Tourism Recreation Research
ISSN: 0250-8281 (Print) 2320-0308 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrr20
Contested images, place meaning and potential tourists’ responses to an iconic nature-based attraction ‘at risk’: the case of the Great Barrier Reef Alexandra Coghlan, Char-Lee McLennan & Brent Moyle To cite this article: Alexandra Coghlan, Char-Lee McLennan & Brent Moyle (2017): Contested images, place meaning and potential tourists’ responses to an iconic nature-based attraction ‘at risk’: the case of the Great Barrier Reef, Tourism Recreation Research, DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2016.1268744 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2016.1268744
Published online: 04 Jan 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 5
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrr20 Download by: [Griffith University]
Date: 11 January 2017, At: 14:17
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2016.1268744
Contested images, place meaning and potential tourists’ responses to an iconic nature-based attraction ‘at risk’: the case of the Great Barrier Reef Alexandra Coghlana, Char-Lee McLennanb and Brent Moyleb a
Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith University, QLD, Australia; bGriffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University, QLD, Australia ABSTRACT
This study explores images of an attraction that is simultaneously tagged as the ‘greatest reef in the world’, the ‘best managed reef’ and potentially a ‘world heritage site in danger’. Combining research in conservation psychology, place identity and visual communication, this study analysed a sample of images (n = 45) of the Great Barrier Reef to explore the complexity of messages being conveyed with regard to the status and health of the world heritage site and their impact on emotions and behavioural intentions of potential tourists (n = 1249). The results reveal three very different image types: tourism promotion, government support and conservation-oriented. Few of the images portray messaging underpinned by the science of conservation psychology, with most images portraying a negative or ambivalent message. The emotions elicited by the images significantly differed across the three different image types, resulting in different behavioural intentions in response. The overall finding is that there are often contradictory messages about the Reef, arguably impeding conservation efforts to protect the Reef, and a need for an integrated place identity management communication strategy. We propose the notion of care as one value that drives all three major stakeholders and that could underpin an integrated strategy.
Introduction Globally, we can identify a number of places that serve as iconic tourist attractions, as well as holding meaning for a diversity of stakeholders beyond the tourism sector. This is particularly true for nature-based heritage areas that may represent sites of stakeholder conflict as areas to be protected and conserved, or alternatively exploited for their natural resources. As such, the image construction of such places may incorporate both elements of destination branding related to the tourism sector, as well as place meaning, taking into account the greater variety of meanings other stakeholders ascribe to that place, including how that place should be managed for the benefit of users (Ryan & Silvanto, 2010). For places that are perceived to be under threat, the study of visual media associated with such places is being increasingly adopted by environmental psychologists, and more recently conservation psychologists, interested in how images frame and influence our relationship to places that require public support for their conservation and management (Hansen & Machin, 2013; Thomsen, 2015). Hansen (2011) describes visual media as an important public arena, wherein different agents compete and struggle with each other CONTACT Alexandra Coghlan QLD 4222, Australia
[email protected]
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 20 June 2016 Accepted 2 December 2016 KEYWORDS
Great Barrier Reef; image; conservation psychology; world heritage area
through their ‘sponsored’ images. Often, the aim of such agents is to elicit emotions, create awareness and drive action through the use of these images (Cantrill, 2013; Grevsmühl, 2016; Seelig, 2015; Thomsen, 2015). The meanings associated with such places and portrayed through their images are typically more contested than the more managed process of branding – the latter often receiving greater attention in the tourism literature (Blichfeldt, 2005; Morgan, Pritchard, & Pride, 2002; Smith, 2015). Here, we focus on how ‘the private, public and civil society [participate in] living the place brand’ (Govers, 2011, p. 230), stretching beyond the tourism sector to all stakeholders with an interest in the portrayal and management of a given place. In line with Gunn’s (1972) organic image-formation concept, these goaldriven place potrayals still impact on potential tourists’ images of, attitudes towards, and therefore behavioural intentions towards a place, and are thus relevant to our understanding of tourists’ interest in visiting attractions, as well as the public’s (including tourists) support for conserving such places. The World Heritage Listed Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is one example of this complex issue, where a diversity of local and international stakeholder voices convey
Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith University, Gold Coast campus,
2
A. COGHLAN ET AL.
different meanings about the place and its current environmental condition. The GBR represents both an iconic Australian tourism attraction, attracting up to two million tourists/year (Deloitte Access Economics, 2013) as well as a World Heritage Area (WHA) listed in 1981. However, due to environmental pressures, the health of the ecosystem has suffered in recent deceades, leading to a highly publicised threat by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in 2012 to place the GBR on the list of WHA’s ‘in danger’ (a decision postponed until 2020). The UNESCO’s actions generated significant attention in both traditional and social media regarding the status of the GBR’s ecological health, its aesthetic beauty, its relationship to coastal development and its value to the tourism sector (Lankester, Bohnesky, & Newlands, 2015). A list of ‘in danger’ would damage Australia’s reputation as a responsible steward of the GBR and negatively impact on ‘brand Australia’, particularly as a sustainable tourism destination. In the period between 2010 and 2015, three major stakeholders have led high-profile public campaigns regarding these issues, thereby contributing to a place brand that is, at best confusing, at worst detrimental to the conservation and protection of this World Heritage icon. Bushell, Colley, and Workman (2015, p. 971) advocate for a more strategic narrative between stakeholders, citing the need for a ‘dynamic and persuasive system of stories organically generated and encouraged between government, business and civil society’ to best communicate messages about potential environmental threats, in their case, the impacts of climate change. Against this backdrop, this research explores the portrayal of the GBR in major media campaigns by three different stakeholders – government, conservation NGOs and the tourism sector (Study 1) and the impacts of the diverse portrayals of the reef on potential visitors from the Reef’s four major international markets – the USA, the UK, NZ and China (Study 2). The specific aims of this study are to identify how three key stakeholders are shaping the place identity of the reef through their image-based campaigns and their impacts on the emotions and behavioural intentions of four international visitor markets to the reef. In establishing these aims, this study responds to recent calls to better connect our understanding of communication research, place-based studies and environmental issues/conservation studies, and presents these within a tourism context. In particular, Hansen (2011, p. 7) draws attention to the research gaps of understanding the ‘production/construction of media messages and public communications, the content/messages of media communication; and the impact of media and public
comuunicaiton on public/political understanding and action with regard to the environment’. We start by presenting the context of the GBR and how three different stakeholders have become key message bearers in this context, adding to the complexity of the image of the GBR as a tourism attraction. Next, we explore issues of place identities and the relevance of integrated communication strategies to create a strong, cohesive place meaning that could drive the protection and conservation of this WHA (it is noteworthy here, that this particular WHA’s conservation value is most commonly linked to its value as an iconic nature-based tourism site, e.g. Goldberg et al., 2016). Finally, we review research in environmental and conservation psychology to assess the strengths and weaknesses in the communication of the place identity of a globally significant environmental asset. Practically this research provides theoretically driven insights on how the three core stakeholders groups can collaborate to develop an integrated strategy that best communicates a message to inspire the public to care for the health and status of the GBR.
