Final Report
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Prepared for:
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Supplier Name: Quorus Consulting Group Inc.
Contract Award Date: November 26, 2020
Delivery Date: March 2021
Contract Amount (incl. HST): $124,119.23
Contract #: K0A37-210668/001/CY
POR Number: 068-20
For more information, please contact:
POR.Group@ec.gc.ca
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.
Nature Legacy Advertising Campaign 3 – Pre and Post-Campaign Surveys, Concept Testing, and Segmentation Analysis
Executive Summary
Prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada
Supplier name: Quorus Consulting Group Inc.
March 2021
This public opinion research report presents the results of focus groups conducted by Quorus Consulting Group on behalf of Environment and Climate Change Canada, and a summary of the methodology used to conduct the pre and post-campaign surveys, as well as the Simple Actions survey. The qualitative research entailed a total of 3 online focus groups conducted with youth (18 to 34 years of age) and families. The groups were held December 15 and 16, 2020. The pre-campaign survey was conducted with 804 Canadians using an online panel of Canadian households. Data collection occurred from December 15 to December 20, 2020. The post-campaign survey was conducted with 808 Canadians using an online panel of Canadian households. Data collection occurred from March 26 to March 28, 2021. The Simple Actions survey was conducted with 4,008 Canadians using an online panel of Canadian households. Data collection occurred from March 10 to March 18, 2021.
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Campagne publicitaire de Patrimoine naturel – Sondages précampagne et post-campagne, test de concept et analyse par segmentation.
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from Environment and Climate Change Canada. For more information on this report, please contact ECCC at: ec.rop-por.ec@canada.ca or at:
Department of the Environment
200, boul. Sacre-Cœur
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Catalogue Number:
En4-442/2021E-PDF
International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
ISBN 978-0-660-40269-7
Related publications (registration number: POR 068-20):
Catalogue Number En4-442/2021F-PDF (Final Report, French)
ISBN 978-0-660-40270-3
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2021
Political Neutrality Statement
I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Quorus Consulting Group Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity and the Directive on the Management of Communications - Appendix C.
Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed:
Rick Nadeau, President
Quorus Consulting Group Inc.
Background and Research Objectives
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is leading public opinion research to support the advertising campaign for Nature Legacy 3, building on the joint initiative with an additional five federal departments.
The primary focus of the campaign is to generating awareness and engagement for Canadians towards nature conservation, particularly protection and conservation of land, species and biodiversity using web-based learning tools and activities.
This research builds upon the measurable achievements of the previous phases of the Nature Legacy campaign. In addition to generating awareness on key conservation issues and leading audiences to web-based engagements, the 2020/2021 campaign aims to increase measurable interest of Canadians towards nature conservation.
The research included both qualitative and quantitative phases following the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research.
The qualitative phase of this study consisted of three online focus groups. Sessions were held December 15 and 16, 2020, which was pre-campaign launch. The target population for the focus groups consisted of two of the campaign’s target audiences, notably Youth (18 to 34 years old without any children living at home), and families (adults with at least one child 16 years old or younger living at home). The two English sessions allowed for one session with each of these target audiences, whereas the French session involved a blend of the two audiences. Three video concepts promoting the Nature Legacy initiative were tested each consisting of media including a 30-second video and a 15-second video.
Using an online panel of Canadian households, three online surveys of Canadians at least 18 years old were undertaken within the scope of this research project. A pre- and post-campaign evaluation, each consisting of 804 and 808 surveys respectively, were designed to focus on the advertising campaign. A separate large scale national survey of Canadian households (the “Simple Actions” survey) focused on “simple actions” and was designed to further understand behaviours and attitudes towards environmental actions and to generate insights for future advertising and communications initiatives for the Department. This survey also led to the development of “simple action” behaviour segments. The Simple Actions Survey resulted in 4,008 completed surveys. Data collection for the pre-campaign wave took place from December 15th to December 20th, 2020, the post-campaign wave from March 26th to March 28th, 2021, and the Simple Actions Survey took place from March 10th to March 18th, 2021.
By and large participants reacted favourably to the background music used in all concepts, particularly as a means of getting their attention. However, the pace of the video was considered too fast by many with the downside of not giving them enough time to take in the words in certain frames, including the website.
Participants favoured language that suggested a collective effort, as the message of teamwork was a call to action to do their part to protect and conserve. Youth in particular reacted favourably to the possibility of a plan to protect nature.
Participants liked nearly all the images used in the concepts. Participants favoured a concept that showed images of how they personally could contribute or make a difference. For the most part, participants enjoyed how the ad emphasized the natural beauty of their country, reminding them of what it is that needs protecting and that if they are to enjoy nature, it must be done responsibly.
Concept A was fairly popular among families. Families felt that the messaging focused on bringing Canadians together and working to save the elements of nature they loved most (i.e. “Let’s all protect Canada” or “It’s in our nature to save the places we love”). Concerns focused on a lack of specific information, namely how they could get involved and make a difference.
“It’s in our nature” was widely considered effective and resonated with many participants, as well as “Health” and “Future”, especially in the context of the current pandemic. Some also liked specific references to “protecting” and “conserving.” Most memorable elements were the hikers, the mountains and the oceans.
The call to action was about how they can go about saving these places and the environment as a whole. Some participants would either visit the website or pursue more information through the social media handle.
In many cases, youth felt that the message was more suitable as an advertisement for tourism in Canada, but that there was a message of hope for environmental change, and that the message demonstrated the richness and vastness of the Canadian landscape, with the intention of making youth care about the environment. Concerns were also raised over the message lacking substantial explanation as to the ways that nature is being protected by the government.
Key words viewed favourably include “Protect” and “Together let’s protect” when referring to the land, oceans and wildlife. They felt that this describes how Canadians can all do their part. The striking images of the Canadian environment and fauna made the video memorable. However, most youth did not feel that the messaging was effective at achieving the goal described in the advertisement. Youth were unsure what the call to action was or what they could specifically do to get involved. Interest in visiting the website was mixed.
Most youth participants felt that specific information for what actions to take or actions that are being taken by the government would resonate with viewers their age. They want to understand how their daily routine could or should change so that they can make a difference.
Concept B was popular among families. Many families felt that the main message focused on a call or invitation to Canadians to the outdoors, inspired by the natural beauty of the Canadian landscape. They also felt that the concept focused on raising the value of nature conservation, promoting active participation and the need to go green for the environment. By combining this concept with a goal (25% by 2025), some felt that there is something more tangible and concrete at play. That said, some families were confused as to the meaning of the 25% figure - while a catchy and memorable line, the lack of clarity was considered intriguing by some and overly confusing for others.
The most memorable elements in this concept included images of the ocean, the lakes, the trees and the Canadian Rockies, as well as a reference to “Support for Indigenous leadership” and the words “Support” and “together”.
The most popular suggestion among families was to have more time in the ad to see the website and hashtag information.
Overall, this message scored highest among youth participants mostly because of the reference to “25% by 2025” and to a “plan.” The specific reference to a plan intrigued, engaged and even energized youth and many indicated that the questions they have about the plan would compel them to click through. Most youth felt that the 25% goal was a memorable element of the video, although, like families, it did confuse some participants.
Most youth participants felt that the message in this concept helps to promote nature conservation and get youth attention but offers little substance as to how they can enact change.
A few also felt that this concept was trying to achieve too much in 30 seconds. Not everyone was convinced that Indigenous leadership should be an area of focus since they feel that all Canadians should be supported and engaged.
Participants in the youth group described mixed feelings towards the call to action of clicking the link to learn more about the initiatives in place. The inclusion of a more direct statement such as “Find out what we’re doing” helped them to feel more inclined to join in the conservation effort.
Preferences Regarding “25 by 2025”: When asked to compare which version of the messaging that they thought was most effective, participants across all groups preferred the text that involved a “plan to conserve”, as it draws their interest and improves the call to action to visit a website to discover more about what the actual plan entails.
Overall, many families felt that Concept C was the most similar to other advertisements they had seen in the past, offering the least unique information compared to the other concepts presented. Most participants felt that the advertisement was catchy and energizing but was considered more general, lacking direction and any reference to a plan.
Many families felt the main message of the video was to clean up plastics and invite Canadians to participate in a movement of change. The most memorable elements of the video included scenes featuring the cleanup of the ocean, involvement of children in environmental protection, young and old working together, caribou, water and mountains.
The need to reduce plastic waste and focus on recycling efforts was seen by many as the main call to action. Families noted as a possible weakness the lack of diversity in the images, including no reference to Indigenous leadership, no ethnic communities, and nothing that involves city dwellers.
Some families felt that the video might be more impactful if other images showcasing the negative impacts of humans on nature were shown, although some did like that the video was not entirely negative.
Concept C received mixed ratings among youth. Those that favoured the concept felt that there was a purpose to the advertisement as there was the added element of trash being picked up. Concerns were raised over a lack of a plan and a few felt that it was more about going out in nature, similar to Concept A.
Youth seemed to recognize a range of messages in this video, including the importance of recycling and disposing of garbage correctly, clean energy, getting back in touch with nature, that the world is changing and that there is a need for Canadians to change. Some felt that the wording including “Together” invoked a stronger sense of both unity and responsibility. Concept C stood out among youth for its explicit depiction of the negative consequence of improper waste management, as well as the vast and spectacular images of nature and words such as “the world is changing” and “get back to nature.”
Some youth felt uncertain about the specific call to action, and few saw themselves visiting a website or following the hashtag. Most youth felt that what was missing from the message was a target for what they should be doing to help protect the environment.
Qualitative Research Disclaimer
Qualitative research seeks to develop insight and direction rather than quantitatively projectable measures. The purpose is not to generate “statistics” but to hear the full range of opinions on a topic, understand the language participants use, gauge degrees of passion and engagement and to leverage the power of the group to inspire ideas. Participants are encouraged to voice their opinions, irrespective of whether or not that view is shared by others.
Due to the sample size, the special recruitment methods used, and the study objectives themselves, it is clearly understood that the work under discussion is exploratory in nature. The findings are not, nor were they intended to be, projectable to a larger population.
Specifically, it is inappropriate to suggest or to infer that few (or many) real world users would behave in one way simply because few (or many) participants behaved in this way during the sessions. This kind of projection is strictly the prerogative of quantitative research.
When asked what respondents consider the three most important environmental issues facing Canada right now (among a specific list of issues), two specific issues rise above the rest. Global warming / climate change was selected by a majority of respondents (59%) with dealing with the amount of waste we generate slotting in as the second most important issue at 46%.
Respondents were more than twice as likely to believe that the environment will be in worse shape ten years from now (43%) than they are to believe that it will be in better shape (16%). Among the remaining respondents, 31% believe it will be about the same and 10% don’t know or were not sure.
A series of statements was presented to respondents to help understand their views on possible solutions to some of Canada’s environmental issues. Results reveal that a majority of respondents (70%) strongly agree that we have a responsibility to the next generation to do all we can to improve the environment. As well, 43% strongly agree and another 43% somewhat agree that they are concerned about the impact of the environment on their family’s health. Turning our attention to solutions, respondents agree that a multi-pronged approach is warranted and that they and the private sector have a role to play. More specifically, a majority (66%) disagree that there is not much that they can personally do to help the environment. This points to a belief among respondents that simple things can make a difference.
Respondents were asked to rate how good a job the Government of Canada is doing in terms of addressing seven environmental priorities. Results reveal that between 10% and 16% of respondents would say that the federal government is doing a very good job across all priorities. A majority of respondents feel they are doing a somewhat good job on these priorities, with results fairly consistent across all seven priorities considered in this survey.
Across nine different Government of Canada environment initiatives, awareness was highest for the one involving the ban of certain types of single use plastics by 2021 (72%). Awareness then decreased to 58% for the initiative involving the reduction of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030. Awareness was higher for the initiative that involved ensuring “a carbon tax” or cap and trade system would exist in all provinces and territories within Canada (56%) compared to the initiative that would ensure “pollution pricing” or cap and trade systems would exist in all provinces and territories in Canada (40%).
When asked if they are doing enough to reduce their impact on the environment, very few respondents would place themselves at the extreme ends of the spectrum and by and large, they are divided between feeling they are either doing enough or not enough. Only 7% would say they are doing more than enough and only 3% would say they are not doing nearly enough.
There is some level of insight into how respondents believe they can reduce their impact on the environment on a personal level. Roughly 1 in 5 would say they “absolutely” know and two-thirds would say they “somewhat” know.
A strong majority of respondents have, at a minimum, made a few changes regarding the products and services they buy or use, specifically to reduce their impact on the environment. At the other end of the spectrum results show that 8% do not believe they have made such changes and 12% are not sure if their product and service selection has had this sort of impact.
