Assessing public commitment to endangered species protection: A Canadian case study

As the global human population approaches eight billion, there is growing concern about the rate of extinction of other species that inhabit our planet (Barnosky et al. 2011; Dirzo et al. 2014). Compelling evidence points to humans as the direct or indirect cause of most modern extinctions. For example, in Canada over 700 species of plants and animals are at risk of extinction (Government of Canada 2015). The primary threats to these species include residential and commercial development; overexploitation via fishing, hunting, or collecting; disturbance by humans during work and recreational activities; pollution; and the introduction of exotic species (Venter et al. 2006; Prugh et al. 2010; McCune et al. 2013). It is clear that preventing the extinction of species will require limiting or excluding human activities in some areas.

It is not clear to what extent the public is committed to these limits. For example, national public opinion polls have repeatedly asked Canadians whether preserving endangered species is important, and between 82% and 97% of respondents agree that this is somewhat or very important to them (Gray et al. 1993; Ipsos Reid 2012). However, it is not known whether this strong support for conserving endangered species in principle would be maintained when the necessary concessions to commercial and personal activities are made clear. It is important to gauge the depth of citizens’ commitment to endangered species conservation because of its bearing on public policy. If concern for endangered species is wide, but not deep, policy-makers may be hesitant to enact measures to address the issue beyond those that are mainly symbolic (Schrecker 2001). In Canada, recent widespread reduction in the scope of environmental law and incomplete implementation of policies meant to protect endangered species have led to protests by conservation scientists and practitioners in the media, in the scientific literature, and in the courts (Mooers et al. 2010; Otto et al. 2013; Favaro et al. 2014; Kirchhoff and Tsuji 2014; McDevitt-Irwin et al. 2015). This failure to fully implement laws to protect endangered species may reflect a lack of public commitment to conservation of species at risk. If this is true, conservation biologists and environmental activists have work to do to convince Canadians of the merits of bearing the costs of conservation.

We commissioned a nationwide public opinion poll to determine the depth of Canadians’ support for measures to prevent the extinction of endangered species in Canada. We asked respondents about the importance of conserving endangered species in general, and we also probed the depth of their support using specific scenarios illustrating the need for limits to personal activities, private property rights, and industrial development. In addition, we asked these scenario-based questions in two ways: one from a “conservation” standpoint, which emphasized the need to conserve species; and the other from a “utilitarian” standpoint, which emphasized the rights of landowners and industry to utilize resources. In this way, we were able to measure how strongly Canadians’ support for necessary actions holds up in the face of rhetoric that frames the issue as a matter of competing priorities, such as between endangered species conservation and economic development. Our objectives were to investigate: (1) to what extent Canadians support conservation of endangered species in Canada, and whether the level of support is correlated with demographic characteristics; (2) whether the level of commitment to conservation drops when respondents are confronted with a specific scenario outlining the need to limit human activities; (3) whether people respond to scenario questions differently depending on the way the scenario is presented; (4) whether there is a gap between general support and support given a specific scenario, and if this difference is correlated with demographic factors; and (5) how Canadians perceive the current level of spending on species conservation by the Federal Government.

We commissioned the market research company Ipsos Reid to survey 1000 Canadians online. Ipsos Reid is Canada’s largest market research firm, and their national online panel of over 200 000 members allows them to quickly reach and survey a large, diverse sample of Canadians without the need to send out paper surveys and reminders in the mail. The panel is updated regularly and non-respondents are removed. Ipsos Reid collects demographic data from all panel participants, including gender, age, level of education, province of residence, income level, and whether the person has children or not. Online panels are a robust way to collect survey data and have been shown to generate findings that are as accurate as traditional telephone-based surveys (Schaffner 2014). We designed a survey with 12 questions (Table 1), based on previous polls on this subject (e.g., Gray et al. 1993; Czech and Krausman 1999; Harshaw 2008; Ipsos Reid 2012), experience during in-person interviews with landowners in Ontario (Olive and McCune 2017), and our study objectives.

Ipsos invited 13 925 panel members to complete the survey, which was administered as part of a larger omnibus survey featuring additional questions on various other topics before or after our series of questions. These members were selected randomly but stratified to match the demographics of the general adult population of Canada. Panel members are regularly invited to complete surveys on multiple subjects, including market research and advertising, and they receive points for completing surveys that can be redeemed for consumer items, gift cards, or donations to charity. Therefore, even respondents with little or no interest in endangered species had incentive to complete the survey. Members log in to their account and there they can complete the survey. The survey was completed between 4 and 6 August 2015 by a total of 1004 respondents; a response rate of 7.21% over the 3 d period. Because the desired sample size was reached, no further invitations or reminders were sent out. The drop-out rate for the omnibus survey was approximately 10% overall and no one question was identified as a primary drop-out point. Ipsos Reid implemented the survey and data collection and provided the anonymized results to the authors. The sample of respondents who answered our survey included wide geographic and demographic representation (Table 2). Because all respondents had agreed to join the Ipsos online panel, we considered their consent to participate to be explicit. All Ipsos online panel members are informed that participation in all surveys is voluntary, and they can opt out of any survey at any time prior to submitting their response. Therefore, consent was implied when each respondent clicked the final “submit” button at the end of the survey. In addition, all data were analyzed anonymously. The research protocol and consent procedures were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Boards at the University of Guelph (#15AP001), Trent University (#24002), and the University of Waterloo (#20785).