The public portrayal of the status of the GBR The GBR is arguably one of the most recognisable naturebased tourism attractions and WHA globally. As a tourism attraction, the GBR attracts approximately two million tourists each year, and supports a sizeable tourism industry in Far North Queensland, Australia. The most recent economic impact assessment estimates that the GBR creates around 64,000 jobs and directly and indirectly contributes AUD$11.6 billion to Australia’s economy (Deloitte Access Economics, 2013). At the time of writing, the Reef featured regularly in the media, as an iconic ecosystem of outstanding universal value that requires increasing conservation efforts to protect it. Growing concerns about the deteriorating health of the Reef’s ecosystem have led to significant public debate of the marine park’s management by government agencies. In 2011, a well-known Australian investigative journalism documentary (Four Corners, November 2011 – see Wilkinson & Hichens, 2011, November 3) presented a report entitled ‘Great Barrier Grief’. This report raised concerns around development threats to the Reef (port development, shipping channels, dredging and spills, and new mines) and put the management and the status of the GBR very much in the public eye in Australia and to some extent, internationally. As a result of the concerns raised in the documentary and more broadly, the UNESCO undertook a three-year deliberation (2012–2015) of whether to list the GBR
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
WHA as ‘in danger’, in response to concerns over the declining health of the Reef and an increase in development projects in the areas adjoining the WHA. Indeed, the GBR is known to face a number of key management issues, including climate change, coastal development, water quality, the impacts of fishing, shipping, marine tourism, defence activities and recreation, and traditional use of the GBR by Indigenous peoples (Breitling, 2010; Day & Dobbs, 2013; Grech et al., 2013). Moreover, the GBR region is affected by detrimental activities that occur outside the legislated area, but which have a profound effect on the environmental integrity of the marine ecosystem (Brodie & Waterhouse, 2012). In response to the UNESCO’s concerns, and to delay its decision regarding the status of the WHA until 2020 the Queensland State and Australian Federal Governments proposed the Reef 2050 (R2050) Plan. This process was covered in depth by the mainstream media, such as television, radio and newspapers (Lankester et al., 2015; McLennan, Becken, & Moyle, 2015). The highly public reporting of the plight of the GBR across mainstream media as well as social media (c.f. #ReefInDanger, for example) has arguably created a sense of cognitive dissonance (e.g. mental stress associated with having simultaneous contradictory beliefs or values) for prospective tourists, who receive potentially contradictory messages from tourism stakeholders, government-based Reef management agencies, scientists and reef conservation campaigners, for example, Greenpeace, WWF and GetUp!. In their study of the media representation of the major coal port development and its impacts on the Reef, Lankester et al. (2015) identified four major, and very varied, themes on the plight of the Reef. These ranged from a deep ecology perspective focussed on implicit risk, to a right-wing, industrialist position, which highlighted conservationists’ sense of hysteria. Their study confirms the complexity with which the status of the Reef is being portrayed by media and interested stakeholders. The UNESCO’s decision to review the World Heritage status of the GBR spurred two other major stakeholders, conservation NGOs and the tourism sector, to develop their own Reef campaigns. Tourism destination marketing organisations launched campaigns showcasing the beauty of the Reef, whilst conservation non-governmental organisations (NGO) ran campaigns to bolster conservation efforts for the Reef. The result was that the GBR featured heavily in the public eye for three very different reasons, as a governance and management concern, second as an issue of high conservation importance, and third, as an iconic nature-based tourism attraction.
3
All three of these diverse campaigns fall into the area of persuasive communication; that is, ‘a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to change their attitudes or behaviours regarding an issue through the transmission of a message in an atmosphere of free choice’ (Perloff, 2010, p. 12). They are all shaping the public’s perception of the GBR, and thereby influencing the place identity of the Reef. However, it is questionable to what extent the messages conveyed by these three major stakeholders are consistent with each other, and what type of response they are generating with regard to the overarching goal of generating care and concern for the future health of the Reef. To better understand these issues, we turn to the literature on place identity, which acknowledges the diversity of stakeholders within a given space, and calls for an integrated communication strategy between these stakeholders. We also focus on conservation psychology, which explicitly aims to foster a sense of care for our natural environment, thereby providing one possible foundation for an integrated communication strategy. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model for this study, to indicate the existing and potential forces and pathways of influence between stakeholders, their campaign images and potential visitors’ emotional responses and behavioural intentions.
Place identities As a concept, place identity can be viewed both from the sense of place perspective, whereby a place is wrapped up in one’s own identity through one’s lived experience of that place, and associated auto-biographical landmarks, or alternatively, as the foundation of place branding, whereby ‘place identities are constructed through historical, political, religious and cultural discourses; through local knowledge and influence by power struggles’ (Govers & Go, 2009, p. 17). These differences arise in part from the multi-disciplinary nature of, and interest in, the concept of place identity. It is a fundamental part of environmental psychology and as such is useful to understand our relationship with places that hold special meaning for us, particularly to our identification with places. In human geography it is more commonly associated with the meanings people attribute to places, whilst in ecosystem management, the related construct of sense of place refers to public attitudes towards the environment and its management (Hausmann, Slotow, Burns, & Di Minin, 2016). Place identity is not therefore limited to tourism and tourists, and is more inclusive of the ‘internal brand’, focussing on how local stakeholders, private, public and civil society ‘live’ the brand (Govers, 2011). In the tourism literature the terms place and identity are
4
A. COGHLAN ET AL.
Figure 1. Conceptual model indicating the existing (solid arrows) and potential (dashed arrows) forces and pathways of influence between stakeholders, their campaign images and potential visitors’ emotional responses and behavioural intentions.
rarely applied, with a preference for the more targeted, tourism-relevant destination brand. Here we opt, instead, for the more inclusive concept of place, which integrates the varied (and powerful) stakeholders beyond tourism that will affect the attraction’s image (Hanna & Rowley, 2008). It includes the descriptive, inferential and informational beliefs held about a place, and are formed as a result of processing different pieces of information available through various channels, including tourism promotion, but also export brands, policy decisions, business audiences, cultural exchange and media (Stock, 2009). Place identity is thus a wider concept than the more managed, and manageable, process of branding (Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013). Due to this diversity of stakeholders within any given place, targeted and strategic place branding is understood to be a difficult task with limited control by any one actor, and arguably, limited effect (Morgan et al., 2002). In particular, public, private and non-profit organisations within a place may have ‘not just different, but conflicting needs, wants and behaviours’ (Hannagan, 1992, cited in Skinner, 2005, p. 301). And whilst many advocate for an integrated communication approach to image management (e.g. Stock, 2009), it is recognised that places with a wide range of diverse stakeholders, with conflict between stakeholder objectives, and with a lack of a coordinating function, will face significant challenges implementing an effective communication campaign and program (Skinner, 2005). Indeed, a lack of consistency in messages, bought about by polysemy, plurality and contradiction of stakeholder agendas, mandates and values can bring about the ‘death’ of any branding attempts (Mayes, 2008, p. 127).
It has therefore been suggested by a number of authors that an integrated approach is essential to avoid the type of confused images that might arise from stakeholders with different needs and goals acting alone. Van Assche and Lo (2011) call for a narrative approach that seeks to understand the different meanings ascribed to a place by local stakeholders and use the emergent narratives to shape a brand. A similar approach is advocated by Mayes (2008) who suggest that core values are carefully selected to reflect points of similarity between different stakeholders and become the focus of a responsible and responsive place branding campaign. Given the focus on conserving the Reef as a WHA and a major tourism attraction, we turn to the literature on conservation psychology to provide some understanding of how we might bring together findings from that relatively new field of studies to the portrayal of the image and identity of the GBR, given its specific context presented above.
Conservation psychology and caring for our environment The field of conservation psychology is a relative newcomer to the broader field of psychology. It is defined by the American Psychological Association as ‘the scientific study of the reciprocal relationships between humans and the rest of nature, with the goal of encouraging conservation of the natural world’. Whilst this new field of study draws extensively from environmental psychology (and therefore place-based constructs), it differs from the former by its explicitly value-based orientation towards promoting sustainable behaviours and its understanding
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
of all environmental problems as issues of human behaviour (Clayton & Brook, 2005). Bott, Cantrill, and Myers Jr (2003) argue that conservation psychology ‘can work with institutions using critical education, participatory management, citizen management, and action research approaches to relate people to places as natural-political landscapes’ (p. 108). Within conservation programmes themselves, it is not uncommon for image-based campaigns to underpin the connections between places, conservation issues and attempts to galvanise the general public (Szasz, 1994). Grevsmühl (2016) cites others as he describes: how images impact, how we structure our interactions with places, how environmental narratives are framed, and how environmental futures are imagined. This is often accomplished by engendering strong emotions elicited through images that galvanise people to action (Seelig, 2015; Thomsen, 2015). With regard to research in this area, Hansen (2011) argues that we must further investigate the links between the production/construction of media messages and public communications, the content/messages of media communication; and the impact of media and public communication on public/ political understanding and action with regard to the environment. To achieve these aims of linking conservation communication with conservation action, Corral-Verdugo (2012) and Peter and Honea (2012), for example, argue for messages that inspire optimism, hope, care and collective action. Using an experimental study of threatening versus connecting messages to encourage pro-environmental behaviours, Weinstein, Rogerson, Moreton, Balmford, and Bradbury (2015) indicate the latter, connecting messages, had a stronger impact on mental states of openness and caring and furthermore elicited more conservation behaviours. They call for further research to better understand how we might use connecting messages to foster pro-environmental behaviours, particularly in those cases where fear and guilt-based appeals are less effective, for example, when long-term action is required, where there is a risk of desensitisation. This ‘connecting messages’ approach in conservation psychology focuses on four specific areas to foster proenvironmental behaviour. First, previous studies have found that the type of information provided is important. For example, if people are told that they personally can help alleviate a crisis through simple actions (a positive message) they are more likely enact pro-environmental behaviours (Schultz et al., 2005). In contrast, being told how the actions of others endanger a system (a negative message) is more likely to lead to selfish behaviours.