Respondents were presented a wide range of actions and asked how often they had done each one over the course of the past year. These actions could be grouped into three categories: At Home Recycle Reuse; Food and Gardening; and, Efficiency and Transportation.
Across the range of actions in the “At Home Recycle Reuse” category, results show that the majority of respondents did each of the actions at least “most of the time.” Only the purchase of used items fell outside this trend, with 28% indicating they have done this at least most of the time over the past year.
In terms of “Food and Gardening”, nearly nine in ten respondents saved or ate their food leftovers either always or most of the time. All other actions were, on average, done less frequently although avoiding resource intensive gardening practices deserves a closer look.
Finally, when it comes to actions in the “Efficiency and Transportation” category, respondents were most likely to have been taking efforts to not idle their vehicle over the past year. About one in four (26%) used active transportation at least most of the time.
A variety of additional actions, ranging from purchasing an electric vehicle to growing a pollinator garden, were presented to respondents to again get a sense of what has been done. Results reveal that the most common actions include having purchased energy efficient appliances (62%), made energy efficient renovations to their home (42%) and planted trees (39%). Between 7% and 10% plan do to most of the presented actions at some point in the future.
Cost is by far the most common barrier selected by respondents when asked what is preventing them from doing more of the previously listed actions to reduce their impact on the environment. This specific barrier was selected by 61% of respondents. Time was the next most common barrier, as selected by 28% of respondents, followed by a lack of information, at 25%. Similar proportions selected personal physical limitations (22%), inconvenience (21%) and a lack of incentives (20%).
Respondents were asked to reconsider the list of environmental actions an individual can take and prompted to select up to five they believe would have the most positive impact on the environment. Avoiding single use plastics was a clear favourite, selected by a majority of respondents. Although this is a distinctly popular action, the results do not point to a specific action or even a small subset of actions that would qualify as second most popular. Instead, a dozen actions were considered impactful by about 20% to 30% of respondents. Based on the results obtained, we can see that actions do not necessarily have to be large to be seen as potentially impactful on the environment and any effort by the government to encourage “small actions” will not only be seen as feasible, but also credible. If some of the actions positioned closer to the bottom of the list are deemed very impactful by experts, some degree of citizen education would be warranted to help them appreciate how impactful they could be and that putting them into practice may be easier than they think.
Among homeowners who have not yet done any energy efficient renovations, 48% would say they are very or somewhat likely to upgrade the energy efficiency of their home within the next five years. Assuming a grant of up to $5,000 were available to Canadians, 74% would be very or somewhat likely to upgrade, which is significantly higher than the result where no grant is mentioned (48%). In addition, over half of home owners (54%) would, with full consideration of the pandemic, feel comfortable providing an energy advisor access to their home in order to conduct an energy audit.
A few questions were asked to help understand how to reach Canadians and how to reach certain segments of Canadians. In terms of social networks, Facebook was the likely social networking site to be used over the past month (78%), followed closely by YouTube (71%). Television is still considered by many a primary source for news, as indicated by 37% of respondents. This is then followed by news websites and applications (25%) and social media (17%). Fewer than one in ten would consider radio (9%) or print newspapers (4%) a primary source for their news.
Multivariate analysis was conducted to develop various segments of the population. The analysis produced five segments reflecting the commitment towards reducing the population’s impact to the environment. These are called “Reduce and Reuse”, “Energy Efficient” “Environmental Stewards”, “Getting There” and “Not There Yet”.
Environmental Stewards (20%) - These Canadians are more likely to have a positive outlook on the environment for the next ten years, and feel they are doing enough to reduce their impact on the environment. Nearly all feel they know what to do to reduce their impact on the environment, and the majority have made changes with respect to the products and services they use to reduce their impact on the environment. These stewards feel they have a high degree of responsibility to improve the environment and are concerned about the impact of the environment on their family’s health. To that end they are more willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment. Overwhelmingly this segment is characterized by their high and frequent participation in nearly all the simple actions to help the environment.
This segment is more likely to live in a single family dwelling that they own and be female over the age of 45.
Energy Efficient (21%) – Canadians in this segment are slightly less positive about the outlook for the environment in Canada in ten years. Just half of these Canadians feel they are doing enough for the environment, just a handful have made a lot of changes to follow through while about two thirds have made a few changes, although a great majority believe they know what they can do to reduce their impact on the environment. The majority of this segment feels they have a responsibility to do all they can to improve the environment, but fewer than one in five are willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment. While this group demonstrates high participation rates across many of the simple actions, what distinguishes them are higher rates of purchasing energy efficient appliances, making energy efficient home renovations, planting trees, purchased bird/bat houses or beehives, and replacing gas powered landscaping equipment with electric.
This group is more likely to be male and 35 to 54 years of age. They also are more likely to reside in a single family home that they own.
Reduce and Reuse (28%) – Just over half of those in this segment believe they are doing enough to reduce their impact. A great majority think they know what they can do to reduce their impact on the environment, with as many reporting they have made at least some changes. They feel a great responsibility to do all they can to help the environment and are somewhat concerned about the impact of the environment on their family’s health. However, just fewer than one-third are willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment. This group is similar to the Environmental Stewards in their dedication to reducing consumption and reusing items. They also score high on other simple actions but are distinguished from the first two segments by lower levels of participation in simple actions that are more applicable to homeowners.
They are more likely to be female and over 55 years of age. Just under half of this segment are home owners, and just under half also live in a condo they own or a condo/apartment they rent.
Getting There (22%) – While their outlook for the environment in the next ten years is somewhat less positive, just four in ten feel they are doing enough to reduce their impact on the environment. One in ten think they absolutely have enough information to know what they can do to reduce their impact on the environment, and a further seven in ten indicate they are somewhat informed on what to do, and also seven in ten report making some changes in products and services they use to reduce their impact on the environment. Over two-thirds feel they have a responsibility to do all they can to protect the environment. One-third are concerned about the impact of the environment on their family’s health, while half that amount are willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment. This segment is characterized by lower than average scores across all simple actions. They are about average in their use of active transportation, while the lowest in making large purchases such as an electric vehicle.
While they are evenly split on gender, they are more likely than the other three energy conscious segments to be 18 to 34 years of age. This segment has the lowest level of home ownership of all segments.
Not There Yet (9%) – The smallest of the five segments, this group is most skeptical about the outlook of the environment in ten years with just one tenth thinking it will be better. Under half report that they are doing enough to reduce their impact on the environment. This segment is more likely than other segments to report that they do not know enough about what to do to reduce their impact on the environment, and over a third have made a lot/few changes to reduce their impact on the environment. These Canadians are more likely than others to think there’s not much they can personally do to help the environment and that doing simple things to help the environment won’t make much of a difference, and least likely to be willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment. When it comes to taking action to reduce their impact on the environment, this segment scores below average across all actions.
This group skews male and younger (under 44 years old). Similar to the “Getting There” segment, less than half live in their own home, while four in ten rent a home/condo/apartment.
Supplier Name: Quorus Consulting Group Inc.
Contract #: K0A37-210668/001/CY
Contract Award Date: November 26, 2020
Contract Amount (incl. HST): $124,119.23
For more information, please contact Environment and Climate Change Canada at: ec.rop-por.ec@canada.ca
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is leading public opinion research to support the advertising campaign for Nature Legacy 3, building on the joint initiative with an additional five federal departments.
The primary focus of the campaign will be generating awareness and engagement for Canadians towards nature conservation, particularly protection and conservation of land, species and biodiversity using web-based learning tools and activities. The expected launch date is late January 2021, with additional related components to follow, using digital advertising across all channels (Web, social media, events, etc.) maximizing reach and impact.
This ad campaign will act as a prelude to the upcoming Environment and Climate Change Canada advertising campaigns planned for 2021/2022
Given the effects of COVID-19, Canadians have spent more time immersed in nature this past summer, marking an important time to promote the importance of biodiversity, and engagement in nature conservation.
This research will build upon the measurable achievements of the previous phases of the Nature Legacy campaign. In 2018/2019 two phases were conducted, the first targeting Indigenous Peoples, encouraging applications for ECCC funding programs. The second encouraging all Canadians to get outdoors and experience nature. In 2019/2020 an additional two phases were conducted, the first phase a continuation of the previous campaign, the second focusing on a nature photo contest.
The 2020/2021 Nature Legacy ad campaign will build upon the creatives developed for the 2018/2019 campaign with relevant adjustments. In addition to generating awareness on key conservation issues and leading audiences to web-based engagements, the campaign will increase measurable interest of Canadians towards nature conservation.
To these various ends, ECCC undertook public opinion research with the following primary research objectives in mind:
Analysis of the comments provided reveals that there are reactions that apply to all of the concepts and are therefore not worth repeating in the detailed results for each concept. These overarching reactions would include the following:
Concept A was fairly popular among families. Concerns focused on a lack of specific information, namely how they could get involved and make a difference. There was also a sense that this concept was more, if not too much, about exploring nature and less about preserving nature.
Families felt that the messaging focused on bringing Canadians together and working to save the elements of nature they loved most. This was demonstrated by the usage of language such as “Let’s all protect Canada” and “It’s in our nature to save the places we love”.
In many cases, youth felt that the message was more suitable as an advertisement for tourism in Canada, although some did feel that it properly conveys the importance of nature and that we need to preserve it.
Some participants felt that there was a message of hope for environmental change, and that the message demonstrated the richness and vastness of the Canadian landscape.
Most participants described the message as effective at drawing personal connection to the elements of nature that they were connected to as individuals. They felt a sense of belonging when watching this video, both because of the landscapes presented but also through the variety of people featured in the video.
Families seemed to feel that the message was essentially conveying the concepts of preservation and protection.
Many youth participants felt that the main message was developed with the intention of making youth care about the environment, by way of an intriguing and attention-grabbing advertisement. There was a sense that nature needs to be enjoyed and it also needs to be preserved.
An Indigenous participant felt that inclusion of the Indigenous footage was slightly offensive as it can be perceived as a “token” advertisement. Concerns were also raised over the message lacking substantial explanation as to the ways that nature is being protected by the government.
Language used such as “It’s in our nature” was widely considered effective and resonated with many participants. Other key words that stood out for some included “Health” and “Future”, especially in the context of the current pandemic. Some also liked specific references to “protecting” and “conserving.”
Families listed a range of memorable elements from this video, including the hikers, the mountains and the oceans, many of them appreciating the importance of protecting the places that they personally loved most.
A few participants were drawn to the concept of global warming and the effect that preserving the environment can have on the country.
Some youth participants mentioned key words that they viewed favourably, namely “Protect” and “Together let’s protect” when referring to the land, oceans and wildlife. They felt that this describes how Canadians can all do their part, making the advertisement an inclusive message for viewers.
The majority of youth respondents felt that the video was memorable due to the striking images of the Canadian environment. These images ranged from caribou, waves crashing on the rocks to beautiful sunsets and landscapes, all of which inspired participants to want to get outdoors. The graphics used in the video were also considered eye-catching by most.
While a few felt that the video helped them to want to appreciate the environment more moving forward, most youth did not feel that the messaging was effective at achieving the goal described in the advertisement.
Just as families were more commonly drawn to takeaways that focused on the places that they loved most as Canadians, the call to action was about how they can go about saving these places and the environment as a whole. A few city dwellers in the French group struggled with how they fit into the overall picture – they saw lots of people outdoors but that this does not reflect their everyday life, so if they are being called to action to protect and preserve, then there needs to be more specific imagery capturing life in the city.
A few participants felt that the word “Save” was an effective choice, rather than the usage of the word “Protect” given the familiarity Canadians have with protection language surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.
Most English families would either visit the website or pursue more information through the social media handle whereas Francophone families were generally less interested in doing either.
Although youth understood that the video conveyed the importance of protection and preservation, they were unsure what the call to action was. Interest in visiting the website was mixed mostly because they are not sure what this would lead to. A few felt the website looked like a fundraising effort for a not-for-profit organization.
A few participants felt that the advertisement helped them to feel motivated and intrigued about nature conservation, but these participants still did not know what they could specifically do to get involved.
A common complaint among families surrounding Concept A was a lack of specific information in the message, particularly compared to Concept B. The type of information participants are looking for would be based on a goal or method by which they can help, in order to peak their interest to find out more.
The struggles with the perceived lack of a call to action was the element most commonly missing for youth participants, with most looking for an informative video relating to actual policies in place or the means to help solve a problem.
Some families felt that more specific and detailed information as to how they can protect the elements of nature they loved most would be beneficial for improving the call to action.
Most youth participants felt that specific information for what actions to take or actions that are being taken by the government would resonate with viewers their age. A voice over could be added to name the website hosting the current policy decisions and/or ways to get involved in nature conservation. They want to understand how their daily routine could or should change so that they can make a difference.
