thank you for your interest. END PROCESS.

3. To ensure you understand what the study involves, would you please tell us what you think we are asking you to do? 1. Read a 10 page article and give us feedback in this survey. 2. View 4 different science communication products and answer the survey questions. 3. Watch a 2-hour movie and give us feedback in this survey. 4. Attend a focus group virtually via the Zoom platform and answer the survey questions. i. Correct answer: B ii. Incorrect answers: A, C, D. If incorrect answers are given, the participant will have the option to view the study description again. They may then return to the question. If they cannot answer the question properly on the second try, END PROCESS: Thank you for your interest in our study. We are unable to enroll you at this time. 4. Compared to others, how much do you know about plastic pollution? 1. I have never heard of plastic pollution before. 2. Much less than most 3. Less than most 4. The same as most 5. More than most 6. Much more than most

52

5. How much of a problem do you believe marine plastic pollution is? 1. Not problematic 2. Slightly problematic 3. Problematic 4. Very problematic 5. Extremely problematic 6. On a scale of 1 to 5, please select your level of confidence on the issues below BEFORE and AFTER viewing the products. (1=no confidence, 2=very little confidence, 3=some confidence, 4=quite a bit of confidence, 5=complete confidence). 1. I can explain what ocean plastic pollution is. 2. I can explain why plastic pollution is problematic to marine organisms. 3. I can explain why plastic pollution is problematic to humans. 4. I can identify ways to reduce plastic pollution.

7. On a scale from 1 to 5 (with 1=not likely and 5=very likely), how likely are you to take any action to reduce your personal plastic use? 8. Looking at this products, please select how much value you think they have in terms of EDUCATING people about plastic pollution in the oceans. 1. No value 2. Limited value 3. Average value 4. Much value 5. Extreme value

9. Looking at these four different products, please select how much value you think they have in terms of CHANGING people’s behavior surrounding plastic. 1. No value 2. Limited value 3. Average value 4. Much value 5. Extreme value

10. Please explain why you ranked the products this way.

53

11. Below are suggested ways to reduce plastic pollution. Please select how likely you would be to do these activities. For example, if you are very likely to stop using plastic , you would select “very likely”. 1. Use recyclable or reusable dishware. i. 1- not at all likely ii. 2-Somewhat likely iii. 3- Likely iv. 4-More than likely v. 5-Very likely 2. Eliminate all plastic for personal use (no plastic containers, no straws, etc). vi. 1- not at all likely vii. 2-Somewhat likely viii. 3- Likely ix. 4-More than likely x. 5-Very likely 3. Participate in a beach cleanup for plastic. xi. 1- not at all likely xii. 2-Somewhat likely xiii. 3- Likely xiv. 4-More than likely xv. 5-Very likely 4. Contact your congressman or congresswoman to enact marine plastic pollution solutions. xvi. 1- not at all likely xvii. 2-Somewhat likely xviii. 3- Likely xix. 4-More than likely xx. 5-Very likely

12. What is your gender? 13. What is your race? 1. American Indian/Alaska Native 2. Asian 3. Black/African American 4. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 5. White/Caucasian 6. Multiple races 7. Unknown 8. Prefer not to answer 14. What is your ethnicity? 1. Hispanic or Latino 2. Not Hispanic or Latino 3. Prefer not to answer

54

15. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 1. 8th grade 2. High school 3. Some college 4. Associate degree 5. Bachelor’s degree 6. Master’s degree 7. Doctoral degree 8. Prefer not to answer 16. What is your zip code?

55

Figure A2.1. The science communication products used in Survey 1.

56

Appendix B: Tables and Figures from Chapter 3

Table B3.1. Survey 2 Questions. 1. Select the age group that applies to you. 0-17 18-35 36-65 66 or older i. IF 0-17 is selected, “Unfortunately, you do not qualify for this study. Thank you for your time.” END PROCESS

2. To ensure you understand what the study involves, would you please tell us what you think we are asking you to do? 1. Read a 10-page article and give us feedback in this survey. 2. View an original science communication product and answer the survey questions. 3. Watch a 2-hour movie and give us feedback in this survey. 4. Attend a focus group virtually via the Zoom platform and answer the survey questions. i. IF answers 1,3, or 4 are selected, participants will be shown “Unfortunately, that is not the correct answer. Please reread the research study statement below and answer the question again”. If questions A, C, or D are selected for a second time, the same message will be shown. ii. IF answers 1,3, or 4 are selected on the third try, the participant will be shown “Unfortunately, that is not the correct answer. You do not qualify for this study.” END PROCESS

3. Compared to others, how much do you know about plastic pollution? 0- I have never heard of plastic pollution before. 1-Much less than most 2-Less than most 3-The same as most 4-More than most 5-Much more than most 4. How much of a problem do you believe marine plastic pollution is? 0- not problematic 1- slightly problematic 2- Problematic 3- Very problematic 4- Extremely problematic 5. On a scale from 1 to 5 (with 1=not likely and 5=very likely), how likely are you to take any action to reduce your personal plastic use?