5
Second, identity plays an important role with the use of social peer groups being particularly effective in encouraging compliance (Clayton & Myers, 2009). Consequently, ‘next generation’ arguments are powerful as most adults will have children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews whom they consider part of their social or peer groups. Third, leadership by institutions can be powerful when those institutions are trusted. Finally, for individuals with no direct connection to the ecosystem of concern, incentives have been identified as an effective tool in encouraging pro-environmental behaviour (Schultz et al., 2005). With regard to the GBR, newer research has begun to investigate sense of place related to the GBR and impacts on its management (e.g. Goldberg et al., 2016; Larson, De Freitas, & Hicks, 2013; Van Riper, Sutton, Kyle, Stewart, & Tobin, 2016). The type of imagery and messages delivered by stakeholders in the shaping of the place identity of the GBR are largely aimed at galvanising the public into either believing that the Reef needs greater protection (NGOs), that it is well managed (government/management agencies), or that it is ‘pristine’ (tourism sector). If we accept that a common and overarching goal of these three very different stakeholders is promoting and fostering a sense of care for the Reef, then we should look to conservation psychology for guiding principles on how to best develop that message of care, perhaps as the basis for an integrated communication strategy of place identity, where trust in institutions may be damaged (O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009).
Research aim This study will use this notion of connecting messages as operationalised by these four principles (identity, trust in institutions, incentives and through information on positive activities) to better understand the place identity portrayed by three very different GBR stakeholders, and search for an integrated communication strategy or lack thereof. The primary research aim is to understand how the three major stakeholders portray the Reef, and the subsequent impacts on perceptions of the Reef. To do this, we focus on the following two objectives, each of which is fulfilled through a separate study: (1) Analyse the use of connecting messages in stakeholders’ portrayal of the Reef. Connecting messages are operationalised by the general categories of identity, trust in institutions, incentives or through information on positive activities (Study 1); and, (2) Assess the impact of a selected sub-sample of these messages on potential international visitors to the Reef by identifying respondents’ emotional reactions
6
A. COGHLAN ET AL.
to these images and behavioural intentions with regard to protecting and visiting the Reef (Study 2). The remainder of this paper is presented as two separate sequential studies (following Low & Lamb, 2000), which are then discussed in relation to the broader research aims.
Study 1 Method The first study examines the image-based campaigns of the three stakeholder groups and analyses these images based on the principles of conservation psychology outlined above. We focused on images as the visual marketing is gaining in prevalence in both the commercial and not-for-profit sector. As our exposure to media increases, and information saturation becomes more likely, images are known to capture and hold attention more readily, become more easily associated with a message and are generally more memorable (Wedel & Pieters, 2012). Moreover, images accompanied by a text-based message are considered more persuasive than either text or images alone, and are therefore the focus of this study (Lester, 2013). Using a method adapted from Choi, Lehto, and Morrison (2007) that selected a sample of images from an exhaustive search of websites, images of the GBR were collated through multiple searches over a three-month period (October 2015 to January 2016) using Google Images (https://images.google.com/) search with the key term ‘Great Barrier Reef’. Unlike Choi et al. (2007), ‘Google Images’ was used initially as it was deemed more inclusive of a variety of sources that what a targeted sampling strategy of specific websites would have yielded. The Google Image search resulted in images from a variety of sources, including websites and social media. While many images of the GBR were obtained through this search process (around 670 images), only those images that contained messaging (e.g. words or numbers that conveyed a message) were collected for analysis (around 73 images). Images with messaging were selected as otherwise the images were often just of fish or coral, with little context or even an indication of whether it was indeed the GBR. As the multiple rounds of searches returned many of the same images, a second stage of targeted sampling was then undertaken as a checking process, which more closely followed Choi et al. (2007) to obtain any additional images missing from the key stakeholders’ websites. These stakeholder websites were selected by Google searching ‘Great Barrier Reef’ and either ‘government’, ‘conservation’ and ‘tourism’ based on the emergent
categories obtained through the Google Image search. The top 10 websites of each search were then browsed for additional images. Through this process, a further 17 images were collected, primarily from governmentrelated websites (state, federal and the parastatal Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) to supplement the sample taken from Google Images. Using this duel method, a total of 80 images containing messaging were collated and examined to determine their relevance to the present study. A total of 21 images were discarded as their provenance was unclear, leaving a final sample of 59 images. Of these 59 images, the majority (53%) were conservation-related, with 13 tourism images, and 15 government-related images. The final sample of 59 images was analysed using an inductive content analysis to elicit broad themes. The coding process identified and recorded the type of image agent, the producer or publisher of the image (determined by logos, site of the image on the web and the messaging), the content or message of the image (e.g. words or numbers used to portray meaning), whether its valence framing was positive or negative, and whether the image had a pro-Reef, proTourism or pro-government stance, or if it had an antigovernment or anti-resources sector stance. The coding also sought to identify if the image indicated that it was presenting ‘facts’, if it was presenting images of animals, people or coral, if it was presenting ‘something for the reader’ and if the image was seeking positive or negative action. Lastly, the images were also analysed to determine if they sought to make the reader identify with the Reef (e.g. through use of ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘we’, ‘our’, ‘Australians’) and whether hedging or superlatives were used in the messaging. Using the images written messaging content, an inductive content analysis, the messages portrayed by the images, was undertaken using NVivo to search for salience of key words and relationships between words. Finally, a deductive approach was applied to explore whether the images were more related to fear and/or guilt-based messages, or alternatively, connecting messages as advocated by Weinstein et al. (2015). The latter was further operationalised through the four conservation psychology principles of positive information, appeals to identity, trust in institutions and incentive-based messages. The coding was carried out by two authors, with cross-checking between coders until agreement was reached.
Results As a first step in the analysis, the images were assessed for their valence framing position, that is a framing
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
position (text and/or scenes) that was designed to evoke positive or negative feelings (Bizer, Larsen, & Petty, 2011). Forty-three images were found to have positive valence framing, 19 had negative valence and 8 had elements of both positive and negative valence. Examples of images and/or text that invoke negative feelings include bleached coral, heavy sedimentation in the water, oil spills, often associated with the words ‘dump’, ‘dead’ or ‘kill’. Meanwhile images that conveyed both positive and negative valence depicted, for example, bleached coral in one half of the image, and colourful coral with abundant fish life on the other. The images overwhelmingly had a pro-reef conservation stance (46 of 59 images), with messages such as ‘please protect our reef’ (Conservation), or ‘delivering practical conservation actions, checking for change, welcoming people, responding to incidents, upholding compliance’ (Government). The images that did not present a pro-reef conservation stance were most commonly associated with the tourism sector, reflecting their marketing orientation designed to appeal to visitors, for example, ‘Welcome to the world’s most scenic runway’ or ‘We’ve reserved front row seats, the clown fish are putting on a show and the chauffeur will be back to pick you up at sunset’ (Tourism). A further 16 images presented an anti-resource sector message, and the two final images presented anti-government messages, for example, ‘Dear Australian Govt. Not in my name will you be allowed to destroy the Great Barrier Reef’. Whilst some images (n = 8) did present a pro-government stance, all eight were attributable to government, a point that will be further discussed below. Regarding the content of the images, 10 reflected only a seascape, whilst most included images of the ecosystem itself, with images of corals (n = 38), turtles (n = 14) and anemone fish (n = 5), dominating. Only a third of the images (n = 19) contained pictures of people, and these were predominantly tourism marketing images related to snorkelling (n = 4), diving (n = 2), relaxing on deserted sand cays (n = 2), and observing turtles on the beach (n = 2). The remaining images of people included SCUBA divers holding up conservation banners (n = 2), local community groups advocating for conservation actions (n = 2) or the general public taking part in demonstrations (n = 1). Only nine images contained pictures of the industries that arguably threaten reef conservation, for example, mining or port development. Using NVivo, the text-based component of the sample was further analysed. A word frequency query not surprising indicated that ‘reef’ was the most common word (n = 41), followed by ‘barrier’ (n = 18) and ‘great’ (n = 17). The single case where the words great and
7
barrier were not associated, that is, the word ‘great’ was missing, was an image of projected coral bleaching that carried the tag ‘Grave Barrier Reef’. The next most common word was ‘world’ (n = 8) indicating the global significance of this ecosystem (in contrast, Australia appeared only three times), followed an equal balance of words that indicate threats to the Reef (‘coal’, ‘dumping’, ‘destroying’, ‘dredging’) with words that indicate conservation actions (‘protect’, ‘save’, ‘fight’). The word ‘heritage’ was also common, appearing five times in the count. Figure 2 provides an overview of the word frequency query presented as a word cloud. In relation to the types of messages suggested by conservation psychology to increase support for proenvironmental behaviours, we first look at the general principle of connecting messages, defined by Weinstein et al. (2015) as messages that ‘educate people about aspects of the natural environment, such as animals, plants and their habitats’. Eleven of the images included these types of connecting messages, and these were predominantly promoted by government agencies. By further operationalising the principles of conservation psychology that focus on incentives, identity, trust in institutions and information about positive actions, none of the sampled images explicitly conveyed a tangible incentive to protect the Reef. However, 14 images suggested intangible experiential benefits, such as offering opportunities for a great holiday, a chance to connect and discover nature, exciting underwater experiences, or a sense of belonging to a community of like-minded reef supporters. Regarding the type of information provided, 17 images conveyed messages of negative actions being
Figure 2. Word Count Frequency analysis, represented as a word cloud.