Concept B was popular among families mostly because it referenced a target or a goal. By and large, participants felt the message was clear although there was some confusion about what the 25% goal involved. Conversely a few viewed this as a draw that would lead them to search for more information. Some families also felt that Concept B was less representative, perhaps because it is the only concept that did not feature children.
Overall, this message scored highest among youth participants mostly because of the reference to “25% by 2025” and to a “plan.” The specific reference to a plan intrigued, engaged and even energized youth and many indicated that the questions they have about the plan would compel them to click through. Admittedly many would like it if the ad were to explain the plan, but they understand the limitations of what can be communicated in 30 seconds or less.
Many families felt that the main message focused on a call or invitation to Canadians to the outdoors, inspired by the natural beauty of the Canadian landscape. This call to the Canadian outdoors helped to raise attention to the value of nature conservation, of promoting active participation and of the need to go green for the environment. By combining this concept with a goal (25% by 2025), some felt that there is something more tangible and concrete at play rather than just a general all-call to protect nature.
A few did feel that the video was trying to get too many messages across and that this weakened the concept. They felt that encouraging Canadians to explore nature, support Indigenous leaders, protect nature and be part of a plan were all too much to swallow in one video and that the ad could benefit from greater focus.
Most youth participants felt that the message helps to promote nature conservation and get youth attention but offers little substance as to how they can enact change. Many participants felt that the 25% goal was the most effective part of the message, but were still unclear as to what this entailed, and why it would take 5 years to complete.
Some participants felt there was a disconnect between the themes of nature conservation and Indigenous leadership, viewing them as independent but equally important issues. One Indigenous participant raised concerns over unceded lands being a larger and more pressing issue for the Indigenous population.
Similar to families, some youth questioned the ambitious nature of the ad by how it was combining many “issues” into a 30-second video and that it could benefit from greater focus.
The most memorable elements among families included images of the ocean, the lakes, the trees and the Canadian Rockies among others. These elements all evoked a sense of pride over the wonders of the Canadian landscape.
Many participants mentioned that the reference to “Support for Indigenous leadership” was thought-provoking given the connection they see between Indigenous communities and nature. Many liked the inclusion of Indigenous people in the video although the connection between supporting Indigenous leadership and nature conservancy was not obvious to everyone.
The word “Support” and “together” conveyed teamwork and the need for a collective effort in the conservation of nature.
Most youth felt that the 25% goal was a memorable element of the video and was a step in the right direction compared to broader messaging used in the other concepts. Youth participants were less inclined to consider specific imagery as memorable elements of the video when compared to families.
Some youth also took note of the reference to supporting Indigenous leadership. Similar to families, they liked the general idea but they were not certain how they could specifically support Indigenous leadership. As well, not everyone was convinced that this should be an area of focus since they feel that all Canadians should be supported and engaged.
Families felt that the statistic “25% by 2025” was catchy and the lack of details surrounding the number was an effective draw to compel them to take additional steps to find out more about the targeted goal.
Just because there is a reference to a plan, many youth were still not clear about what was expected of them in the broader execution of this plan.
Participants in the youth group described mixed feelings towards the call to action of clicking the link to learn more about the initiatives in place. Some youth would like to know more about the plan, while others were unsure of what the website would have to offer.
Among youth who were less inclined to visit the website, the inclusion of a more direct statement such as “Find out what we’re doing” helped them to feel more inclined to join in the conservation effort.
Some youth were also interested in finding out more about what the conservation priorities are and what specifically needs to be protected.
Some families were confused as to the meaning of the 25% figure, with common questions including “Why only 25%?” and “25% of what?”. This lack of clarity was considered intriguing by some but overly confusing for others.
Several participants mentioned that the video was rolling too quickly for them to properly take note of the website.
Similar to families, many youth were unclear as to what the 25% conservation target was referring to and felt that the advertisement could include a specific description of the policies and targets the government was considering. The video was effective in terms of getting their attention but could benefit from more information on how they can assist in achieving these goals. This compelled some to suggest that this concept could be improved by showing images of simple actions they could take to contribute towards the goal, similar to the image in Concept C that shows children picking up trash.
The most popular suggestion among families was to have more time to see the website and hashtag information. Participants would be more inclined to find out how they can help, and a suggestion was raised to use a voice to describe how by visiting the site, Canadians could take action. The assumption is that by both seeing and hearing the website, it would get through to them.
A few felt that targeting 25% as a total was too small and that instead, the protection effort should perhaps be “Let’s increase the lands we are protecting by 25%.”
The most recommended improvement among youth was to include specific policy changes or actionable items to educate the public on environmental conservation efforts. Youth are passionate about the environment and would like to know how they can be a part of protecting it for the future.
Many participants agreed that a voice-over description or an advertisement that explained the specific outcomes of the government using words and a neutral background would be more effective at getting the message across. Similarly, dramatic still images can be just as if not more effective than upbeat fast-moving graphics.
Participants were asked which of the following formulations they preferred:
“Together let’s protect 25% of Canada’s lands and oceans by 2025”.
“Canada has a plan to conserve 25% of Canada’s lands and oceans by 2025”.
When asked to compare which version of the messaging that they thought was most effective, participants across all groups preferred the text that involved a “plan to conserve”. This was perceived as more effective as it draws their interest and improves the call to action to visit a website to discover more about what the actual plan entails. The reference to a plan also suggests that the government will be proposing ideas and taking action, which is more optimistic and encouraging then simply stating “together let’s protect.”
Overall, many families felt that Concept C was the most similar to other advertisements they had seen in the past, offering the least unique information compared to the other concepts presented.
Most participants felt that the advertisement was catchy and energizing but was considered more general, lacking direction and any reference to a plan.
Additionally, a few liked that the focus was more on the health of Canadians and not as squarely focused on nature as the other concepts.
Concept C received mixed ratings among youth. Those that favoured the concept felt that there was a purpose to the advertisement as there was the added element of trash being picked up. This helped to mitigate some of the previous confusion regarding how youth participants could get involved. Among those that did not approve of the message, concerns were raised over a lack of a plan and a few felt that it was more about going out in nature, similar to Concept A.
Many families felt the main message of the video was to clean up plastics and invite Canadians to participate in a movement of change. They also feel the younger generation is being invited to get involved and that it is important to raise their awareness of nature conservation.
A few participants noted and appreciated that the message combined the concepts of a healthier environment with the concept of healthy Canadians, and recognized that this would have a positive impact on the country as a whole.
Youth seemed to recognize a range of messages in this video, including the importance of recycling and disposing of garbage correctly, clean energy, getting back in touch with nature, that the world is changing and that there is a need for Canadians to change. Some felt there were too many messages being conveyed and that this muddled the call to action.
Some youth participants felt that imagery showed a deeper connection with nature, and that wording including “Together” invoked a stronger sense of both unity and responsibility.
Among the most memorable elements of the video for families were:
For some, the explicit featuring of children and nature made some think about the many family activities that can be done outdoors.
The image of the wind farm made some think about the future and how much potential Canada has in terms of renewable energy.
Concept C stood out among youth for its explicit depiction of the negative consequence of improper waste management. This showed that youth could make a difference in helping to preserve nature. A few did feel that the imagery still understated the negative consequences of our impact on the environment.
Many other elements stood out for youth, including the vast and spectacular images of nature (open skies, mountains, etc.), the caribou, someone canoeing, and words such as “the world is changing” and “get back to nature.”
A few youth specifically liked the image of the canoer as it evoked a deep sense of connection to the environment.
The need to reduce plastic waste and focus on recycling efforts was seen by many as the main call to action, otherwise families were not entirely sure what they were being asked to do. Here again, families living in cities did not see how they related to the message or any call to action.
Concept C was not considered impactful in terms of encouraging participants to check out the website and to explore the social media hashtag when compared to the others presented.
As noted above, some youth felt multiple messages were being conveyed through this video, which led to them wondering what the specific call to action was. Some youth felt a personal call to help the cause of nature conservation but still felt that the message lacked direction for them. Others felt that the video was encouraging them to get out into nature and enjoy what we have.
Ultimately few saw themselves visiting a website or following the hashtag.
When asked what information they felt was missing from the concept, families described the lack of representativeness in the images, including no reference to Indigenous leadership, no ethnic communities, and nothing that involves city dwellers.
Some families also felt that the video might be more impactful if other images showcasing damage to the environment were shown, although some did like that the video was not entirely “doom and gloom.”
Most youth felt that what was missing from the message was a target for what they should be doing to help protect the environment. Youth were looking for a goal or plan to be presented, similar to what was presented in Concept B.
Families focused on the need to show the graphic effects of a lack of nature conservation. The visual of a damaged environment and the many negative impacts of humans on nature were considered effective calls to action by most participants.
Youth also suggested including the negative and harmful side of our impact on the environment and to offer a solution for how they can make it better. Images that were too positive did not resonate strongly with youth as it weakened the sense of urgency and a need for change.
Having seen all three video concepts, participants were asked to rate the concepts on a variety of dimensions.
Participants were also asked to select the video that most effectively encouraged them to take part in activities to protect our land, oceans and species.
Participants were also asked to provide their feedback and preferences on a few of the text-related elements in the videos including hashtags, slogans and concluding sentences.
The following two hashtags were shown in the videos:
#BacktoNature / #Retouràlanature
#ProtectNature / #Protégonslanature
Families mostly preferred #BacktoNature as it spoke to getting back to their roots as Canadians. Those that selected #ProtectNature felt that the word “Protect” was catchier and more effective in terms of getting their attention.
Youth leaned towards #ProtectNature as it more explicitly spoke to a need to help in the conservation effort. Some participants felt the message would be stronger by adding the word “Help” as it was more of a call to action.
Some did recognize that the two hashtags seemed to speak to different calls to action, especially when taken out of the context of the video. The first hashtag is generally asking Canadians to go out and enjoy nature whereas the second one refers more explicitly to protection and conservation.
At the end of each video, the following concluding statements were presented:
Be part of the solution. Find out how. / Faites partie de la solution. Découvrez comment.
You can make a difference. Find out how. / Vous pouvez faire une différence. Découvrez comment.
Most participants across all groups preferred “Be part of the solution” as it invoked a stronger connection to a collective effort, it is optimistic, it suggests there is a plan, and it implies an end result. A few felt that “You can make a difference” did not point to an ultimate outcome was not seen as a very serious call to action.
Among the few who preferred “You can make a difference,” they explained that this was a more personal prompt to get involved.
The following taglines were explored with participants:
| It’s in our nature. / Il est dans notre nature. |
| It’s time to get back to nature. / Il est temps de retourner à la nature. |
| The world is changing, we need to change too. / Le monde change. Nous devons changer aussi. |
Feedback suggests that families are more interested in a tag line that speaks to connecting with nature and as such, the first two slogans were more popular among that segment, especially the first one. Youth overall and Francophone families however preferred the third tagline presented, mostly because it was seen as more relevant to the main goal of protecting nature and it was seen as more personally engaging.
When asked what respondents consider the three most important environmental issues facing Canada right now (among a specific list of issues), two specific issues rise above the rest. Global warming / climate change was selected by a majority of respondents (59%) with dealing with the amount of waste we generate slotting in as the second most important issue at 46%. The next most important issues would be over-packaging of consumer goods (23%), future energy sources and supplies (22%) and air pollution (21%).
Among the issues presented to respondents, the issues least often selected in their top-three were soil erosion (2%), flooding (4%) and poor-quality drinking water (10%).
Figure A – Most Important Environmental Issues Facing Canada (Among Top Three Choices)
QA1. What do you think are the three most important environmental issues facing Canada right now? Base: All respondents, n=4008. “Additional issues presented in this graph have been added based on what respondents provided verbatim in the open-ended "other" option.”
| Environmental issue | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Global warming/climate change | 59% |
| Dealing with the amount of waste we generate | 46% |
| Over-packaging of consumer goods | 23% |
| Future energy sources and supplies | 22% |
| Air pollution | 21% |
| Water pollution | 18% |
| Depletion of natural resources | 18% |
| De-forestation | 16% |
| Wildlife conservation | 16% |
| Future food sources and supplies | 14% |
| Emissions | 14% |
| Poor-quality drinking water | 10% |
| Flooding | 4% |
| Soil erosion | 2% |
| COVID-19 / Pandemic | 1% |
| Other | <1% |
| None are important | 1% |
| Don’t know / refused | 1% |
Respondents were more than twice as likely to believe that the environment will be in worse shape ten years from now (43%) than they are to believe that it will be in better shape (16%). Among the remaining respondents, 31% believe it will be about the same and 10% don’t know or were not sure.