We designed the survey with two major goals in mind. First, we assessed each respondent’s general support for endangered species conservation through level of agreement with broad statements. For example, “It is important to prevent the extinction of wild plants and animals in Canada” and “Landowners have a moral obligation to not harm endangered plants and animals on their property” (Table 1). Second, we tested whether the level of support for conservation remained consistent when respondents considered three specific scenarios in which they might be inconvenienced by endangered species conservation or endangered species laws. These scenarios involved personal interactions with endangered species, limits to private property rights, and limits to industrial development (Table 1).

To assess how the presentation of conservation needs affected support for biodiversity conservation, each scenario was presented in two ways. Respondents were randomly assigned to either version A or B of the survey (Table 1). Version A represents a “conservation” point of view, emphasizing the needs of threatened species. In this version, “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” reflects a pro-conservation point of view. Version B represents a “utilitarian” point of view, emphasizing landowner rights and the potential for conservation to slow development or economic growth. In this version, “strongly disagree” or “somewhat disagree” represents a pro-conservation point of view. We reversed the scale for version B during analyses to directly compare answers from the two versions and determine whether the level of support for endangered species conservation differed depending on the way questions were framed. It has been demonstrated in the literature that the way a question is framed can affect the response (e.g., Gendall and Hoek 1990; Nelson and Oxley 1999). We used this well-known phenomenon to test the stability of the public’s stated support for endangered species conservation. Respondents selected to answer version A were asked the conservation version of all three scenario questions, whereas respondents selected to answer version B were asked the utilitarian version of all three scenario questions.

Public concern for endangered species is often greater for more charismatic, larger, or more attractive species (e.g., polar bears), whereas concern for unknown or potentially dangerous species (e.g., snakes) may be lower (Kellert 1996; Lorimer 2007; Knight 2008). For this reason, we carefully chose species to use in the scenarios that were neither particularly adored nor feared by the Canadian public, including a salamander, a tree, and a bird. To identify respondents who were owners of land that could potentially support habitat for one or more endangered species, we asked respondents whether they owned more than 5 acres of land. Although various wild species can undoubtedly be found on smaller parcels, we chose the threshold of 5 acres (2 ha) to exclude landowners who own only small parcels in urban or suburban areas.

We also asked respondents who they thought should be responsible for biodiversity conservation, and three questions about the amount of money that the federal government allocates to endangered species conservation. We first asked respondents if they agreed in principle with the expenditure of tax dollars for protecting endangered plants and animals in Canada (question 8, Table 1). We then asked whether actual federal expenditures over the past 5 years, as reported by the federal government itself, are too little, about right, or too much (question 10, Table 1). Finally, we asked respondents what they thought the federal government should spend in an open-ended question (question 11, Table 1). Our purpose was not to determine a dollar amount for public willingness to pay for endangered species conservation. Estimating this would require a detailed contingent valuation study (e.g., Richardson and Loomis 2009), and even this method has been questioned (e.g., Hausman 2012). Rather, we simply aimed to measure both the level of agreement with the principle that the government should contribute money for species conservation, and respondents’ perception of the current spending amount.

The majority of Canadians in our sample say they support the conservation of endangered species, and the need to make concessions both in principle and in practice to do so. At the same time, the divergence of responses to the two versions of the scenario questions highlights the internal dilemmas people face when weighing the costs and benefits of conserving species. Canadians are strongly committed to the principle of preventing extinction, but conservation scientists, policy-makers, and environmental advocates have more work to do to design policies and programs that will transform this commitment into action.

A strong majority (≥80%) of respondents supported the principle of preventing extinctions in Canada, the moral obligation not to harm endangered species, and the need to prevent industrial development in some situations. The support for these principles was maintained even when respondents were confronted with specific conservation-oriented scenarios. Women were more likely than men to agree with the principle of preventing extinctions and the moral responsibility not to harm endangered species, which is consistent with other studies on gender and environmental attitudes (Kellert and Berry 1987). In general, Canadians of all ages, education levels, income levels, and from all provinces support the protection of endangered species and the need to limit industry to do so.

There was less support for the limitation of private property rights to protect endangered species. This finding is important because most of Canada’s species at risk depend on privately owned land to some extent (Kerr and Deguise 2004). North Americans tend to hold a strong belief in the rights of landowners to manage their property as they see fit, without government interference (James 2002; Lovett-Doust et al. 2003; Raymond and Olive 2008). However, a distaste for outside intervention does not necessarily indicate unwillingness to protect endangered species—many landowners feel a responsibility to be good stewards, they just do not want to be regulated (Brook et al. 2003; Jackson-Smith et al. 2005; Raymond and Olive 2008). Therefore, the lower degree of support we found for the principle of regulating private property use compared with the need to prevent extinctions in general is not necessarily contradictory. However, it points to some gaps in research and policy.