8
A. COGHLAN ET AL.
inflicted upon the Reef, reflecting the type of fear-inducing messages sometimes used in persuasive communication. These types of images were usually associated with verbs such as dredging, wrecking, dumping, destroying, killing, losing or dying (as well as words such as ‘at risk’, RIP and grave). A third of the images (n = 20) conveyed positive messages regarding protective actions towards the Reef; with verbs such as saving, standing up for, protecting and fighting for. An example of this approach is provided by a government agency: ‘delivering practical conservation actions, checking for change, welcoming people, responding to incidents, upholding compliance’. A few of these messages appeared satirical in tone, e.g. ‘It’s historic: for the first time Queensland has a minister for the Great Barrier Reef! Congratulations!’ (Conservation). Drawing upon (social) identity is also useful when applying conservation psychology (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). A third of the messages drew on peer or reference groups through the use of pronouns (I, you, we, our, or Australians). Examples included the following provided by a government agency: ‘It sends a strong message to the world that we are standing up to save this international icon and have taken decisive steps to turn the health of the reef around’. Some messages aimed to induce collective action, such as ‘Dear Australian Govt. Not in my name will you be allowed to destroy the Great Barrier Reef’. Interestingly a number of messages presupposed an understanding of the issues and a priori support for the Reef; some images simply carried the message: ‘We can have coal or the reef. We can’t have both and we must choose now’ or ‘Coal ships and coral reefs don’t mix’ or ‘Will we choose coal or the Great Barrier Reef? Take another look’. In a nation heavily dependent upon coal for power and exportation, arguably it is not clear that these messages are meant to be understood as calls for action to stop coal and protect the Reef, especially given the competing economic priorities. Finally, trust in institutions has been linked to good conservation psychology outcomes (Brown, 2003). As noted before, only a few images (n = 8) specifically contained messages of support for the official agencies that manage the Reef, including the Australian Federal Government, the Queensland State Government and the UNESCO, for example, ‘The World Heritage committee stands with the Reef and so do I’ (Conservation). Many of the images are attributable to government agencies themselves. Whilst only three images specifically targeted government actions, for example, ‘Australia’s Environmental Minister just approved the dredging and dumping of 3 million cubic metres of seabed inside the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
against the wishes of Australians everywhere’ (Conservation), some imply a level of conflict with government decisions, for example, ‘We’re taking it [both the State and the Federal government] to court’ (Conservation) or ‘Plans to destroy the Reef break my heart’ (Conservation). As indicated above, each stakeholder has a different emphasis in their messaging. Whilst this is, to some extent, to be expected, the literature reviewed on integrated communication suggests that finding a core, uniting message between various stakeholders can strengthen people’s perceptions of, and attitudes towards, a place. Following from conservation psychology (Corral-Verdugo, 2012; Peter & Honea, 2012), the value of ‘care’ may present an integrating message across the three stakeholder groups. However, analysis of the text associated with the images revealed that the word ‘care’ itself does not appear in the text associated with any of the messages, other associated words such as ‘save’, ‘guardian’, ‘help’, ‘protect’ and ‘fight for’ are applied. Interestingly, almost half of the images (n = 8) that include these words associated with the value of care are based around a message of threat, for example, ‘The Great Barrier Reef is fighting for its life. Join the Global Twitter Storm today and help save it before it is too late’ (Conservation) or ‘We’re not taking any chances. Help us protect the Great Barrier Reef through the Abbott Point Port and Wetlands Project’ (Government).
Study 2 Method In Phase 2, six images were selected from the broader sample of images used in Phase 1 and representing two images from each of the stakeholders. Initially, a sample of 10 images was selected for content related explicitly to conservation psychology content or lack of, and pilot tested with five colleagues to determine the final six images to be used. Image 1 and 6 were produced by government, Image 2 and 4 were produced by NGOs and Image 3 and 5 were tourism imaging. Table 1 describes the six images that were used in Study 2. These six images were included in an online panel survey administered to Australia’s four key international visitor markets of China, the UK, the USA and New Zealand (n = 1249). Collectively, these four countries represent 49% of all international visitors to Australia (Tourism Research Australia, 2016). Sampling was stratified by age, gender and country to obtain a soft nationally representative sample for each of the four countries. The Chinese survey was double-blind translated into simplified Chinese for administration to improve the
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
9
Table 1. Description of the six images used in Stage 2. Image 1 features an astronaut in space, with planet Earth in the background, showing Australia and the Reef. The Australian Government logo is displayed in the top right corner, with the text: interesting fact: the Great Barrier Reef is one of the few living structures visible from SPACE.
Image 2 displays a cargo ship, with a black spill-like looking cloud of darker water next to it. The text reads “coal ships and coral reefs don’t mix”. The logo of a large conservation NGO is present in the bottom left-hand corner.
Image 3 displays a turtle swimming over the top of a colourful reef, with 3 snorkellers visible in the background. Tourism Australia’s logo is visible in the bottom right hand corner.
Image 6 displays a map of Australia, with the location of the reef highlighted in yellow, on the left-hand side of the image, with several facts about the size and bidiversity of the Reef featured on the right-hand side, e.g. 70 million football fields. These are all set against a background, blue-washed image of the reef. The image has the caption “Great Barrier Reef Marine Park” with the logo of the Australian Government in the top left-hand side.
Image 4 shows an anemone fish, nestled in a colourful anemone, with the caption “‘TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS.…” and the below the fish the text “Not a creature was stirring, not even a seamouse, when the dredgers arrived to destroy Nemo’s house”. The logo of a large conservation NGO is visible in the bottom right-hand corner.
Image 5 shows a coral cay island, surrounded by clear water, with a couple holding hands on the island, and a seaplane in the background. The text reads “welcome to the word’s most scenic runway”, with the Tourism Australia’s logo below it.
representativeness of the sample and to achieve construct equivalence thereby improving respondents understanding of the questions and enhancing the accuracy (and reducing bias) of the results. The six images were randomised to reduce bias associated with order. Questions relating to the six images focused on the emotions they felt when viewing the images, their behavioural intentions after viewing the images, and whether they had any additional comments, felt any other emotions or wanted to take any other actions after viewing the images. The affective item asked respondents to indicate on a scale of 1–10 (1 = low, 10 = high) the extent to which they experienced eight discreet emotions (Lövheim, 2012). The behavioural intention items included two pro-environmental behaviours (donate to a GBR charity and sign a petition) and two tourism-related behaviours (visit the Reef and recommend Australia as a place to visit). Intentions were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = low likelihood, 5 = high). The survey also asked respondents about the emotions and behavioural intentions that each image elicited. The data were cleaned and exported to STATA v.13 for analysis. The data were weighted according to census data for 2013 by age (18 years and over) and gender, enhancing generalisability to the population in each country. Analysis involved using a combination of descriptive statistics, design-based F-tests and adjusted Wald tests, appropriate when analysing complex survey data (McLennan & Moyle, 2016).