Figure B – Perceptions of the Future State of the Canadian Environment
QA2. Ten years from now, do you think the environment in Canada as a whole will be in better shape than it is today, in worse shape than it is today or about the same? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Perceptions of the Future State | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Better shape | 16% |
| About the same | 31% |
| Worse shape | 43% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 10% |
A series of statements were presented to respondents to help understand their views on possible solutions to some of Canada’s environmental issues. Results reveal that a majority of respondents (70%) strongly agree that we have a responsibility to the next generation to do all we can to improve the environment. As well, 43% strongly agree and another 43% somewhat agree that they are concerned about the impact of the environment on their family’s health.
Turning our attention to solutions, results reveal that respondents would agree that a multi-pronged approach is warranted and that they and the private sector have a role to play. More specifically, a majority (66%) disagree that there is not much that they can personally do to help the environment. In other words, they believe that a difference can be made at an individual, citizen level. This is consistent with another finding that reveals that a similar proportion disagree that doing simple things to help the environment won’t make much of a difference. Again, this points to a belief among respondents that simple things can make a difference.
As much as respondents may feel that individual citizens can make a difference to help the environment, 51% also strongly believe that corporations have a better chance than citizens to help the environment. Another 39% somewhat agree that corporations are better positioned to help the environment. Where respondents struggle to find agreement is when it comes to positioning new technology as a stand-alone solution. Only 11% of respondents strongly agree that new technology will solve the problem of climate change, requiring only minor changes in human thinking and individual behaviour.
Finally, the results show that many respondents would be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment. On this, 23% strongly agree and half somewhat agree.
Figure C – Level of Agreement with Environmental Impact Statements
QA3. Using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that you strongly disagree and 7 means that you strongly agree, please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Level of agreement | (Strongly agree) 7-6 |
(Somewhat agree) 5-4 |
(Strongly disagree) 3-1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| We have a responsibility to the next generation to do all we can to improve the environment | 70% | 26% | 4% |
| Corporations have a better chance than citizens to help the environment | 51% | 39% | 11% |
| I am concerned about the impact of the environment on my family’s health | 43% | 43% | 13% |
| I am willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment | 23% | 50% | 27% |
| New technology will solve the problem of climate change, requiring only minor changes in human thinking and individual behaviour | 11% | 39% | 50% |
| Doing simple things to help the environment won’t make much of a difference | 11% | 23% | 65% |
| There’s not much I can personally do to help the environment | 8% | 26% | 66% |
Respondents were asked to rate how good a job the Government of Canada is doing in terms of addressing seven environmental priorities. Results reveal that between 10% and 16% of respondents would say that the federal government is doing a very good job across all priorities (giving them a rating of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale). A majority of respondents feel they are doing a somewhat good job on these priorities, with results fairly consistent across all seven priorities considered in this survey.
The priorities on which they are seen as doing the best job would be when it comes to conserving Canada’s natural areas and protecting Canada’s wildlife. On both priorities, 16% indicated they are doing a very good job. These are closely followed by protecting Canadians from toxic substances, on which 14% felt the federal government is doing a very good job.
When considering the proportion who believe the federal government is doing a very bad job regarding any of these priorities, their performance is seen as weakest when it comes to water pollution and reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions - 36% and 37% respectively believe the federal government is doing a very bad job.
Figure D – Perceptions of Government of Canada Addressing Environmental Priorities
QA4. Using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means they are doing a very bad job and 7 means they are doing a very good job, please tell me how good a job you think the Government of Canada is doing in addressing the following priorities? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Level of agreement | (Strongly agree) 7-6 |
(Somewhat agree) 5-4 |
(Strongly disagree) 3-1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conserving Canada’s nature areas | 16% | 57% | 27% |
| Protecting Canada’s wildlife | 16% | 56% | 29% |
| Protecting Canadians from toxic substances | 14% | 57% | 30% |
| Reducing substances that harm ozone layer | 12% | 55% | 33% |
| Water pollution | 11% | 57% | 36% |
| Air pollution | 10% | 57% | 34% |
| Reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions | 10% | 53% | 37% |
Across nine different Government of Canada environment initiatives, awareness was highest for the one involving the ban of certain types of single use plastics by 2021. Over one-quarter of respondents (27%) were very aware of this initiative and another 45% were somewhat aware, resulting in a top-2 box score of 72%. Awareness then decreased to 58% (by considering the top-2 box score) for the initiative involving the reduction of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030. Awareness was higher for the initiative that involved ensuring “a carbon tax” or cap and trade system would exist in all provinces and territories within Canada (56%) compared to the initiative that would ensure “pollution pricing” or cap and trade systems would exist in all provinces and territories in Canada (40%). Awareness was lowest when it came to restoring wetlands, grasslands and other important ecosystems (37% top-2 box score), introducing the clean fuel standard (35%) and protecting 25% of Canada’s lands and 25% of its oceans by 2025 (30%).
Figure E – Awareness of Government of Canada Environmental Initiatives
QA5. Please state your level of awareness regarding the following Government of Canada environmental issues? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Level of Awareness | Very aware | Somewhat aware | Not very aware | Not at all aware | Don’t know | Top 2 boxes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banning certain types of single use plastics by 2021 | 27% | 45% | 18% | 7% | 4% | 72% |
| Reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030 | 13% | 45% | 26% | 11% | 5% | 58% |
| Ensure carbon tax or cap and trade systems exist in all provinces and territories within Canada | 18% | 38% | 27% | 11% | 6% | 56% |
| Achieving Net-Zero emissions by 2050 | 13% | 38% | 28% | 15% | 6% | 51% |
| Plant 2 billion trees by 2030 | 12% | 34% | 30% | 19% | 5% | 46% |
| Ensure pollution pricing or Cap and trade systems exist in all provinces and territories within Canada | 11% | 29% | 31% | 22% | 7% | 40% |
| Restore wetlands, grasslands and other important ecosystems | 6% | 31% | 37% | 21% | 6% | 37% |
| Introduction of the clean fuel standard | 7% | 28% | 36% | 23% | 6% | 35% |
| Protect 25% of Canada’s lands and 25% of its oceans by 2025 | 5% | 25% | 38% | 26% | 6% | 30% |
When asked if they are doing enough to reduce their impact on the environment, very few respondents would place themselves at the extreme ends of the spectrum and by and large, they are divided between feeling they are either doing enough or not enough. As seen below, only 7% would say they are doing more than enough and only 3% would say they are not doing nearly enough.
Figure F – Effort to Reduce Impact on the Environment
QB1. Would you personally say you are doing enough or not doing enough to reduce your impact on the environment? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| - | More than enough | Enough | Not enough | Not nearly enough | Top 2 boxes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effort to reduce impact on the Environment | 7% | 43% | 46% | 3% | 50% |
There is some level of insight into how respondents believe they can reduce their impact on the environment on a personal level. Roughly 1 in 5 would say they “absolutely” know and two-thirds would say they “somewhat” know.
Figure G – Understanding of Effort to Reduce Impact on the Environment
QB2. Do you feel you know what you can do on a personal level to reduce your impact on the environment? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| - | Yes, absolutely | Yes, somewhat | No, not really | No, not at all | Top 2 boxes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Understand of Effort to Reduce Impact on the Environment | 19% | 67% | 13% | 1% | 86% |
A strong majority of respondents have, at a minimum, made a few changes regarding the products and services they buy or use, specifically to reduce their impact on the environment. Among this group, 16% believe they have made a lot of changes to that end. At the other end of the spectrum results show that 8% do not believe they have made such changes and 12% are not sure if their product and service selection has had this sort of impact.
Figure H – Change to Products and Services Bought or Used to Reduce Environmental Impact
QB3. Over the past few years, have you made any changes regarding the products and services you buy or use, specifically to reduce your impact on the environment? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| - | Yes, absolutely | Yes, somewhat | No, not really | No, not at all | Top 2 boxes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change to Products and Services Bought or Used to Reduce Environment Impact | 16% | 65% | 8% | 12% | 81% |
Respondents were presented a wide range of actions and asked how often they had done each one over the course of the past year. These actions could be grouped into three categories: At Home Recycle Reuse; Food and Gardening; and, Efficiency and Transportation.
Across the range of actions in the “At Home Recycle Reuse” category, results show that the majority of respondents did each of the actions at least “most of the time.” Only the purchase of used items fell outside this trend, with 28% indicating they have done this at least most of the time over the past year. Three actions stand out as being particularly common, with at least 44% indicating they always do these actions. They include carrying a re-usable shopping bag (50%), donating used items instead of throwing them out (45%) and carrying a re-usable water bottle (44%). These would then be followed by recycling old electronics, which was always done by 38% of respondents, and by avoiding single use dishes and cutlery, which was always done by 34% of respondents.
In terms of “Food and Gardening”, nearly nine in ten respondents saved or ate their food leftovers either always or most of the time. Avoiding throwing out edible food is also a common practice – this was always done by 35% of respondents and done most of the time by another 42%. All other actions were, on average, done less frequently although avoiding resources intensive gardening practices deserves a closer look. This is done at least most of the time by roughly half of respondents (54%) however nearly one quarter indicated that this does not apply to them (most likely because they do not have a garden) so, if we consider those who provided a response within the valid range of responses, the proportion practicing this action at least most of the time is quite higher at 70%. Results pertaining to composting are also interesting – this is one of the actions that revealed a high proportion of respondents always doing it (33%) while also being the action with the highest proportion never doing it (19%). The action least likely to be done was reducing the amount of meat consumed, which was always done by 11% of respondents whereas 15% never did this and another 18% rarely do this.
Figure I – Participation in Simple Actions to Reduce Environmental Impact
QC1. Thinking about the past year, how often have you done the following actions to help reduce your impact on the environment? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Participation in Simple Actions to Reduce Environmental Impact | Always | Most of the time | Sometimes | Rarely | Never | Not applicable | Top 2 boxes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| At Home Recycle Reuse | |||||||
| Carried a re-usable shopping bag | 50% | 31% | 12% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 81% |
| Donated used items instead of throwing them out | 45% | 33% | 16% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 78% |
| Purchased products that are made to last | 25% | 51% | 19% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 76% |
| Avoided single use dishes/cutlery | 34% | 41% | 16% | 5% | 2% | 1% | 75% |
| Carried a re-usable water bottle | 44% | 29% | 14% | 5% | 3% | 4% | 73% |
| Recycled old electronics | 38% | 26% | 17% | 7% | 5% | 6% | 64% |
| Avoided single use plastics | 16% | 42% | 31% | 7% | 3% | 1% | 58% |
| Repaired items instead of buying new | 16% | 38% | 33% | 8% | 3% | 3% | 54% |
| Taken steps to reduce water consumption | 17% | 36% | 30% | 11% | 4% | 1% | 53% |
| Bought used items | 7% | 21% | 42% | 17% | 9% | 3% | 28% |
| Food and Gardening | |||||||
| Saved and ate your leftovers | 55% | 33% | 9% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 88% |
| Avoided throwing out edible food | 35% | 42% | 16% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 77% |
| Purposely bought food that is in season | 18% | 43% | 29% | 5% | 3% | 2% | 61% |
| Purposely shopped local | 17% | 39% | 34% | 7% | 2% | 1% | 61% |
| Avoided resources intensive hardening practices | 28% | 26% | 15% | 5% | 3% | 23% | 54% |
| Composted | 33% | 16% | 13% | 10% | 19% | 9% | 49% |
| Reduced the amount of meat you consumed | 11% | 21% | 33% | 18% | 15% | 2% | 32% |
| Efficiency and Transportation | |||||||
| Taken efforts to not idle your vehicle | 26% | 33% | 19% | 6% | 3% | 13% | 59% |
| Used active transportation | 9% | 17% | 32% | 18% | 15% | 10% | 26% |
| Used an alternative to flying in order to travel | 9% | 12% | 17% | 10% | 11% | 41% | 21% |
Finally, when it comes to actions in the “Efficiency and Transportation” category, respondents were most likely to have been taking efforts to not idle their vehicle over the past year. About one in four (26%) used active transportation at least most of the time.
The least practiced action was using an alternative to flying in order to travel – 9% did this always and 12% did this most of the time. That said, 41% indicated that this action was not applicable to them, most likely because they did not travel or perhaps their travel plans would not have involved a flight. Irrespective, results for this action are no doubt distorted because of the impact of the pandemic on traveling.
A variety of additional actions (shown in the graph below), ranging from purchasing an electric vehicle to growing a pollinator garden, was presented to respondents to again get a sense of what has been done. This exercise also explored future intentions.
