Where do Americans Stand on Protecting Land for Future Generations?
Lori Weigel is a Denver-based partner with Public Opinion Strategies, the nation’s largest Republican polling firm. With POS partner Bill McInturff, she does surveys for the national media, including the regular NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. One of her specialties is conservation.
Q: Do people seem to realize that protecting wilderness provides benefits besides high-quality recreation?
A: Yes, they do link land protection to benefits such as clean air and water. In fact, they can describe the connection in great detail
Q: What relationship do voters see between protecting land and the economy?
A: Economic arguments for land conservation tend to resonate very strongly with legislative and policy professionals but not with the general public. The same thing has been found with support for the arts. The economic message is perfectly appropriate, but for now, it is the recreation, health, and legacy arguments that the general public is reacting to.
Q: Wildlife depends on wild places to meet basic needs. Does your research tell you anything about how Americans connect the two?
A: When we asked people to tell us what images they saw when hearing the word “wildlife,” they started talking about the place rather than a species. Some never even got around to putting an animal in it.
Q: One obstacle to protecting our national forests and other public lands is opposition from many of the members of Congress who come from the Rocky Mountain States and Alaska. Why do they fight so hard against land conservation?
A: Part of the explanation is that those senators and representatives rarely pay a political price for poor conservation voting records. Voters tell us that they support conservation, but when they vote, it turns out that this issue is not high on the list in selecting a candidate. Politicians know this. By the way, in the 2004 presidential contest, only four percent of those who describe themselves as “environmentalists” considered environmental protection to be among the top three issues in making a decision.
Q: Do you see any movement on this political reality?
A: It may be changing a bit. Increasingly, the rampant growth in the West is the lens through which a lot of people are viewing conservation issues. When they sit in traffic and when they see house after house that wasn’t there a year ago, it becomes very tangible. When they see growth constantly, they link it to water, air, and wildlife, and they tell us, “I’m not sure that we should be gobbling up the landscape like this.” In some western states, it’s starting to affect how candidates talk about the issues.
Q: In recent years the faith community, including Evangelicals, has become more involved in environmental protection advocacy. For example, there was the “What would Jesus drive?” campaign to promote the purchase of more efficient vehicles. What is your take on this?
A: We call it “the God message.” It boils down to the following: This is God’s creation, and we have a moral duty to protect it. People either believe that or they don’t; there is no middle. For this message to be credible to people of faith, it absolutely must come from the right person, such as a religious leader. It does not work if it comes from someone known primarily as an environmentalist. That can be a real turnoff.
Q: Do you think that public support of environmental protection is as broad as ever?
A: We are finding a decline in the percentage of voters who call themselves “environmentalists.” Voters seem to feel that there is too much doom and gloom coming from the environmental advocates, especially in connection with the debate on climate change. They need to hear a little more hope mixed into the message. In some research we did on Long Island involving kids with cancer, people were more likely to respond with help if they saw photos of healthy kids instead of bald children. On the environment, I think maybe the whole country is starting to react more like Long Island.
Q: In part because of the Smokey Bear campaign and the movie “Bambi,” wildfire has been regarded by most people as universally bad. Do you see any change in that?
A: At least in Arizona and other western states, many citizens have a very different attitude than they used to. They have a healthy respect for nature and understand that man’s meddling can create problems. That means that they see the rationale for letting some natural fires burn and for setting carefully controlled fires in certain spots to mimic nature.
Q: Have you discovered anything about people’s outdoor recreation preferences?
A: We have learned that there is a strong link between higher education levels and interest in hiking. That does not hold for camping.