Results The socio-demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are presented in Table 2. For the purposes of this research, we explored the types of emotions elicited by the sub-sample of six images, and associated behavioural intentions. Table 3
presents the mean and median scores (1 = low, 100 = high) of each of the eight emotions for each of the six photos. Whilst all eight emotions were reported by respondents, the results indicate that the negative emotions of Distress/Anguish, Anger/Rage and Contempt/Disgust were more strongly associated with the conservation NGO images than either tourism or government-related images. The two NGO images were more likely to elicit a wider range of emotions, but with lesser strength of emotion. Both tourism and government images elicited stronger positive emotions of Enjoyment/Joy, Interest/Excitement and the more valence-neutral emotion (Alden, Mukherjee, & Hoyer, 2000) of surprise. The results show that the eight emotions were significantly affected by the type of image and messaging seen, and moreover, that there were significant differences in the degree of emotion felt across the images. Adjusted Wald tests confirmed significant differences between Image 2 and 4 and the other four images, and to a lesser extent, there were some significant differences between Image 2 and 4, as well as between Images 1, 3, 5 and 6 (please see Figure 3 for test results). Behavioural intention did not vary in terms of medians, but varied on the mean (Table 4). Whilst none of the images encouraged respondents to consider donating to charity – a relatively higher level of charitable act – three of the six images were very likely to encourage respondents to sign a petition to protect the Reef. Two of these images were conservation NGOrelated images, whilst one was from the tourism sector. The remaining three images were also likely (but not very likely) to encourage respondents to sign a petition to protect the Reef. Not surprisingly the conservation NGO-related images (that elicited negative emotions) were the least likely to encourage respondents to visit the GBR, or recommend Australia as a place to visit. Both the tourism- and government-related images
10
A. COGHLAN ET AL.
Table 2. Overview of the respondents. Sample (n)
Population proportion (%)
intention and it was significantly more likely to exact this behavioural intention than the two NGO images (F (1, 12) = 51.64, p < .001) and the more factual government image (Image 6; F(1, 12) = 5.62, p = .035). A similar pattern was recorded for the behavioural intent ‘recommend Australia as a place to visit’, with Image 3 (tourism) being the most likely to exact this behaviour and this was significantly more likely to exact this behaviour than the two conservation NGO-related images (F(1, 12) = 81.64, p < .001). With regard to donating to charity, it was again Image 3, produced by a tourism-related agency that resulted in the greatest likelihood of donating to charity; however, this was only just significantly more likely to exact this behaviour over Image 6(government) (F(1, 12) = 4.92, p = 0.047), with there being no significant difference from the other four images. Finally, with eliciting the behaviour of intention to sign a petition, Image 3 (tourism) was again the highest scoring image, but this was not significantly more so than any other image. Interestingly, Image 3 scored the highest in terms of Interest/Excitement, suggesting this emotion may be closely associated with exacting behaviours related to the Reef. To provide a summary of the behavioural impacts of the three stakeholders messaging, the average behavioural score for the four behaviours was taken by each stakeholder group. With regard to visiting the Reef, the NGO images were significantly less likely (F(1, 12) = 125.96, p < .001) to exact this behaviour than the government and tourism images, but there was no difference between these last two groups (F(1, 12) = 2.57, p = 0.135). Again, for recommending Australia as a place to visit, the NGO images were significantly less likely (F(1, 12) = 117.12, p < .001) to exact this behaviour than the other two stakeholder groups. There was also a moderate difference between the tourism and government images at the 7% significance level with tourism being slightly more likely to generate a recommendation for visiting Australia (F(1, 12) = 4.07, p = .067). There were no significant differences between the three stakeholder
Population count (N)
Country of origin USA 344 19.7 231,650,879 UK 300 3.8 44,783,026 New Zealand 302 0.3 3,466,960 China 300 76.2 893,708,003 Gender Male 593 50.0 587,203,965 Female 653 50.0 586,404,903 Age Under 20 93 3.2 37,490,257 20–29 225 20.6 241,661,841 30–39 252 18.3 214,438,255 40–49 230 21.6 253,032,066 50–59 175 16.3 190,833,616 60–69 162 11.5 135,284,521 70 or more 109 8.6 100,868,313 Education level Primary school 18 0.8 9,711,509 Secondary school 304 17.1 200,164,174 Trade qualification 159 6.1 71,496,840 Undergraduate 528 63.0 739,625,378 qualification Postgraduate 203 11.1 130,589,733 qualification Other 34 1.9 22,021,235 Have you ever travelled outside your home country? Yes 1034 74.1 869,019,758 No 212 26.0 304,589,111 Have you ever previously visited Australia? Yes 528 55.7 484,096,059 No 506 44.3 384,923,698 Have you ever visited the Great Barrier Reef? Yes 292 83.5 404,376,223 No 236 16.5 79,719,836 Do you intend to visit Australia in your lifetime? Yes 526 78.1 538,336,484 No 192 21.9 151,176,325 Do you intend to visit the Great Barrier Reef in your lifetime? Yes 672 95.1 587,939,977 No 90 4.9 30,116,343 n = 1,246. N = 1173608868
were equally likely to encourage respondents to recommend Australia as a place to visit. The tourismrelated images were also effective at encouraging respondents to consider visiting the Reef, whilst one of the two government-related images also encouraged respondents to consider visiting the Reef. Considering the behaviour of visiting the GBR, Image 3(tourism) was the most likely to exact this behavioural Table 3. Mean and median score for each emotion by image. Image 1 Gov. Emotion
x
Shame/humiliation 15.7 Distress/Anguish 15.2 Fear error 15.3 Anger/rage 15.5 Contempt/disgust 15.7 Surprise 66.8 Enjoyment/joy 67.0 Interest/excitement 71.2 Note: x = mean; x˜ = median.
Image 2 NGO
Image 3 Tourism
Image 4 NGO
Image 5 Tourism
Image 6 Gov.
x˜
x
x˜
x
x˜
x
x˜
x
x˜
x
x˜
4 4 4 4 4 73 74 79
39.3 44.9 36.7 48.2 44.7 32.9 28.7 30.6
39 46 31 50 47 22 11 14
15.2 15.6 15.7 16.3 16.0 64.7 71.4 74.1
4 5 4 5 4 74 80 82
35.1 39.9 33.7 42.7 39.3 42.1 40.0 41.3
23 34 24 42 33 42 35 35
18.1 17.0 16.4 17.7 18.0 65.2 72.9 73.5
5 5 5 6 5 75 81 81
16.4 17.5 16.7 17.2 16.8 63.5 65.5 70.1
4 5 5 5 5 68 70 75
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
11
Table 4. Mean and median response of intention to undertake each behaviour in relation to the six images. Image 1 Gov. x x˜
Behaviour Visit the Great Barrier Reef Recommend Australia as a place to visit Donate to a GBR-related charity Sign a petition to save the GBR Note: x = mean; x˜ = median.
4.0 4.0 3.8 4.0
4 4 4 4
Image 2 NGO x x˜ 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.9
4 4 4 4
Image 3 Tourism x x˜ 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0
4 4 4 4
Image 4 NGO x x˜ 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9
4 4 4 4
Image 5 Tourism x x˜ 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.9
4 4 4 4
Image 6 Gov. x x˜ 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.9
4 4 4 4
Figure 3. Wald Test Results. Note: Cells display Prob > F result, with those highlighted in red showing non-significant results.
groups in terms of generating a behaviour to donate to a GBR-related charity or signing a petition to save the GBR. Table 5 shows the emotions that were significantly related to behavioural intentions. Visiting the GBR was positively associated with Enjoyment/Joy, and Interest/
Excitement. It was also associated with Anger/Rage when viewing Image 4(NGO) and with Shame/Humiliation when viewing Image 5(tourism). The relationship between Shame/Humiliation and visiting the GBR might seem strange initially, but open-ended comments
Table 5. Emotions significantly related to behaviours (survey linear regression). Behaviour
Image 1 Gov.