Figure J – Actions Taken to Reduce Environmental Impact
QC2. And which of these other actions to reduce your impact on the environment have you taken? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Actions Taken to Reduce Environmental Impact | I have done this in the past year | I have done this but not in the past year | I have not done this | I plan to do this in the future | Not applicable | Top-2 Boxes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purchased energy efficient appliances | 22% | 40% | 15% | 10% | 13% | 62% |
| Made energy efficient renovations to your home | 14% | 28% | 25% | 10% | 22% | 42% |
| Planted Trees | 12% | 27% | 34% | 10% | 17% | 39% |
| Purchased/built birdhouse, bat house or bee hive | 10% | 14% | 45% | 8% | 22% | 24% |
| Grown a pollinator Garden | 14% | 9% | 45% | 9% | 23% | 23% |
| Replaced your gas-powered landscaping equipment with electric | 8% | 14% | 35% | 7% | 37% | 22% |
| Purchased an electric vehicle | 2% | 4% | 49% | 25% | 19% | 6% |
Results reveal that most respondents have at some point purchased energy efficient appliances (62%). Roughly 4 in 10 have made energy efficient renovations to their home (42%) and a similar proportion has planted trees (39%). Fewer still have purchased or built a birdhouse, bat house or a beehive (24%), grown a pollinator garden (23%) or replaced their gas-powered landscaping equipment with electric (22%). That said, the results pertaining to landscaping equipment would be higher if they were limited to households that own or need this type of equipment – this survey shows this was not applicable for 37% of households. The least common action among those tested was the purchase of an electric vehicle (6%).
Between 7% and 10% plan do to most of these actions at some point in the future. The only action that falls outside this trend is the purchase of an electric vehicle, for which results show that 25% of respondents plan to do this in the future.
Cost is by far the most common barrier selected by respondents when asked what is preventing them from doing more of the previously listed actions to reduce their impact on the environment. This specific barrier was selected by 61% of respondents. Time was the next most common barrier, as selected by 28% of respondents, followed by a lack of information, at 25%. Similar proportions selected personal physical limitations (22%), inconvenience (21%) and a lack of incentives (20%).
Figure K – Factors Preventing Actions to Reduce Environmental Impact
QC3. What is preventing you from doing more of the previously listed actions to reduce your impact on the environment? Select all that apply. Base: All respondents, n=4008. Note: The first nine items listed in this graph, the “other” option and “Don’t Know” were presented as a list to respondents in the survey. Additional reasons presented in this graph were added based on what respondents provided verbatim in the open-ended “other” response option.
| Factors Preventing Actions to Reduce Environmental Impact | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Cost | 61% |
| Time | 28% |
| Lack of information | 25% |
| Personal physical limitations | 22% |
| Inconvenient | 21% |
| Lack of incentives | 20% |
| Too difficult | 14% |
| Not interested | 9% |
| Won’t be impactful | 8% |
| My current living situation / do not own a home / other | 6% |
| Do not own a car | <1% |
| Will change when my items reach the end of their lifespan / replacing my items now would be wasteful | <1% |
| Other | 1% |
| Already doing what I can / my house/appliances/items is/are already | 1% |
| Don’t know | 5% |
Respondents were asked to reconsider the list of environmental actions an individual can take and prompted to select up to five they believe would have the most positive impact on the environment. Avoiding single use plastics was a clear favourite, selected by a majority of respondents.
Figure L – Individual Actions Most Likely to Have a Positive Impact on the Environment
QC4. Looking again at the list of environmental actions an individual can take, please select the actions that, in your opinion, would have the most positive environmental impact. Select up to 5 responses. Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Individual Actions Most Likely to Have a Positive Impact on the Environment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| At Home Recycle Reuse | |
| Avoiding single use plastics | 52% |
| Taking steps to reduce water consumption | 28% |
| Repairing items instead of busing new | 28% |
| Recycling old electronics | 23% |
| Buying used items | 20% |
| Food and Gardening | |
| Purposely shopping local | 26% |
| Avoiding throwing out edible food | 24% |
| Reducing the amount of meat you consume | 19% |
| Purposely buying food that is in season | 15% |
| Avoiding resource intensive gardening practices | 12% |
| Efficiency and Transportation | |
| Using active transportation | 30% |
| Taking efforts to not idle your vehicle | 22% |
| Taking an alternative to flying in order to travel | 11% |
| Other Actions | |
| Planting Trees | 32% |
| Making energy efficient renovations to your home | 29% |
| Purchasing energy efficient appliances | 29% |
| Purchase an electric vehicle | 27% |
| Replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment with electric | 12% |
| Growing a pollinator Garden | 10% |
| Purchasing/building birdhouse, bat houses or bee hives | 4% |
Although there is a distinctly popular action, the results do not point to a specific action or even a small subset of actions that would qualify as second most popular. Instead, a dozen actions were considered impactful by about 20% to 30% of respondents. At the top end of this broad subset of actions, we find planting trees (32%), using active transportation (30%), making energy efficient renovations to a home (29%) and purchasing energy efficient appliances (29%). In the middle of this subset, and closely following the previous actions, we then find taking steps to reduce water consumption (28%), repairing items instead of buying new (28%), purchasing an electric vehicle (27%), and purposely shopping local (26%).
The actions that make up the lower end of this cluster of actions would include avoiding throwing out edible food (24%), recycling old electronics (23%), taking efforts to not idle a vehicle (22%), buying used items (20%) and reducing the amount of meat consumed (19%).
The actions that were considered the least impactful on the environment included purposely buying food that is in season (15%), replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment with an electric version (12%), avoiding resource intensive gardening practices (12%), taking an alternative to flying in order to travel (11%) and growing a pollinator garden (10%). The least impactful action was purchasing or building birdhouses, bat houses or bee hives (4%).
It is important to take into consideration that respondents were limited to five responses. Considering that households could do far more than five of the actions presented, it could be argued that respondents might have selected more than five actions which they would consider to have a meaningful positive impact on the environment.
Based on the results obtained, we can see that actions do not necessarily have to be large (e.g. buying an electric vehicle, making energy efficient renovations to a home, etc.) to be seen as potentially impactful on the environment and any effort by the government to encourage “small actions” will not only be seen as feasible, but also credible. If some of the actions positioned closer to the bottom of the list are deemed very impactful by experts, some degree of citizen education would be warranted to help them appreciate how impactful they could be and that putting them into practice may be easier than they think.
As seen above, many households would agree that making renovations to their home to improve its energy efficiency would have a positive impact on the environment. Among home owners who have not yet done any energy efficient renovations, 11% would say they are very likely to upgrade the energy efficiency of their home within the next five years, and another 37% would say they are somewhat likely.
Figure M – Likelihood to Upgrade Energy Efficiency Among Home Owners
QC5. How likely are you to upgrade the energy efficiency of your home over the next five years? Base: Home owners, excluding those who have done energy efficient renovations, n=1151.
| - | Very Likely | Somewhat Likely | Not very likely | Not at all likely | I have already made energy efficient upgrades | Don’t Know | Top 2 boxes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood to Upgrade Energy Efficiency Among Home Owners | 11% | 37% | 20% | 12% | 7% | 13% | 48% |
Consistent with earlier results where many respondents explained that cost is a significant barrier for them, a specific question exploring the likelihood to upgrade the energy efficiency of their home if a grant were available shows a notable increase in likelihood compared to a scenario where no grant is offered. Assuming a grant of up to $5,000 were available, one-third of respondents (33%) would be very likely to upgrade, and another 41% would be somewhat likely, resulting in a top-2 box score of 74%, which is significantly higher than the result where no grant is mentioned (48%).
Figure N – Likelihood to Upgrade Energy Efficiency Among Home Owners if a Grant Were Given
QC6. How likely do you think you would be to upgrade the energy efficiency of your home if you qualified for and could use a grant of up to $5,000? Base: Home owners, excluding those who have done energy efficient renovations, n=1151.
| - | Very Likely | Somewhat Likely | Not very likely | Not at all likely | Don’t Know | Top 2 boxes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood to Upgrade Energy Efficiency Among Home Owners if a grant were given | 33% | 41% | 12% | 5% | 9% | 74% |
Most home owners would, with full consideration of the pandemic, feel comfortable providing an energy advisor access to their home in order to conduct an energy audit. More specifically, 20% would be very comfortable and another 34% would be somewhat comfortable.
Figure O – Comfort with an Energy Advisor Conducting an Energy Audit
QC7. With consideration to the COVID-19 pandemic, how comfortable would you feel with providing an energy advisor access to your home in order to conduct an energy audit? Base: Home owners, n=2530.
| - | Very Likely | Somewhat Likely | Not very likely | Not at all likely | Don’t Know | Top 2 boxes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comfort with an Energy Advisor Conducting an Energy Audit | 20% | 34% | 23% | 19% | 5% | 54% |
A few questions were asked to help understand how to reach Canadians and how to reach certain segments of Canadians. In terms of social networks, Facebook was the likely social networking site to be used over the past month (78%), followed closely by YouTube (71%). Instagram was accessed was used by nearly half of respondents (47%) and roughly one in four accessed Twitter (26%), WhatsApp (26%), LinkedIn (25%) and Pinterest (24%).
Figure P – Usage of Social Networking Sites
QD1. In the past month, did you use any of the following social networking sites? Select all that apply. Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Usage of social Networking Sites | Percentage |
|---|---|
| 78% | |
| Youtube | 71% |
| 47% | |
| 26% | |
| 26% | |
| 25% | |
| 24% | |
| Snapchat | 18% |
| Tiktok | 16% |
| 15% | |
| Tumblr | 2% |
| Other | 1% |
| None of the above | 6% |
| Don’t know / Refused | <1% |
Television is still considered by many a primary source for news, as indicated by 37% of respondents. This is then followed by news websites and applications (25%) and social media (17%). Fewer than one in ten would consider radio (9%) or print newspapers (4%) a primary source for their news.
Figure Q – Primary Source for News
QD2. What is your primary source for news? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Primary Source for News | Percentage |
|---|---|
| TV News Channel/program | 37% |
| News websites/apps | 25% |
| Social Media (i.e. Facebook and Twitter) | 17% |
| AM/FM radio | 9% |
| Print Newspaper | 4% |
| Friends and Family | 3% |
| Podcast(s) | 1% |
| Smart speaker | 1% |
| Other | <1% |
| None of the above | 2% |
| Don’t know / Refused | <1% |
Multivariate analysis was conducted and five segments of the population were developed. Given that a large majority of Canadians are practicing the simple actions proposed to help reduce their impact on the environment, the segmentation produced three segments that encompass Canadians who model nearly all these behaviours on a regular basis: the “Reduce and Reuse” (28%), followed by the “Energy Efficient” (21%) and the “Environmental Stewards” (20%); and the final two segments, who practice some of the simple behaviours to a lesser degree, are “Getting There” (22%) and “Not There Yet” (9%).
Figure R – Simple Action Behavioural Segments
| Simple Action Behavioural Segments | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Environmental Stewards | 20% |
| Energy Efficient | 21% |
| Reduce and Reuse | 28% |
| Getting There | 22% |
| Not there Yet | 9% |
This segment is underrepresented in Quebec (19%) and overrepresented in Ontario (42%). They are more likely to be female (55%) and over the age of 45 years (66%). This group is also more likely to live in a single family dwelling that they own (75%).
These Canadians are more likely than the other segments to have a positive outlook on the environment for the next ten years (21% feel it will be in better shape). The majority (61%) feel they are doing enough (47%) or more than enough (14%) to reduce their impact on the environment. Nearly all (95%) feel they know what to do to reduce their impact on the environment, including one third (35%) who indicate they absolutely know what to do. This translates into the majority (95%) who have made some (60%) or a lot of changes (35%) with respect to the products and services they use to reduce their impact on the environment.
These stewards are very likely to agree that we have a responsibility to improve the environment (79%) and are concerned about the impact of the environment on their family’s health (56%). To that end they are more willing to pay higher prices (34%) to protect the environment.
Overwhelmingly this segment is characterized by their high participation in nearly all the simple actions to help the environment. The vast majority do these either always or most of the time. For some of the simple actions that require home ownership, larger resources, and time commitments (i.e., purchasing an electric vehicle (16%), switching to electric landscaping equipment (51%), planting trees (82%), avoiding resource intensive gardening practices (89%), and growing a pollinator garden (65%)), this segment participates at a rate much greater than the other segments.
Similar to the Environmental Stewards, these Canadians are underrepresented in Quebec (15%) and overrepresented in Ontario (44%). As well, there is a slight overrepresentation in Alberta (14%). This group is more likely to be male (55%) and 35 to 54 years of age (39%). They also are more likely to reside in a single family home that they own (74%).
Slightly less positive about the outlook for the environment in Canada with less than one in five (17%) thinking it will be in better shape in ten years. Just half (50%) of these Canadians feel they are doing enough for the environment, including just 6% who consider they are doing more than enough. A great majority (84%) believe they know what they can do to reduce their impact on the environment, although just a handful (6%) have made a lot of changes to follow through while about two thirds (74%) have made a few changes.
While the majority of this segment feels they have a responsibility to do all they can to improve the environment (61%), only a third (35%) are concerned about the impact of the environment on their family’s health. Fewer than one in five (16%) are willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment.