In the US, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) took a strong regulatory approach to conservation on private lands. Numerous studies have highlighted the problems with this approach (e.g., Bean and Wilcove 1997; James 2002; Brook et al. 2003) and investigated the attitudes and values of private landowners in the US (e.g., Daley et al. 2004; Sorice et al. 2013). Partly in response to these negative lessons, Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA) adopted a “stewardship first” strategy, whereby strong regulations are imposed only on federally owned land, with conservation on private land left to voluntary stewardship by landowners (Olive 2014). However, there has not been much attention paid to how willing landowners in Canada actually are to carry out stewardship on their property voluntarily. The few studies that have investigated this have found that most landowners say they are willing to steward, but they are often unaware of the endangered species that live in their region or what they can do to conserve them (Olive 2011; Quartuch and Beckley 2014; Olive and McCune 2017). Landowners express a desire for more incentive programs to defray the economic costs of habitat restoration and more education about what to do (Matthews et al. 1993; Sutherland 1997; Henderson et al. 2014). Environmental organizations in a few provinces have implemented successful programs to foster stewardship by private landowners (e.g., Sutherland 1997; Vinge-Mazer and Ranalli 2012), but efforts to support private land conservation across Canada are patchy and poorly funded. Our finding of less support overall for government regulation of private land supports the need for more programs that provide education and incentives to encourage voluntary stewardship by landowners.

When comparing questions in principle to scenarios, there was a greater drop in the pro-conservation response to the utilitarian version compared with the conservation version. We believe this is an example of how the level of support for a concept depends on the nature of the trade-offs presented (Gendall and Hoek 1990). Although the conservation-oriented scenarios presented the limitations that would be required in a specific case, the utilitarian versions directly introduced a conflict between endangered species protection and private property rights or economic development. For example, while the conservation version of the sage grouse scenario acknowledged the necessity of limiting oil development, the utilitarian version explicitly introduced the concept of a potential loss of jobs as a result. People often do not have static opinions on a given issue, and they show this uncertainty when faced with conflicts or alternative considerations (Zaller and Feldman 1992; Nelson and Oxley 1999). For this reason, we expected a drop in pro-conservation support for people presented with the utilitarian scenarios. But we were struck by the relatively high proportion of respondents who answered “neither agree nor disagree” to the utilitarian versions. We suspect that these respondents are those who need to know more details about the question before they can settle on their opinion. For example, under what circumstances would a landowner be prevented from cutting down an endangered red mulberry tree, and would compensation be available for the loss of development options? How many jobs might be lost due to limiting oil development for the greater sage grouse? We think the high number of undecided responses suggests the need for endangered species protection policies to be developed in close consultation with the public and stakeholders. If the necessary concessions and regulations are seen as clear and legitimate (Olive 2014), more people would settle on the pro-conservation side, in line with their strong support for species conservation in principle.

The identity of respondents who shifted from pro-conservation to pro-utilitarian views when confronted with the scenario questions was rarely associated with individual demographic factors. Indeed, the majority of respondents who gave a pro-conservation answer to the principle question maintained their pro-conservation stance in response to the related scenario question. In addition, while respondents of different age, gender, or from different provinces sometimes gave significantly different responses to particular questions (Table 3, Fig. S1), no single demographic factor was a consistent predictor of the level of support for endangered species conservation. Therefore, a broad approach to outreach is likely the most effective strategy for increasing support for endangered species conservation.

Public opinions polls are regularly used to assess peoples’ attitudes on important policy issues, but a poll can be misleading if it is designed for purposes of advocacy rather than description (Brown and Delodder 2003). We aimed to reveal the depth of Canadians’ commitment to conserving endangered species by including questions that framed the issue from both a conservation and a utilitarian standpoint. By doing so, we were able to assess not only stated values, but also the stability of those values when faced with conflicting considerations.

Our results show that Canadians support the need to conserve species at risk of extinction. They are willing to make concessions both in principle and in practice and many perceive current government spending levels as too low. However, Canadians are worried about private property rights and unemployment. This underscores the need for more outreach and incentive programs for conservation on private land and for environmental legislation that is perceived as clear and legitimate. The status of species at risk around the world will not improve without a concerted effort to reduce anthropogenic threats. Surveys that go beyond statements of support in principle and probe willingness to make compromises in practice will better reflect the level of public support for conservation and highlight policy issues that require more public consultation and outreach.

A. Olive, N. Young, S. English and S. Otto provided helpful comments on survey design. S. Otto also provided thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. We thank Sarah English of Ipsos Reid for challenging us to frame questions from the utilitarian standpoint. Funding for the survey was provided by research funds from the Liber Ero program and research funds from the University of British Columbia to support Dr. Sarah Otto, Director of the Liber Ero program. Ipsos Reid was contracted by the authors to assist with study design and to carry out data collection. Ipsos Reid and the project funders were not involved in data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. All opinions and data interpretation in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ipsos Reid.