Image 2 NGO
Visit the GBR
(−) Distress/Anguish (p = .020) (−) Surprise (p < .001)
Recommend Australia as a place to visit
(−) Surprise (p = .005)
Donate to a GBR related (+) Fear / Terror charity (p = 0.005)
(+) Fear / Terror (p = 0.017) (+) Contempt / Disgust (p = 0.036) (+) Anger/Rage (p = .015)
Sign a petition to save the GBR
(+) Anger/Rage (p = .021) (+) Enjoyment/Joy (p = .036)
Image 3 Tourism
Image 4 NGO
Image 5 Tourism
Image 6 Gov.
(+) Anger/Rage (+) Shame/Humiliation (+) Interest/ (p = .007) (p = 0.005) Excitement (+) Enjoyment/Joy (+) Interest/ (p = .013) (p = .001) Excitement (p = .005) (+) Enjoyment/Joy (+) Anger/Rage (+) Shame/Humiliation (+) Interest/ (p = .004) (p = .040) (p = .023) Excitement (−) Anger/Rage (p = .002) (p = .008) (+) Contempt/ Disgust (p = .026) (+) Anger / Rage (+) Anger / Rage (+) Surprise (+) Surprise (p = .005) (p = 0.003) (p < 0.001) (p = 0.003) (+) Distress/Anguish (+) Shame/Humiliation (p = .033) (p = .024) (+) Contempt/ Disgust (p = .010)
12
A. COGHLAN ET AL.
revealed that a large number of respondents were concerned and ashamed of the landing of a plane on the GBR. As respondents stated ‘I hate the plane in the ad’, ‘landing planes on it hardly seems appropriate!’ and another asked ‘Why in the world would they land a plane there?’. This finding highlights how careful agencies must be in their messaging to exact the right emotional reactions. Donating to the GBR and signing a petition were generally positively associated with negative emotions. Image 3(tourism), which had the greatest impact on behavioural intention, had a strong relationship between Enjoyment/Joy and recommending Australia as a place to visit, as well as a relationship between Anger/Rage and the likelihood to donate to a GBR charity. Two key results emerged from the analysis of the connection between emotions and behavioural intentions. Firstly, if respondents felt Interest/Excitement after viewing images from the government sector, they were extremely more likely to recommend Australia and donate to the GBR charity. Secondly, if the respondents feel Shame/Humiliation and Anger/Rage after viewing images from NGO, they were more likely to sign a petition. Independent variables were also tested for the effects of socio-demographic characteristics. There were no significant differences in reported emotions or behavioural intentions by age or sex. However, there was a significant difference by level of education, with lower levels of education being significantly associated with stronger emotions compared with respondents that had higher levels of education.
Discussion WHAs are recognised and protected for their universal value to humankind by the UNESCO. The designation of a place as WHA informs the constituent public of unique natural, cultural and/or historic values of a place (Leask & Fyall, 2006). Concomitantly, designation as a WHA confers an expectation that authorities charged with the management will ensure its protection for future generations to enjoy and experience (Leask & Fyall, 2006). And yet, at a local level, many WHAs form part of the working landscape, with a variety of stakeholders engaged in the use and management of a place according to their priorities, mandates and agenda. Often these stakeholders may have competing agendas and different messaging to the community that may ultimately confuse and detract from the protection of the WHA. This study attempted to address the gap in the literature relating to how multiple stakeholders shape the place identity of WHAs through their
image-based campaigns and how that place identity influences the attitudes and behaviours of international visitors. Linking place identity and conservation psychology is important as numerous studies indicate that the public’s understanding and perception of environmental issues is essential for their effective participation in environmental decision-making processes (e.g. Fischer & Young, 2007). Place identities are linked to how people construct meanings and relationships to their surroundings, and shape our ways of thinking and acting towards those places (Bott et al., 2003). Meanwhile, conservation psychology typically addresses questions of how humans care about, and behave towards nature, with the ‘goal of creating durable individual and collective behaviour change’ (APA, n.d.). A place identity that portrays conflicting messages around the health and status of the reef is likely to impact on the public’s attitudes and behavioural intentions towards this endangered WHA. To investigate this issue two studies were undertaken. Study 1 investigated campaign images from three major stakeholders that contribute to shaping the place identity of an iconic ecosystem and nature-based tourism attraction, the GBR. Using literature from place branding, we searched for consistency across the campaigns, as it is widely recognised that integrated communications are more powerful in shaping perceptions and attitudes than the ‘polysemy, plurality or contradiction’ that lead to an ‘indecipherable cacophony widely agreed to be the death of a brand’ (Mayes, 2008, p. 127). The recovery of brand identities for destinations that have suffered, or are currently experiencing, a crisis relies even more heavily on a concerted approach between stakeholders (Björk, 2012; Walters & Mair, 2012). The results of the content analysis show an overall pro-reef stance in the majority of the images, particularly from government and conservation NGOs who are mostly concerned with the management and the protection of the GBR. The images that did not portray the pro-reef conservation stance were sampled from campaigns led by the tourism industry that largely reflected their commercial interests in the GBR. A large proportion of the images from conservation groups, as well as a few anti-government images, also provided an anti-resource sector message. Few images, with the exception of one government image, focused on other threats to the Reef. Next, Study 2 explored potential international tourists’ emotional responses and behavioural intentions associated with a sub-sample of these images, representing the three stakeholder groups. The results of the survey indicated that images created by conservation NGOs were more strongly related to negative emotions such
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
as Distress/Anguish, Anger/Rage and Contempt/Disgust; while images created by the government and the tourism industry tended to create positive emotions including Enjoyment/Joy, and Interest/Excitement, as well as Surprise (a more valence-neutral emotion) (Table 3). There were also significant differences in the types of behavioural intentions associated with each of the images (Table 4). Images released by conservation NGOs appeared to discourage intentions to visit the GBR and recommend Australia as a place to visit, whilst having no significant difference in terms of promoting the conservation-related behaviours of donating to charity and signing a petition. Meanwhile, one of the images related to the tourism sector (Image 3) did encourage the intention to donate to charity, and also encouraged some respondents to be more likely to sign a petition. The results revealed, in sum, that the messaging surrounding the GBR is diverse and originating from multiple sources (e.g. the tourism industry, government and conversation agencies) with conflicting agendas and competing priorities. The GBR has simultaneously been positioned as the ‘best managed reef in the world’ by its management agency reporting to the Federal Environment Minister, the ‘greatest reef in the world’ by tourism destination marketers, and as an ecosystem in danger by scientists, conservation groups and by the UNESCO itself. Each of these positions holds some truth, but is arguably incompatible with each other. Similar results were noted by Lankester et al. (2015) who identified four major positions on the coal port development, ranging from a deep green position to a strong industrialist position. Of the four positions, the ‘Environmental Disaster’ position was the most commonly reported and their analysis noted the prevalence of fear-based messaging from this group, and their lack of trust in the leadership around ecosystem monitoring programmes. It is common for social marketers to employ negative emotional appeals to influence behaviour through persuasive communication techniques (Brennan & Binney, 2010). In particular, meta-analyses of these tactics indicate that guilt and fear messages are often able to change consumer behaviours (e.g. O’Keefe, 2000). Research suggests that fear-based appeals can be particularly effective when the threat is perceived to be serious, and the intended receiver of the appeal feels both able to deal with the threat and their response will be effective against the threat (Morales, Wu, & Fitzsimons, 2012). However, recent research has raised two major concerns with this approach; first, we have very little understanding of the longer-term efficacy of fearbased messages, and secondly, it has become
13
increasingly suggested that fear-based messages may actually backfire where the receiver may not hold a positive coping appraisal (‘I don’t feel able to do anything about this threat’ and ‘the actions I can take are not very effective against this threat’) (Hastings, Stead, & Webb, 2004). Guilt-based messages are even more problematic in that they may provoke counter-arguing by the receiver/audience if the message is either too weak or too strong (Antonetti, Baines, & Walker, 2015). It is therefore unlikely that negative messaging around the GBR will have either the desired effect of promoting environmental concern or attracting tourists. The different mandates, goals and needs of the three major stakeholders studied in this paper increase the complexity of the Reef’s image as portrayed to the public about the health and status of the Reef. The results perhaps reflect a lack of the type of shared narrative approach to place identity management advocated by Van Assche and Lo (2011) or consensus generation in tourism governance put forward by Amore and Hall (2016). Instead, different stakeholders appear to be working against each other, a challenge highlighted in a report by The Australian that argues Greenpeace has been accused of ‘substitute reef ruse’, using images of a typhoon-ravaged reef in a ‘bid to have the GBR declared in danger’ (Lloyd, 2015). Similarly, Lankester et al. (2015) report how the pro-development positionholders used terms such as ‘misleading’, ‘myths’ and ‘hysteria’ in mass media outlets to discredit the pro-conservation stakeholders of the GBR, further adding to the confusion and controversy of the management status of the Reef. It is worth pointing out, however, that whilst the different stakeholders do hold very different mandates, goals and needs, and that the freedom to express these positions and allow for conflict is necessary, it is also possible to identify points of commonality between the three stakeholder groups that should be capitalised upon for the benefit of the GBR. Arguably the stakeholders have a common and overarching goal of maintaining the health of the ecosystem and its aesthetic beauty as part of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention for the management of its WHA. For example, the long-term viability and health of the Reef is a desirable outcome for government, conservation organisations and the tourism industry. A visionary approach, of the type advocated by Van Assche and Lo (2011), might place a sense of care for the Reef at the forefront of an integrated place identity management communication strategy. The growing field of conservation psychology is specifically concerned with fostering a sense of care for our environment.