While this group demonstrates high participation rates across many of the simple actions, what distinguishes them are higher rates of purchasing energy efficient appliances (81%), making energy efficient home renovations (67%), planting trees (59%), purchased bird/bat houses or beehives (36%), and replacing gas powered landscaping equipment with electric (31%).
These Canadians are overrepresented in Quebec (30%) and underrepresented in Ontario (34%) and Alberta (7%). They are more likely to be female (58%) and over 55 years of age (46%). While three fourths of the Environmental Stewards and Energy Efficient segments live in homes they own, just under half of this segment are home owners (47%). Just under half (42%) also live in a condo they own or a condo/apartment they rent.
Their outlook on the environment is similar to the Energy Efficient group with under one in five (15%) who feel it will be in better shape. Just over half (54%) consider they are doing enough to reduce their impact, including just 7% who think they are doing more than enough. A great majority (92%) think they know what they can do to reduce their impact on the environment, with as many (92%) reporting they have made some changes including one in five (21%) who have made a lot of changes.
The Reduce & Reuse segment also feel a responsibility to do all they can to help the environment (81%) and are concerned about the impact of the environment on their family’s health (53%). Just fewer than one-third (30%) are willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment.
This group is similar to the Environmental Stewards in their dedication to reducing consumption and reusing items. They score as high on saving leftovers (97%), reusing shopping bags (97%), donating items (94%), avoiding throwing out food (94%), avoiding single use cutlery (93%) and plastics (84%), and carrying reusable water bottles (90%). They also score high on other simple actions but are distinguished from the first two segments by lower levels of participation (almost/always or have done at all) in simple actions that are more applicable to homeowners (i.e. purchasing energy efficient appliances (62%) and home renovations (36%), planting trees (25%), growing pollinator gardens (9%), and buying bird/bat houses and beehives (8%)) or that involve a large resource outlay (i.e. purchasing an electric vehicle (3%) or replacing gas powered lawn equipment with electric (12%)).
The “Getting There” segment is also overrepresented in Quebec (28%). While they are evenly split on gender, they are more likely (39%) than the other three energy conscious segments to be 18 to 34 years of age. This segment has the lowest level of homeownership (30%) of all segments. The majority (54%) rent a condo/apartment or single family home. While their outlook for the environment in the next ten years is somewhat less positive (15% think it will be in better shape), just four in ten (40%) feel they are doing enough to reduce their impact on the environment. Only 3% feel they are doing more than enough.
One in ten (10%) think they absolutely have enough information to know what they can do to reduce their impact on the environment, a further seven in ten (71%) indicate they are somewhat informed on what to do. A majority (70%) report making changes in products and services they use to reduce their impact on the environment, with only a handful (6%) who have made a lot of changes to their behaviour.
Canadians in this segment share the same level of concern for the environment as the Energy Efficient segment, with over two-thirds (68%) who feel they have a responsibility to do all they can to protect the environment. One-third (34%) are concerned about the impact of the environment on their family’s health while half that amount (17%) are willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment.
This segment is characterized by lower than average scores (almost/always or ever done) across all simple actions. Although they do score close to average on some actions (i.e. saving leftovers (88%), re-using shopping bags (81%), re-using water bottles (68%), avoiding single use dishes/cutlery (73%)), they score much lower for purchasing energy efficient appliances (31%), making energy efficient home renovations (7%), and to home garden related actions (i.e. building bird/bat houses and beehives (5%), purchasing electric lawn equipment (4%), and growing a pollinator garden (5%)). They are about average in their use of active transportation (26%) while the lowest in making large purchases such as an electric vehicle (2%).
The smallest of the five segments, this group mirrors the regional distribution of Canada but skews male (64%) and younger (57% under age 44 years). Similar to the “Getting There” segment, less than half live in their own home (43%) while four in ten (39%) rent a home/condo/apartment.
This group is most skeptical about the outlook of the environment in ten years with just 10% thinking it will be better. Under half (48%) report that they are doing enough to reduce their impact on the environment, including just 8% who feel they are doing more than enough.
This segment is more likely (35%) than the other four segments to report that they do not know enough about what to do to reduce their impact on the environment. On the other hand, one third (66%) feel they have enough information on what to do. This lack of knowledge translates in the fewest number of Canadians in this segment who have made a lot/few changes (39%) to reduce their impact on the environment.
Those who are “not there yet” are more likely than others to think there’s not much they can personally do to help the environment (18%) and that doing simple things to help the environment won’t make much of a difference (15%). Just four in ten (38%) share the sentiment that we all have a responsibility to do all we can to protect the environment while two in ten (21%) are concerned about the impact of the environment on their family’s health. These Canadians are least likely (11%) to be willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment.
When it comes to taking action to reduce their impact on the environment this segment scores below average across all actions and below the “Getting There” group on all but six of the simple actions where their participation rate is equally low (i.e. purchasing energy efficient appliances (34%) and home renovations (12%), planting trees (14%), building a pollinator garden (7%), purchasing bird/bat houses or beehives (7%), and switching to electric landscaping equipment (7%)).
Figure S – Simple Action Behavioural Segments – Province/Region
| Province/Region | TOTAL (n=4008) |
Environmental Stewards (n=797) |
Energy Efficient (n=845) |
Reduce & Reuse (n=1127) |
Getting There (n=879) |
Not There Yet (n=360) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| British Columbia | 14% | 14% | 13% | 14% | 13% | 13% |
| Alberta | 11% | 13% | 14% | 7% | 11% | 14% |
| Saskatchewan | 3% | 3% | 4% | 3% | 2% | 3% |
| Manitoba | 4% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 3% | 6% |
| Ontario | 38% | 42% | 44% | 34% | 36% | 36% |
| Quebec | 23% | 19% | 15% | 30% | 28% | 22% |
| Atlantic Canada | 7% | 6% | 7% | 7% | 8% | 6% |
PROV. Which province or territory do you live in? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
Figure T – Simple Action Behavioural Segments – Gender
| Gender | TOTAL (n=4008) |
Environmental Stewards (n=797) |
Energy Efficient (n=845) |
Reduce & Reuse (n=1127) |
Getting There (n=879) |
Not There Yet (n=360) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 48% | 44% | 55% | 41% | 49% | 64% |
| Female | 51% | 55% | 45% | 58% | 51% | 36% |
GENDER. What is your gender? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
Figure U – Simple Action Behavioural Segments – Age
| Age in Years | TOTAL (n=4008) |
Environmental Stewards (n=797) |
Energy Efficient (n=845) |
Reduce & Reuse (n=1127) |
Getting There (n=879) |
Not There Yet (n=360) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 to 24 | 11% | 8% | 10% | 8% | 17% | 15% |
| 25 to 34 | 16% | 13% | 12% | 16% | 22% | 21% |
| 35 to 44 | 16% | 14% | 18% | 14% | 18% | 21% |
| 45 to 54 | 18% | 20% | 21% | 16% | 15% | 21% |
| 55 to 64 | 17% | 23% | 19% | 18% | 13% | 12% |
| 65 to 74 | 11% | 12% | 9% | 15% | 8% | 6% |
| 75 or older | 10% | 11% | 11% | 13% | 8% | 6% |
AGE. Please indicate in which of the following age categories you belong? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
Figure V – Simple Action Behavioural Segments - Living Arrangement
| Home Ownership | TOTAL (n=4008) |
Environmental Stewards (n=797) |
Energy Efficient (n=845) |
Reduce & Reuse (n=1127) |
Getting There (n=879) |
Not There Yet (n=360) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Live in a single family dwelling home I own | 54% | 75% | 74% | 47% | 30% | 43% |
| Live in a condo I own | 10% | 5% | 7% | 15% | 11% | 11% |
| Rent a condo or apartment | 24% | 11% | 10% | 27% | 44% | 29% |
| Rent a single family home | 8% | 7% | 6% | 7% | 10% | 10% |
| Live with my family / my parents | 3% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 4% | 6% |
| Other | 1% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 1% |
HOME. What is your current living arrangement? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
Figure W – Simple Action Behavioural Segments – Attitudes Towards Environment
| Home Ownership | TOTAL (n=4008) |
Environmental Stewards (n=797) |
Energy Efficient (n=845) |
Reduce & Reuse (n=1127) |
Getting There (n=879) |
Not There Yet (n=360) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| We have a responsibility to do all we can to improve the environment | 70% | 79% | 61% | 81% | 68% | 38% |
| Corporations have a better chance than citizens to help the environment | 51% | 50% | 44% | 58% | 53% | 36% |
| I am concerned about the impact of the environment on my family’s health | 43% | 56% | 35% | 53% | 34% | 21% |
| I am willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment | 23% | 34% | 16% | 30% | 17% | 11% |
| New technology will solve the problem of climate change, requiring only minor changes in individual behaviour | 11% | 15% | 12% | 9% | 9% | 12% |
| Doing simple things to help the environment won’t make much of a difference | 11% | 14% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 15% |
| There’s not much I can personally do to help the environment | 8% | 10% | 7% | 5% | 7% | 18% |
QA3. Using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that you strongly disagree and 7 means that you strongly agree, please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: Base: All respondents, n=4008.
Figure X – Outlook for Environment in Ten Years
QA2. Ten years from now, do you think the environment in Canada as a whole will be in better shape than it is today, in worse shape than it is today or about the same? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Outlook for Environment in Ten Years | Better Shape | Worse Shape | About the same | Don’t know / Not sure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 16% | 43% | 31% | 10% |
| Environmental Stewards | 21% | 45% | 28% | 6% |
| Energy Efficient | 17% | 42% | 33% | 9% |
| Reduce and Reuse | 15% | 44% | 31% | 10% |
| Getting There | 15% | 41% | 30% | 14% |
| Not There Yet | 10% | 42% | 35% | 14% |
Figure Y – Reducing Impact on Environment
QB1. Would you personally say you are doing enough or not doing enough to reduce your impact on the environment? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Reducing Impact on Environment | More then enough | Enough | Not Enough | Not nearly enough |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 7% | 43% | 46% | 3% |
| Environmental Stewards | 14% | 47% | 36% | 3% |
| Energy Efficient | 6% | 44% | 47% | 3% |
| Reduce and Reuse | 7% | 47% | 43% | 3% |
| Getting There | 3% | 37% | 58% | 2% |
| Not There Yet | 8% | 40% | 45% | 8% |
Figure Z – Knowing What to do to Reduce Impact on Environment
QB2. Do you feel you know what you can do on a personal level to reduce your impact on the environment? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Knowing What to do to Reduce Impact on Environment | Yes, absolutely | Yes, somewhat | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 19% | 67% | 14% |
| Environmental Stewards | 35% | 60% | 5% |
| Energy Efficient | 13% | 71% | 16% |
| Reduce and Reuse | 22% | 70% | 19% |
| Getting There | 10% | 71% | 19% |
| Not There Yet | 12% | 54% | 34% |
Figure A1 – Made Changes to Products and Services to Reduce Impact on Environment
QB3. Over the past few years, have you made any changes regarding the products and services you buy or use, specifically to reduce your impact on the environment? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
| Made Changes to Products and Services to Reduce Impact on Environment | Yes, a lot of changes | Yes, a few changes | Not Sure | No, I have not made any changes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 16% | 65% | 12% | 8% |
| Environmental Stewards | 35% | 60% | 3% | 2% |
| Energy Efficient | 6% | 74% | 13% | 8% |
| Reduce and Reuse | 21% | 71% | 6% | 2% |
| Getting There | 6% | 64% | 19% | 11% |
| Not There Yet | 1% | 38% | 31% | 30% |
Figure B1 – Reducing Impact on the Environment – Action Taken
| Always/Most of the Time | TOTAL (n=4008) |
Environmental Stewards (n=797) |
Energy Efficient (n=845) |
Reduce & Reuse (n=1127) |
Getting There (n=879) |
Not There Yet (n=360) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saved and ate food leftovers | 88% | 97% | 83% | 97% | 88% | 46% |
| Carried re-usable shopping bag | 81% | 94% | 67% | 97% | 81% | 39% |
| Donated used items | 78% | 96% | 71% | 94% | 67% | 27% |
| Avoided throwing out edible food | 77% | 94% | 66% | 94% | 70% | 25% |
| Purchased products that are made to last | 76% | 96% | 68% | 93% | 63% | 23% |
| Avoided single use dishes/cutlery | 75% | 94% | 59% | 93% | 73% | 18% |
| Carried re-usable water bottle | 73% | 89% | 58% | 90% | 68% | 31% |
| Recycled old electronics | 64% | 89% | 58% | 80% | 43% | 19% |
| Purposely bought food that is in season | 61% | 87% | 52% | 79% | 40% | 12% |
| Taken efforts to not idle vehicle | 59% | 85% | 56% | 72% | 38% | 14% |
| Avoided single use plastics | 58% | 85% | 34% | 84% | 42% | 7% |
| Purposely shopped local | 56% | 82% | 48% | 71% | 35% | 16% |
| Repaired items instead of buying new | 54% | 84% | 38% | 73% | 34% | 12% |
| Avoided resource intensive gardening practices | 54% | 89% | 52% | 64% | 26% | 13% |
| Taken steps to reduce water consumption | 53% | 84% | 33% | 74% | 33% | 9% |
| Composted | 49% | 81% | 46% | 55% | 29% | 15% |
| Reduced amount of meat consumed | 32% | 52% | 14% | 46% | 19% | 7% |
| Bought used items | 29% | 51% | 18% | 34% | 19% | 8% |
| Used active transportation | 26% | 38% | 12% | 31% | 26% | 13% |
| Used an alternative to flying to travel | 22% | 43% | 15% | 23% | 13% | 8% |
QC1. Thinking about the past year, how often have you done the following actions to help reduce your impact on the environment? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
Figure C1 – Reducing Impact on the Environment – Action Taken
| Have Done | TOTAL (n=4008) |
Environmental Stewards (n=797) |
Energy Efficient (n=845) |
Reduce & Reuse (n=1127) |
Getting There (n=879) |
Not There Yet (n=360) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purchased energy efficient appliances | 62% | 87% | 81% | 62% | 31% | 34% |
| Made energy efficient home renovations | 42% | 77% | 67% | 36% | 7% | 12% |
| Planted trees | 39% | 82% | 59% | 25% | 11% | 14% |
| Purchased/built birdhouses, bat houses or bee hives | 24% | 63% | 36% | 8% | 5% | 7% |
| Grown a pollinator garden | 23% | 65% | 25% | 9% | 5% | 7% |
| Replaced gas-powered landscaping equipment with electric | 22% | 51% | 31% | 12% | 4% | 7% |
| Purchased an electric vehicle | 7% | 16% | 9% | 3% | 2% | 4% |
QC2. And which of these other actions to reduce your impact on the environment have you taken? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
Figure D1 – Reducing Impact on the Environment – Reasons Action Not Taken
| TOTAL (n=4008) |
Environmental Stewards (n=797) |
Energy Efficient (n=845) |
Reduce & Reuse (n=1127) |
Getting There (n=879) |
Not There Yet (n=360) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost | 61% | 63% | 67% | 60% | 60% | 53% |
| Time | 28% | 27% | 30% | 25% | 29% | 26% |
| Lack of information | 25% | 23% | 26% | 24% | 27% | 21% |
| Personal physical limitations | 22% | 26% | 20% | 26% | 17% | 13% |
| Inconvenient | 21% | 15% | 23% | 20% | 24% | 26% |
| Lack of incentives | 20% | 18% | 24% | 16% | 22% | 27% |
| Too difficult | 14% | 10% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 14% |
| Not interested | 10% | 4% | 11% | 5% | 12% | 28% |
| Won’t be impactful | 8% | 8% | 11% | 6% | 7% | 13% |
| My current living situation | 6% | 2% | 2% | 9% | 12% | 4% |
| Do not own a car | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Already doing what I can / my house/appliances/items is/are already energy efficient | 1% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 0% |
| Other | 1% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 1% |
| Don't know | 6% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 7% | 11% |
QC3. What is preventing you from doing more of the previously listed actions to reduce your impact on the environment? Select all that apply. Base: All respondents, n=4008.
