Despite an influx of ecotourism research since the term was first coined, it is still not entirely clear why tourists choose ecotourism over other tourism experiences. While most of the previous literature assumes that ecotourism is preferred by travelers for moral reasons, emerging evidence suggests that opportunities to project one's social status are increasingly salient factors in decision-making about travel. This article compares the relative influence of two possible predictors of ecotourism intention: environmental values (measured through the value-beliefnorm theory) and symbolic conspicuous consumption (measured through expected social return). Respondents were drawn from a panel of U.S. tourists who had taken an overnight trip within the last year (n ¼ 786). Results of a structural equation model suggest that both personal norms (b ¼ 0.22, p < 0.001) and social return (b ¼ 0.60, p < 0.001) explain a considerable amount of variance in ecotourism intention (R 2 ¼ 0.44), with social return having the stronger influence. These results suggest that environmental values are not the sole reason for travelers' choice of ecotourism alternatives, and that ego-enforcing motives play an important role. The positive and negative implications of demand for ecotourism extending beyond those with strong environmental values are discussed.

No abstract

The efficacy of science communication can be influenced by the cultural values and cognitions of target audiences, yet message framing rarely accounts for these cognitive factors. To explore the effects of message framing tailored to specific audiences, we investigated relationships between one form of cultural cognition—political ideology—and perceptions about the zoonotic origins of the COVID-19 pandemic using a nationally representative Qualtrics XM panel (n = 1,554) during August 2020. First, we examined differences in attitudes towards science (in general) and COVID-19 (specifically) based on political ideology. We found that, compared to conservatives and moderates, liberals trusted science more, were less skeptical of science, perceived greater risk from COVID-19, were more likely to believe in a wildlife origin of COVID-19, and were more likely to support restrictions on wildlife trade. Second, we examined the influence of cultural framing on the perceived validity of science related to COVID-19. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 1) a technocratic framing that highlighted feats of human ingenuity to overcome zoonoses; 2) a regulatory framing that highlighted regulations and expansions of protected areas for wildlife as a means to prevent zoonoses, and 3) a control article about traffic lights with no cultural framing. After reading the initial framing article, all three groups read the same fictional, yet factually accurate, ‘Nature Science study’ generated by the authors. An OLS regression model revealed a significant interaction between the technocratic framing and political ideology. Relative to the control group, the technocratic framing slightly increased perceived validity of the Nature Science study for conservatives, significantly lowered perceived validity for liberals, and had no impact on moderates. We did not detect any significant interaction between framing and political ideology for the regulatory framing. Findings of this study highlight the need to account for cultural cognitions when communicating about COVID-19 and other zoonotic diseases. Communication strategies carefully designed to resonate with ideologically diverse audiences may ultimately lead to bipartisan support for actions required to promote “One Health” approaches that reduce the impacts of zoonoses on human and environmental health.

Sharks are often depicted in the media as violent killers that actively seek out opportunities to harm humans. This framing may impact human tolerance and support of shark conservation, underscoring the need to identify strategies that counteract these negative representations. Social media, given its widespread use, could be an effective platform for shaping public tolerance for sharks and other wildlife species. In this experimental study, we conducted an online pre‐post survey in Spring 2020 to determine how viewing shark‐related YouTube videos impacted tolerance for sharks among residents (n = 335) in the coastal state of North Carolina (NC), USA and neighboring states. The study employed framing theory, which suggests that the ways in which information is presented influence how it is processed and the actions that result from it. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two video treatments where sharks were framed positively or negatively. Each video treatment impacted tolerance for sharks in the direction of their framing: positive framing influenced positive changes in tolerance (70% more positive attitudes toward sharks, a 130% increase in acceptance of sharks and a 46% increase in intended shark conservation behaviors), and negative framing influenced negative changes (25% more negative attitudes toward sharks, a 18% decrease in acceptance of sharks and a 3% decrease in intended shark conservation behaviors). These findings suggest positive messages about sharks on social media promote tolerance of sharks and can be more impactful than negative messages. At least one form of social media, YouTube, appears to be a valuable tool for encouraging tolerance for sharks.

No abstract