57

6. Looking at this product, please select how much value you think it has in terms of EDUCATING people about plastic pollution in the oceans. 1- no value 2- limited value 3-Average value 4-Much value 5-Extreme value 7. Looking at this product, please select how much value you think it has in terms of CHANGING people’s behavior surrounding plastic. 1- No value 2-Limited value 3-Average value 4-Much value 5-Extreme value 8. Please explain why you ranked the product this way.

58

9. Below are suggested ways to reduce plastic pollution. Please select how likely you would be to do these activities. For example, if you are very likely to stop using plastic cups, you would select “very likely”. 1. Use recyclable or reusable dishware. 0- not at all likely 1-Somewhat likely 2- Likely 3-More than likely 4-Very likely 5- I already do this. 6-Not applicable 2. Eliminate all plastic for personal use (no plastic containers, no straws, etc). 0- not at all likely 1-Somewhat likely 2- Likely 3-More than likely 4-Very likely 5- I already do this. 6-Not applicable 3. Participate in a beach cleanup for plastic. 0- not at all likely 1-Somewhat likely 2- Likely 3-More than likely 4-Very likely 5- I already do this. 6-Not applicable 4. Contact your congressman or congresswoman to enact marine plastic pollution solutions. 0- not at all likely 1-Somewhat likely 2- Likely 3-More than likely 4-Very likely 5- I already do this. 6-Not applicable 5. Wear a reusable mask instead of a disposable mask. 0- not at all likely 1-Somewhat likely 2- Likely 3-More than likely 4-Very likely 5- I already do this. 6-Not applicable 6. Carry hand sanitizer instead of wearing plastic, disposable gloves. 0-not at all likely

59

1-Somewhat likely 2- Likely 3-More than likely 4-Very likely 5- I already do this. 6-Not applicable 1. Shop locally or opt to have all your packages sent together if ordering online. 0- not at all likely 1-Somewhat likely 2- Likely 3-More than likely 4-Very likely 5- I already do this. 6-Not applicable

60

10. Which gender do you identify as? 11. What is your race? 1. American Indian/Alaska Native 2. Asian 3. Black/African American 4. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 5. White/Caucasian 6. Multiple races 7. Unknown 8. Prefer not to answer 12. What is your ethnicity? 1. Hispanic or Latino 2. Not Hispanic or Latino 3. Prefer not to answer 13. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 1. 8th grade 2. High school 3. Some college 4. Associate degree 5. Bachelor’s degree 6. Master’s degree 7. Doctoral degree 8. Prefer not to answer 14. What is your zipcode?

Table B3.2 Demographic data of Survey 2 compared to Survey 1. Survey 1 Survey 2

n % n % Total responses 151 100 165 100 Responses excluded 50 33 28 17 (deleted) Responses in data set 101 67 137 83

n % (out of 101 n % (out of 137 responses) responses) Age 18-35 57 56 87 64 36-65 38 38 35 26

65+ 6 6 15 11 Skipped 0 0 0 0

Gender n % n %

61

Female 75 74 91 66

Male 20 20 39 28

Transgender 1 1 0 0 Genderqueer 1 1 0 0 Skipped 4 4 7 5

Race n % n % American 1 1 2 1 Indian/Alaskan Native Asian 4 4 6 4 Black/African 1 1 4 3 American Native 2 2 3 2 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander White/Caucasian 81 80 107 78 Multiple Races 5 5 9 7 Unknown 1 1 0 0 Prefer not to answer 2 2 4 3 Skipped 4 4 2 1

Ethnicity n % n % Hispanic or Latino 9 9 18 13 Not Hispanic or Latino 78 77 106 77 Prefer not to answer 5 5 4 3 Skipped 9 9 9 7

Education n % n % 8th grade 0 0 0 0 High school 1 1 2 1 Some college 19 19 30 22 Associate’s degree 4 4 6 4 Bachelor’s degree 25 25 40 29 Master’s degree 32 32 43 31 Doctoral degree 17 17 12 9 Prefer not to answer 0 0 1 1 Skipped 3 3 3 2

62

Figure B3.1. The original science communication created for Survey 2. 63