Figure E1 – Past Month Use of Social Media Sites
| TOTAL (n=4008) |
Environmental Stewards (n=797) |
Energy Efficient (n=845) |
Reduce & Reuse (n=1127) |
Getting There (n=879) |
Not There Yet (n=360) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78% | 77% | 75% | 81% | 79% | 72% | |
| YouTube | 71% | 69% | 71% | 71% | 73% | 68% |
| 47% | 44% | 43% | 48% | 52% | 45% | |
| 26% | 27% | 24% | 25% | 27% | 31% | |
| 26% | 27% | 23% | 27% | 27% | 20% | |
| 25% | 24% | 25% | 26% | 26% | 20% | |
| 24% | 29% | 26% | 26% | 19% | 15% | |
| Snapchat | 18% | 14% | 18% | 16% | 23% | 20% |
| TikTok | 16% | 14% | 14% | 14% | 20% | 18% |
| 15% | 12% | 16% | 12% | 20% | 19% | |
| Tumblr | 2% | 1% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| Other | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| None of the above | 6% | 5% | 6% | 5% | 5% | 8% |
| Don't know / Refused | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
QD1. In the past month, did you use any of the following social networking sites? Select all that apply. Base: All respondents, n=4008.
Figure F1 – Primary Source of News
| TOTAL (n=4008) |
Environmental Stewards (n=797) |
Energy Efficient (n=845) |
Reduce & Reuse (n=1127) |
Getting There (n=879) |
Not There Yet (n=360) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TV News channel/program | 37% | 40% | 36% | 41% | 33% | 31% |
| News websites/apps | 25% | 23% | 27% | 26% | 25% | 23% |
| Social media (i.e. Facebook or Twitter) | 17% | 13% | 17% | 13% | 24% | 23% |
| AM/FM radio | 9% | 14% | 8% | 9% | 7% | 6% |
| Print newspaper(s) | 4% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 3% | 3% |
| Podcast(s) | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 2% |
| Smart Speaker | 1% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
| Friends/family | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Other | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| None of the above | 2% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 7% |
| Don't know / refused | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
QD2. What is your primary source for news? Base: All respondents, n=4008.
The qualitative phase of this study consisted of three online focus groups, with each session held pre-campaign launch.
Quorus designed and translated the recruitment screener and the moderation guide for this study.
The target population for the focus groups consisted of two of the campaign’s target audiences, notably 1) Youth (18 to 34 years old without any children living at home), and 2) families (adults with at least one child 16 years old or younger living at home). The two English sessions allowed for one session with each of these target audiences, whereas the French session involved a blend of the two audiences.
Participants invited to participate were randomly recruited by telephone from the general public. In the design of the recruitment screener, specific questions were inserted to clearly identify whether participants qualify for the research program and to ensure a good representation of gender, age and respondents with children.
Quorus recruited 10 participants to achieve 8-10 participants per focus group and recruited participants were offered an honorarium of $80.00 for their participation. Furthermore:
At the recruitment stage and at the beginning of each focus group, participants were informed that the research was for the Government of Canada. Participants were also informed of audio/video recording of the focus group sessions, in addition to the presence of Environment and Climate Change Canada observers. Quorus ensured that prior consent was obtained at the recruitment stage and before participants participated in the online groups.
Three focus groups were held using an online platform that allowed the client team to observe the sessions. Across all focus groups, a total of 29 individuals participated. Each focus group lasted 90 minutes and all focus groups were moderated by senior Quorus researchers.
Three video concepts promoting the Nature Legacy initiative were tested (A, B, and C) each consisting of media including:
Concepts from the online sessions were randomized and shown in different order for each group, as follows:
Session 1 (Ontario / Manitoba): A, B, C
Session 2 (British Columbia / Alberta): B, C, A
Session 3 (Quebec / New Brunswick): C, A, B
The locations and dates of the sessions are presented in the grid below:
| Location | Language | Participants | Target Audience | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ontario / Manitoba | English | 10 | Youth | December 15, 2020 |
| 2. British Columbia / Alberta | English | 9 | Families | December 15, 2020 |
| 3. Quebec / New Brunswick | French | 10 | Youth and families | December 16, 2020 |
| Total | - | 29 |
Qualitative Research Disclaimer
Qualitative research seeks to develop insight and direction rather than quantitatively projectable measures. The purpose is not to generate “statistics” but to hear the full range of opinions on a topic, understand the language participants use, gauge degrees of passion and engagement and to leverage the power of the group to inspire ideas. Participants are encouraged to voice their opinions, irrespective of whether or not that view is shared by others.
Due to the sample size, the special recruitment methods used, and the study objectives themselves, it is clearly understood that the work under discussion is exploratory in nature. The findings are not, nor were they intended to be, projectable to a larger population.
Specifically, it is inappropriate to suggest or to infer that few (or many) real world users would behave in one way simply because few (or many) participants behaved in this way during the sessions. This kind of projection is strictly the prerogative of quantitative research.
This phase of the research consisted of an online survey with Canadians at least 18 years old, that served as a baseline from which to evaluate the campaign. The survey was the first conducted out of two phases: before the campaign launches and a recall survey upon completion of the campaign.
The target population for the online surveys broadly consisted of Canadian households with respondents 18 years of age and older, within which the following sub-segments identified for additional analysis:
Respondents were invited to participate through an online panel of Canadians previously screened to fulfill the profile defined above. The first phase of the survey resulted in 804 completed surveys, with a participation rate of 9% for the study. The distribution of these interviews reflected the distribution of the Canadian population, 18 years of age and older.
The survey instrument consisted primarily of questions established by the ECCC team, including a variety of questions related to advertising awareness. The survey also tested reactions to three video concepts being considered by ECCC for its Nature Legacy program. Quorus collaborated with ECCC to finalize the survey instrument.
The survey instrument used in the online survey took an average of 14 minutes to complete (the median length was just over 10 minutes) and consisted of mostly closed-ended questions. Respondents had the choice to complete the interview in either English or French.
Quorus was responsible for designing the survey introduction screen and ensuring the translation of the questionnaire from English into French. All translated materials were provided to the Project Authority for review and approval before the launch of the survey.
Finally, all research work was conducted in accordance with the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research – Online Surveys.
Upon approval of the final questionnaires by ECCC, our data collection partner, Leger, programmed the online survey using their online software. Both Leger and Quorus used rigorous programming and field work validation protocols to ensure a consistently accurate process was maintained throughout the data collection phase.
Data collection for the Pre-Campaign wave took place from December 15th to December 20th, 2020.
The research process included a pre-test of the questionnaire in both English and French. The pre-test consisted of an additional set of follow-up questions added to the questionnaire to collect feedback and ensure the survey was functioning correctly. A total of 72 pre-tests were conducted: 58 in English and 14 in French. Since no major issues were detected with the survey design or programming, all results from the pre-test were included in the final data.
Due to the non-probability sampling nature of online panels, a valid margin of error could not be calculated. The data submitted was weighed to replicate actual population distributions by province, age, and gender, within Canada according to the most recent Census data.
This phase of the research consisted of an online survey with Canadians at least 18 years old, that served as a comparison to the baseline from which to evaluate the campaign. The survey was the second conducted out of two phases: before the campaign launches and a recall survey upon completion of the campaign.
The target population for the online surveys broadly consisted of Canadian households with respondents 18 years of age and older, within which the following sub-segments identified for additional analysis:
Respondents were invited to participate through an online panel of Canadians previously screened to fulfill the profile defined above. The second phase of the survey resulted in 808 completed surveys, with a participation rate of 13% for the study. The distribution of these interviews reflected the distribution of the Canadian population, 18 years of age and older.
The survey instrument consisted primarily of questions established by the ECCC team, including a variety of questions related to advertising awareness. The survey also tested awareness to three video concepts being considered by ECCC for its Nature Legacy program. Quorus collaborated with ECCC to finalize the survey instrument.
The survey instrument used in the online survey took an average of 10 minutes to complete (the median length was just over 8 minutes) and consisted of mostly closed-ended questions. Respondents had the choice to complete the interview in either English or French.
Quorus was responsible for designing the survey introduction screen and ensuring the translation of the questionnaire from English into French. All translated materials were provided to the Project Authority for review and approval before the launch of the survey.
Finally, all research work was conducted in accordance with the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research – Online Surveys.
Upon approval of the final questionnaires by ECCC, our data collection partner, Leger, programmed the online survey using their online software. Both Leger and Quorus used rigorous programming and field work validation protocols to ensure a consistently accurate process was maintained throughout the data collection phase.
Data collection for the Post-Campaign wave took place from March 26th to March 28th, 2021.
The research process included a pre-test of the questionnaire in both English and French. The pre-test consisted of an additional set of follow-up questions added to the questionnaire to collect feedback and ensure the survey was functioning correctly. Given the continuity to the questionnaire design with other ACET surveys and the pre-campaign pretest, a total of 25 pre-tests were conducted: 21 in English and 4 in French. Since no major issues were detected with the survey design or programming, all results from the pre-test were included in the final data.
Due to the non-probability sampling nature of online panels, a valid margin of error could not be calculated. The data submitted was weighed to replicate actual population distributions by province, age, and gender, within Canada according to the most recent Census data.
This phase of the research consisted of an online survey with Canadians at least 18 years old.
The target population for the online surveys consisted of Canadian households with respondents 18 years of age and older.
Respondents were invited to participate through an online panel of Canadians previously screened to fulfill the profile defined above. The survey resulted in 4,008 completed surveys, with a participation rate of 20% for the study. The distribution of these interviews reflected the distribution of the Canadian population, 18 years of age and older.