14
A. COGHLAN ET AL.
According to Clayton and Myers (2009), caring is a requirement for us ‘to act with intention, to inquire, to get activated’ (p. 5). With regard to the GBR, research by Van Riper, Kyle, Sutton, Yoon, and Tobin (2013) suggests that the general Australian public do feel a (positive) widely accepted orientation in their attitudes towards caring for the GBR – a position supported by a poll of 1700 Australians in 2013 (Australian Marine Conservation Society, 2013). Thus the principles of conservation psychology, designed to generate a sense of care towards our environment, may be a basis for an integrated communication strategy that unites the three key stakeholders working to influence public perception of the status of the GBR. Conservation NGOs desire a healthy reef for its intrinsic value, the tourism industry relies on a healthy, diverse and aesthetically pleasing reef to attract visitors, ensure their satisfaction and fortify the long-term sustainability of the sector, whilst government agencies have a mandate to protect the GBR. Understanding the types of emotions that are generated by particular campaigns, and the behaviours linked to these images and associated emotions can assist the stakeholders in identifying common ground upon which to build effective campaigns that can contribute to improving Reef sustainability. Currently, conservation NGO images used in their campaigns appear to negatively affect Australia’s destination image, as well as the intention to visit the Reef. This in turn affects the sustainability of the tourism industry based around the Reef, and thus one of the most powerful economic arguments (or incentives) for the ongoing conservation of the Reef. Furthermore, the conservation NGO messaging appeared to elicit weaker and more diverse emotional reactions. Meanwhile, campaign images related to government and tourism sectors tended to elicit stronger and clearer emotional reactions and showed evidence of some positive effects regarding respondents’ intention to engage in conservation behaviours. These findings may suggest that there is an opportunity and possibly a great potential for strengthening partnerships between conservation NGOs, the tourism sector and government to build stronger campaigns that can encourage a greater sense of care for the Reef, thereby benefiting all three stakeholder groups. Placing the value of care at the centre of an integrated messaging campaign can also create a powerful social norm around the types of behaviours that are considered appropriate and acceptable. Normative influence is considered a major predictor of positive behaviours in health (Conner & Sparks, 2005), as well as for many pro-environmental behaviours (Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2008), although it is believed to have been
largely under-recognised in the latter area (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). An integrated management communication strategy that promotes a social norm around care may be highly effective at influencing future behaviour and attitudes towards the management and conservation of the GBR. The dissonance created by the complexity of the image of the GBR has sometimes been linked with a phenomenon known as ‘Last Chance Tourism’, where tourists are invited to visit famous attractions and destinations before they disappear (Lemelin, Dawson, & Stewart, 2013). On the one hand, tourists are receiving the message that the attraction is worth visiting; whilst on the other, they are being told that the attraction is being degraded and at risk of disappearing. Whilst some reef tourism operators may initially welcome the boom of increased tourism arrivals, many are concerned about the doom and gloom that comes with the label of Last Chance Tourism (Coghlan, 2013). The results highlighted that the campaigns led by conservation NGOs had a less-positive impact on potential international visitors’ intentions towards visiting the Reef and recommending Australia as a place to visit, further compounding the tourism’s sectors concerns around negative publicity regarding the plight of the Reef’s health status. Interestingly, the most recent (at the time of writing) tourism video campaign produced by Tourism Events Queensland does include many of the elements discussed above; it opens with a number of connecting messages, followed by direct, tangible incentives to protect it in terms of revenue and jobs, as well as intangible, experiential incentives to protect it, positive messages and care value through the use of words such as ‘cherish’, ‘treasure’, ‘respect’ and ‘protect’, as well as some institutional trust, through images of rangers working with wildlife. The campaign appeals to a shared identity through messages such as ‘nature’s greatest gift to Australia’, ‘ours to share’ and closing with a picture of a child enjoying the Reef. Further research should therefore track these new campaigns, as well as extend to other forms of media (e.g. videos), and including social media and mainstream news reports (similar to research carried out by McLennan et al. (2015) on mining proposals and Lankester et al., 2015 on dredge spoil), as well as campaigns by private business that have started to include the health of the GBR in their advertisements, for example, Ben & Jerry’s, Banrock Station and The Good Beer Company.
Conclusion The results of the two studies undertaken in this research revealed the complex and contrasting messaging about
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
the GBR currently being projected by tourism, government and conservation stakeholders. The three key stakeholders currently have very different messaging in their campaigns about the health and status of the GBR. Whilst each stakeholder clearly has different mandates, needs and goals, there is a unifying theme based on the continued health and sustainability of the Reef. In particular, image-based campaigns encouraging its protection should present more messages about positive actions being undertaken with the values of care and self-transcendence. These types of messages encourage others to also adopt pro-environmental behaviours, whilst appealing to peer or reference groups can also be effective. Developing an integrated or visionary approach (Van Assche & Lo, 2011) using carefully selected core values that reflect points of similarity between stakeholders can become the focus of a responsible and responsive place branding campaign (Mayes, 2008). Such an approach may reduce confusion around place identity attached to the Reef and help answer the question: is the GBR the best managed reef in the word, or is it a WHA in Danger?
Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge Griffith Business School for providing seed funding to support this research.
Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding This work was supported in part by a Griffith University Research grant.
Notes on contributors Dr Alexandra Coghlan is an Associate Professor in Griffith’s Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management. Her research interests are consumer psychology and its links to prosocial and environmental behaviour and wellbeing, particularly within active travel and nature-based tourism. Dr Char-lee McLennan is a Senior Research Fellow in Tourism Economics at the Griffith Institute for Tourism. Her research focuses on transformation theory, destination development, evolutionary economics and big data. Dr Brent Moyle is a Research Fellow in Sustainable Tourism at the Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. His research primarily focuses on people and parks, the sustainable management of tourism destinations and tourism doctoral research.
