One billion people rely on the ocean for protein. Sustainable seafood initiatives can engage citizens on a consumer level, empowering them to shape our world with food choices. Communication is a useful tool in garnering conservation support. This study conducted at Brookfield Zoo dolphin shows sought to discover whether interest in sustainable seafood initiatives improved with the use of framed interpretive messages versus standard conservation messages. The framed message included a value, metaphor, and offered solutions; while the unframed message offered only a solution without further elaboration. The conservation messages were alternated over the course of 44 dolphin shows, and delivered to a total of 17,157 zoo guests. By measuring the amount of sustainable seafood guides that guests requested, it was discovered that interest in guides increased 2.5% when strategic framing techniques were used over standard messages. This study illuminates the possibilities of inspiring conservation leadership through strategic framing communications.
BalesS. N. (2009). How to talk about climate change and oceans.Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute.
5.
BeckL., & CableT. (2002). Interpretation for the 21st century: Fifteen guiding principles for interpreting nature and culture.Champaign, IL: Sagamore Pub.
BellwoodD. R., HughesT. P., & HoeyA. S. (2006). Sleeping functional group drives coral reef recovery.Current Biology: Cb, 16, 24, 2434–9.
8.
Blue Ocean Institute (2010). Blue Ocean Institute's Ocean Friendly Seafood. [Brochure]. Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
9.
BrochuL., & MerrimanT. (2006). Certified interpretive guide: Training workbook (2nd ed.). Fort Collins, CO: National Association for Interpretation.
10.
BrowneN. K., SmithersS. G., & PerryC. T. (2010). Geomorphology and community structure of Middle Reef, central Great Barrier Reef, Australia: An inner-shelf turbid zone reef subject to episodic mortality events.Coral Reefs, 29, 3, 683–689.
11.
DiamondJ.M. (1989). Overview of recent extinctions. In Conservation for the Twenty-first Century (WesternD., and PearlM.C. eds), pp. 37–41, Oxford University Press.
12.
FalkJ. H., & DierkingL. D. (2010). The 95 Percent Solution School is not where most Americans learn science.American Scientist, 98, 6, 486.
13.
FalkJ. H., ReinhardE. M., VernonC., BronnenkantK., HeimlichJ. E., DeansN. L., Association of Zoos & Aquariums., … National Science Foundation (U.S.). (2007). Why zoos & aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium.Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos & Aquariums.
14.
FalkJ., StorksdieckM., & DierkingL. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: evidence for the importance of free-choice learning.Public Understanding of Science, 16, 4, 455–469.
15.
Frameworks Institute (2009). Changing the public conversation on social problems. A beginner's guide to strategic frame analysis. Available online at: http://sfa.frameworksinstitute.org/
16.
Frameworks Institute (2011). Strategic Framing Analysis for The National Network for Ocean and Climate Change Interpretation study circle.New England Aquarium, Boston, MA. September 26, 2011. Training Seminar.
17.
HamS., & WeilerB. (2003). Interpretation is persuasive when themes are compelling.Interpret Scotland Issue8(Autumn 2003): p. 3. Available on-line at: http://www.interpretscotland.org.uk/
18.
HughesT. P. (2003). Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs.Stockholm: Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics.
19.
IlesA. (2004). Making seafood sustainable: Merging consumption and citizenship in the United States.Science & Public Policy, 31, 127–138.
20.
KellertS.R. (1996). The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
21.
KemptonW., BosterJ. S., & HartleyJ. A. (1995). Environmental values in American culture.Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
22.
KnudsonD. M., CableT. T., & BeckL. (2003). Interpretation of cultural and natural resources.State College, Pa: Venture Pub.
23.
KoldeweyH. J., AtkinsonJ., & DebneyA. (2009). Threatened species on the menu? Towards sustainable seafood use in zoos and aquariums.International Zoo Yearbook, 43, 1, 71–81.
24.
LarsenD. (2000). An Interpretive Dialog. Handout distributed at NPS Interpretive Development Process educational session at 2000 National Interpreters Workshop. Tucson, AZ 20pp.
25.
LarsenD. (2002). Be relevant or become a relic: Meeting the public where they are.Journal of Interpretation Research, 7 (1), 17–23.
PauleyD., ChristensenV., DalsgaardJ., ForeseR., & TorresJ. F. (1998). Fishing Down Marine Food Webs.Science, 279, 5352, 860.
28.
RohemC. A. (November 25, 2009). An evaluation of sustainable seafood guides: Implications for environmental groups and the seafood industry.Marine Resource Economics, 24, 3, 301–310.
29.
StockwellC. (February 2003). Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology.Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 94–101.
30.
TannenD. (1999). The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War of Words.New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
31.
The Ocean Project (2009). America, the ocean, and climate change: New research insights for conservation, awareness, and action.Retrieved September 29, 2011 from: http://theoceanproject.org/communication-resources/market-research/reports/
32.
The Ocean Project (2011). America and the Ocean, annual update 2011.Retrieved September 29, 2011 from: http://www.theoceanproject.org/marketresearch/
33.
TildenF. (1957). Interpreting our heritage.Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
34.
United Nations. (2011). World Population Prospects. UN, New York. 2011.
35.
VaclavS. (1998). Global Population: Milestones, Hopes, and Concerns.Medicine & Global Survival5 (2), 105–108.
36.
WinterP. (2006). The impact of normative message types on off-trail hiking.Journal of Interpretation Research, 11 (1) 35–51.