15
References Alden, D. L., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2000). The effects of incongruity, surprise and positive moderators on perceived humor in television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 29 (2), 1–15. Amore, A., & Hall, C. M. (2016). From governance to meta-governance in tourism? Re-incorporating politics, interests and values in the analysis of tourism governance. Tourism Recreation Research, 41(2), 109–122. Antonetti, P., Baines, P., & Walker, L. (2015). From elicitation to consumption: Assessing the longitudinal effectiveness of negative emotional appeals in social marketing. Journal of Marketing, 31(9–10), 940–969. Australian Marine Conservation Society. (2013, March 4). Poll shows Australians think Reef is most important environmental issue in 2013. Australian Marine Conservation Society. Retrieved from http://www.marineconservation.org.au/ news.php/44/poll-shows-australians-think-reef-is-mostimportant-environmental-issue-in-2013. Brennan, L., & Binney, W. (2010). Fear, guilt, and shame appeals in social marketing. Journal of Business Research, 63(2), 140– 146. Bizer, G. Y., Larsen, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Exploring the valence-framing effect: Negative framing enhances attitude strength. Political Psychology, 32(1), 59–80. Björk, P. (2012). Brand recovery: A quick fix model for brand structure collapse. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29 (6), 520–531. Blichfeldt, B. S. (2005). Unmanageable place brands? Place Branding, 1(4), 388–401. Bott, S., Cantrill, J. G., & Myers Jr, O. E. (2003). Place and the promise of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 100–112. Breitling, U. (2010, August 23–25). Sustainable shipping and port development. Paper presented at the 5th Regional Environment and Transport Forum in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand. Brodie, J., & Waterhouse, J. (2012). A critical review of environmental management of the ‘not so Great’ Barrier Reef. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 104–105, 1–22. Brown, K. (2003). Three challenges for a real people-centred conservation. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12(2), 89–92. Bushell, S., Colley, T., & Workman, M. (2015). A unified narrative for climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 971–973. Cantrill, J. G. (2013, June 8). Your place, my place, or someplace more exciting: Pro-creative possibilities for environmental communication scholarship. Presented at the Conference on Communication and Environment. Uppsala, Sweden. Choi, S., Lehto, X. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2007). Destination image representation on the web: Content analysis of Macau travel related websites. Tourism Management, 28(1), 118–129. Clayton, S., & Brook, A. (2005). Can psychology help save the world? A model for conservation psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 87–102. Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2009). Conservation psychology. Understanding and promoting human care for nature. EUA: Wiley-Blackwell. Coghlan, A. (2013). Last chance tourism on the Great Barrier Reef. In H. Lemelin, J. Dawson, & E. J. Stewart (Eds.), Last chance tourism: Adapting tourism opportunities in a changing world (pp. 133–152). Oxon: Routledge.
16
A. COGHLAN ET AL.
Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2005). Theory of planned behaviour and health behaviour. Predicting Health Behaviour, 2, 170–222. Corral-Verdugo, V. (2012). The positive psychology of sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 14(5), 651–666. Day, J. C., & Dobbs, K. (2013). Effective governance of a large and complex cross-jurisdictional marine protected area: Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Marine Policy, 41, 14–24. Deloitte Access Economics. (2013). Economic contribution of the Great Barrier Reef. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, 195. Retrieved from https://www.environment. gov.au/system/files/resources/a3ef2e3f-37fc-4c6f-ab1b-3b5 4ffc3f449/files/gbr-economic-contribution.docx Fischer, A., & Young, J. C. (2007). Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation, 136(2), 271– 282. Goldberg, J., Marshall, N., Birtles, A., Case, P., Bohensky, E., Curnock, M., … Villani, C. (2016). Climate change, the Great Barrier Reef and the response of Australians. Palgrave Communications, 2, 1–8. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2015.46 Govers, R. (2011). From place marketing to place branding and back. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7(4), 227–231. Grech, A., Bos, M., Brodie, J., Coles, R., Dale, A., Gilbert, R., … Smith, A. (2013). Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 75(1), 8–20. Grevsmühl, S. V. (2016). Images, imagination, and the global environment: Towards an interdisciplinary research agenda on global environmental images. Geo: Geography and Environment, 3(2), 1–14. Govers, R., & Go, F. (2009). Place branding: virtual and physical identities, global, imagined and experienced. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave-Macmillan. Gunn, C. A. (1972). Vacationscape: Designing tourist regions. Austin: Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas. Hanna, S., & Rowley, J. (2008). An analysis of terminology use in place branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4, 61–75. Hansen, A. (2011). Communication, media and environment: Towards reconnecting research on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication. The International Communication Gazette, 73(1), 7–25. Hansen, R. A., & Machin, D. (2013). Researching visual environmental communication. Environmental Communication, 7, 151–168. Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2004). Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology and Marketing, 21(1), 961–986. Hausmann, A., Slotow, R., Burns, J. K., & Di Minin, E. (2016). The ecosystem service of sense of place: Benefits for human wellbeing and biodiversity conservation. Environmental Conservation, 43(02), 117–127. Kavaratzis, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2013). The dynamics of place brands an identity-based approach to place branding theory. Marketing Theory, 13(1), 69–86. Lankester, A. J., Bohnesky, E., & Newlands, M. (2015). Media representations of risk: The reporting of dredge spoil disposal in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park at Abbott Point. Marine Policy, 60, 149–161.
Larson, S., De Freitas, D. M., & Hicks, C. C. (2013). Sense of place as a determinant of people’s attitudes towards the environment: Implications for natural resources management and planning in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 226–234. Leask, A., & Fyall, A. (2006). Managing world heritage sites. Oxford: Routledge. Lemelin, H., Dawson, J., & Stewart, E. J. (Eds.). (2013). Last chance tourism: Adapting tourism opportunities in a changing world. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Lester, P. (2013). Visual communication: Images with messages. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal-frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117–137. Lloyd, G. (2015, May 21). Greenpeace accused of substitute reef ruse. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian. com.au/national-affairs/greenpeace-accused-of-substitute-ree f-ruse/news-story/38b47eb28635457dcc1eddb10d7bf219 Lövheim, H. (2012). A new three-dimensional model for emotions and monoamine neurotransmitters. Med Hypotheses, 78, 341–348. Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(6), 350–370. Mayes, R. (2008). A place in the sun: The politics of place, identity and branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(2), 124–135. McLennan, C. L. J., Becken, S., & Moyle, B. D. (2015). Framing in a contested space: Media reporting on tourism and mining in Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–21. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.946893 McLennan, C. L. J., & Moyle, B. D. (2016). The changing landscape of complex data in tourism research. Council for Australiasian Universities in Tourism and Hospitality Education: The Impacts of Emerging Markets and Destinations, 11th to 14th of February, 2016, Sydney, Australia. Morales, A. C., Wu, E. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2012). How disgust enhances the effectiveness of fear appeals. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(3), 383–393. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (2002). Destination branding: Creating the unique destination proposition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913–923. O’Keefe, D. J. (2000). Guilt and social influence. Communication Yearbook, 23, 67–101. O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear Won’t Do It” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379. Perloff, R. (2010). The dynamics of persuasion (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Routledge. Peter, P. C., & Honea, H. (2012). Targeting social messages with emotions of change: The call for optimism. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(2), 269–283. Ryan, J., & Silvanto, S. (2010). World heritage sites: The purposes and politics of destination branding. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(5), 533–545.
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franěk, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457–475. Seelig, M. I. (2015). Advocating environmental issues beyond photography. Qualitative Reserch Reports in Communication, 16(1), 46–55. Skinner, H. (2005). Wish you were here? Some problems associated with integrating marketing communications when promoting place brands. Place Branding, 1(3), 299–315. Smith, S. (2015). A sense of place: Place, culture and tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(2), 220–233. Stock, F. (2009). Identity, image and brand: A conceptual framework. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5(2), 118–125. Szasz, A. (1994). Ecopopulism: Toxic waste and the movement for environmental justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Thomsen, D. C. (2015). Seeing is questioning: Prompting sustainability discourses through an evocative visual agenda. Ecology and Society, 20(4), 9–17. Tourism Research Australia. (2016). International visitor survey. Retrieved December 2016, from http://www.tourism. australia.com/documents/Statistics/International_Tourism_ Snapshot_September_2016_final_copy.pdf Van Assche, K., & Lo, M. C. (2011). Planning, preservation and place branding: A tale of sharing assets and narratives. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7(2), 116–126.
17
Van Riper, C. J., Kyle, G. T., Sutton, S. G., Yoon, J. I., & Tobin, R. C. (2013). Australian residents’ attitudes toward pro-environmental behaviour and climate change impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(4), 494–511. Van Riper, C. J., Sutton, S., Kyle, G. T., Stewart, W., & Tobin, R. C. (2016). Bridging managers’ place meanings and environmental governance of the great barrier reef marine park. Society & Natural Resources, 1–17. Walters, G., & Mair, J. (2012). The effectiveness of post-disaster recovery marketing messages—the case of the 2009 Australian Bushfires. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(1), 87–103. Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (Eds.) (2012). Visual marketing: From attention to action. Abingdon, Oxon: Psychology Press. Weinstein, N., Rogerson, M., Moreton, J., Balmford, A., & Bradbury, R. B. (2015). Conserving nature out of fear or knowledge? Using threatening versus connecting messages to generate support for environmental causes. Journal for Nature Conservation, 26, 49–55. Wilkinson, M., & Hichens, C. (2011, November 3). Great Barrier Grief. Four Corners. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/ 4corners/stories/2011/11/03/3355047.htm Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305–314.