Quorus designed the survey based on the simple actions to explore, submitted by the ECCC team. Both client and supplier teams worked together to refine the questions all related to environmental actions taken to reduce the impact on the environment.
The survey instrument used in the online survey took an average of 15 minutes to complete (the median length was just over 11 minutes) and consisted of mostly closed-ended questions. Respondents had the choice to complete the interview in either English or French.
Quorus was responsible for designing the survey introduction screen and ensuring the translation of the questionnaire from English into French. All translated materials were provided to the Project Authority for review and approval before the launch of the survey.
Finally, all research work was conducted in accordance with the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research – Online Surveys.
Upon approval of the final questionnaires by ECCC, our data collection partner, Leger, programmed the online survey using their online software. Both Leger and Quorus used rigorous programming and field work validation protocols to ensure a consistently accurate process was maintained throughout the data collection phase.
Data collection took place from March 10th to March 18th, 2021.
The research process included a pre-test of the questionnaire in both English and French. The pre-test consisted of an additional set of follow-up questions added to the questionnaire to collect feedback and ensure the survey was functioning correctly. A total of 60 pre-tests were conducted: 43 in English and 17 in French. Since no major issues were detected with the survey design or programming, all results from the pre-test were included in the final data.
To develop the “simple action” behaviour segments, we employed a z-score standardization method for the simple action questions (QC1 and QC2) and clustered the data based on a K Means cluster solution. This methodology produced 5 segments. Given that a large majority of Canadians are practicing the simple actions to help reduce their impact on the environment, the segmentation produced three segments that encompass Canadians who model nearly all these behaviours on a regular basis, and two segments who practice some of the simple behaviours to a lesser degree.
Due to the non-probability sampling nature of online panels, a valid margin of error could not be calculated. The data submitted was weighed to replicate actual population distributions by province, age, and gender, within Canada according to the most recent Census data.
| Segments | Total (n=4,008) Unweighted |
Total (n=4,008) Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Region | ||
| British Columbia | 13% | 14% |
| Alberta | 11% | 11% |
| Saskatchewan | 3% | 3% |
| Manitoba | 4% | 4% |
| Ontario | 38% | 38% |
| Quebec | 24% | 23% |
| New Brunswick | 2% | 2% |
| Nova Scotia | 3% | 3% |
| Prince Edward Island | <1% | <1% |
| Newfoundland | 2% | 2% |
| Northwest Territories | - | - |
| Yukon | - | - |
| Nunavut | - | - |
| Age | ||
| Between 18 and 24 | 11% | 11% |
| Between 25 and 34 | 16% | 16% |
| Between 35 and 44 | 17% | 16% |
| Between 45 and 54 | 20% | 18% |
| Between 55 and 64 | 17% | 17% |
| Between 65 and 74 | 10% | 11% |
| 75 and older | 9% | 10% |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 50% | 48% |
| Female | 50% | 51% |
| Gender diverse | <1% | <1% |
| Prefer not to say | <1% | <1% |
| Children at Home | ||
| Children age 12 or younger | 17% | 16% |
| Children 13 to 17 years old | 11% | 10% |
| No children under 18 | 72% | 73% |
| Prefer not to answer | 2% | 2% |
| Language | ||
| English | 78% | 78% |
| French | 22% | 22% |
| Income | ||
| Under $20,000 | 6% | 6% |
| $20,000 to $39,999 | 13% | 14% |
| $40,000 to $59,999 | 15% | 16% |
| $60,000 to $79,999 | 13% | 13% |
| $80,000 to $99,999 | 14% | 14% |
| $100,000 to $149,999 | 17% | 17% |
| $150,000 or more | 10% | 9% |
| Prefer not to answer | 11% | 12% |
| Education | ||
| Grade 8 or less | <1% | <1% |
| Some high school | 3% | 3% |
| High school diploma or equivalent | 19% | 20% |
| Registered Apprenticeship or other trades certificates or diploma | 6% | 6% |
| College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma | 24% | 24% |
| University certificate or diploma below bachelor’s level | 7% | 7% |
| Bachelor’s degree | 27% | 26% |
| Postgraduate degree above bachelor’s level | 13% | 12% |
| Prefer not to answer | 1% | 1% |
| Population | ||
| A city or metropolitan area with a population of at least 100,000 | 58% | 58% |
| A city with a population of 30,000 to 100,000 | 17% | 18% |
| A city or town with a population of 10,000 to 30,000 | 10% | 10% |
| A town or rural area with a population under 10,000 | 15% | 14% |
| Prefer not to answer | 1% | 1% |
| Indigenous Groups | ||
| First Nations, which includes Status and Non–Status | 2% | 2% |
| Métis | 2% | 2% |
| Inuk or Inuit | <1% | <1% |
| None | 97% | 97% |
| Prefer not to answer | 1% | 1% |
| Living Arrangement | ||
| Live in a single family dwelling home I own | 54% | 54% |
| Live in a condo I own | 10% | 10% |
| Rent a condo or apartment | 24% | 24% |
| Rent a single family home | 8% | 8% |
| Live with my family / my parents | 3% | 3% |
| Other (specify) | 1% | 1% |
Recruitment Screener
Environment and Climate Change Canada 2020
Questionnaire #______________
NOTE: ALL SESSION TIMES ARE EASTERN STANDARD TIME 1. Ontario/Manitoba – Youth, 18-35 [ONLINE, ENGLISH] 2. Quebec/New Brunswick – Youth, 18-35 / Families [ONLINE, FRENCH] 3. British Columbia/Alberta – Families [ONLINE, ENGLISH] |
Recruit: 10 for 8 to show per group Honorarium: $80 |
Respondent’s name: Respondent’s phone #: (home) Respondent’s phone #: (work) Respondent’s fax #: sent? or Respondent’s e-mail : sent? Sample source (circle): panel random client referral |
Interviewer: Date: Validated: Quality Central: On List: On Quotas: |
For regional breakdowns, aim for about 50/50.
Definitions of each segment:
Hello/Bonjour, my name is __________. Would you prefer to continue in English or French? / Préférez-vous continuer en anglais ou en français?
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: FOR ENGLISH GROUPS, IF PARTICIPANT WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE IN FRENCH, PLEASE RESPOND WITH, "Malheureusement, nous recherchons des gens qui parlent anglais pour participer à ces groupes de discussion. Nous vous remercions de votre intérêt." FOR FRENCH GROUP, IF PARTICIPANT WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE IN ENGLISH, PLEASE RESPOND WITH, “Unfortunately, we are looking for people who speak French to participate in this discussion group. We thank you for your interest.”]
I'm calling from Quorus Consulting Group, a national public opinion research firm. We’re organizing a series of online discussion groups on behalf of the Government of Canada to discuss new programs and initiatives that are being considered.
Participation is completely voluntary. We are interested in your opinions. No attempt will be made to sell you anything or change your point of view. The format is a group discussion held using an online web conferencing platform similar to Zoom, led by a research professional with about eight to ten other participants invited the same way you are being invited. The use of a computer or a tablet (not a smartphone) in a quiet room is necessary for participation, as the moderator will be gauging reactions to concepts and materials. All opinions will remain anonymous and will be used for research purposes only in accordance with laws designed to protect your privacy.
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF ASKED ABOUT PRIVACY LAWS, SAY: “The information collected through the research is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act, legislation of the Government of Canada, and to the provisions of relevant provincial privacy legislation.”]
EXPLAIN FOCUS GROUPS.About ten people like you will be taking part, all of them randomly recruited just like you. For their time, participants will receive an honorarium of $80.00. But before we invite you to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix and variety of people. May I ask you a few questions?
Yes CONTINUE
No THANK AND TERMINATE
Q1) Do you or any member of your household or immediate family, work in any of the following fields? READ LIST:
| YES | NO | |
|---|---|---|
| Market Research or Marketing | 1 | 2 |
| Public Relations or Media (TV, Print) | 1 | 2 |
| Advertising and communications | 1 | 2 |
| A political party | 1 | 2 |
| A federal or provincial government department or agency | 1 | 2 |
IF “YES” TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, THANK AND TERMINATE
ASK ALL
Q2) Could you please tell me what age category you fall in to? Are you...
| Under 18 | 0 | THANK AND TERMINATE |
| 18-24 years | 1 | ENSURE GOOD MIX PER GROUP |
| 25-34 years | 2 | |
| 35-44 years | 3 | |
| 45-54 years | 4 | |
| 55-64 years | 5 | |
| 65+ years | 6 | |
| Refuse | 9 | THANK AND TERMINATE |
SEGMENTATION:
OTHERWISE THANK AND TERMINATE
Q4) Could you please tell me what is the last level of education that you have completed?
| Some high school | 1 | ENSURE GOOD MIX PER GROUP |
| Completed high school | 2 | |
| Some College/University | 3 | |
| Completed College/University | 4 | |
| RF/DK | 9 |
Q5) To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements.
| Strongly agree | 1 |
| Somewhat agree | 2 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 3 |
| Somewhat disagree | 4 |
| Strongly disagree | 5 |
[CONSIDER THOSE WHO ANSWER “STRONGLY AGREE” OR “SOMEWHAT AGREE” TO AT LEAST TWO OF THE STATEMENTS AS A NATURE ENTHUSIAST – RECRUIT 7 PER GROUP]
Q6) DO NOT ASK – NOTE GENDER
| Male | 1 | ENSURE 50-50 SPLIT |
| Female | 2 |
Q7) Do you have access to a stable internet connection, capable of sustaining a 2 hour-long online video conference?
| Yes | 1 | |
| No | 2 | THANK & TERMINATE |
Q8) Are you an Indigenous person, that is, First Nations, Métis or Inuk (Inuit)? First Nations includes Status and Non–Status Indians.
Yes……1
No……2
RANDOMLY RECRUIT ACROSS ALL SESSIONS
Q9) If you won a million dollars what would be the first two things you would do with the money? (MUST HAVE TWO RESPONSES TO ACCEPT. TERMINATE IF FLIPPANT, COMBATIVE OR EXHIBITS DIFFICULTY IN RESPONDING)
Q10) Have you ever attended a group discussion or an interview which was arranged in advance and for which you received a sum of money for your participation?
Yes……1
MAX. 5 PER GROUP
No……2
GO TO INVITATION
Q11) How long ago was it?
TERMINATE IF IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS
Q12) How many consumer discussion groups have you attended in the past 5 years?
Fewer than 5
5 or more
TERMINATE
Q13) Participants in group discussions are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts, how comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in an online group discussion with others your age? Are you... READ OPTIONS
Very comfortable……1
MIN 5 PER GROUP
Fairly comfortable……2
Not very comfortable……3
THANK & TERMINATE
Very uncomfortable……4
THANK & TERMINATE
Q14) Participants will be asked to provide their answers through an online web conferencing platform using a computer or a tablet (not a smartphone) in a quiet room. It is necessary for participation, as the moderator will be gauging reactions to concepts and materials. Is there any reason why you could not participate? (No access to computer or tablet, internet, etc.) If you need glasses to read or a device for hearing, please remember to wear them.
Yes……1
THANK & TERMINATE
No……2
TERMINATE IF RESPONDENT OFFERS ANY REASON SUCH AS DIFFICULTIES PARTICIPATING IN AN ONLINE WEB CONFERENCE, A SIGHT OR HEARING PROBLEM, A WRITTEN OR VERBAL LANGUAGE PROBLEM, A CONCERN WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY.
Invitation
Thank you. We would like to invite you to attend one of the online discussion groups, which will be led by a researcher from the national public opinion research firm, Quorus Consulting Group. The group will take place on [DAY OF WEEK], [DATE], at [TIME] and it will last two hours. Following your participation, you will receive $80 to thank you for your time.
Would you be willing to attend?
Yes……1
CONTINUE
No……2
THANK AND TERMINATE
PRIVACY QUESTIONS
1. The discussion group will be video-recorded. These recordings are used to help with analyzing the findings and writing the report. The results from the discussions will be grouped together in the research report, which means that individuals will not be identified in anyway. Neither your name nor your specific comments will appear in the research report. Is this acceptable?
Yes……1
No……2
THANK AND TERMINATE
2. There may be some people from Environment and Climate Change Canada involved in this project observing the session. They will not take part in the discussion and they will not know your name. Is this acceptable?
Yes……1
No……2
THANK AND TERMINATE
1. ONTARIO / MANITOBA ONLINE LINK: |
2. QUEBEC / NEW BRUNSWICK ONLINE LINK: |
3. BRITISH COLUMBIA / ALBERTA ONLINE LINK: |
To conduct the session, we will be using a screen-sharing application called Zoom. We will need to send you by email the instructions to connect. The use of a computer or tablet (not a smartphone) in a quiet room is necessary since the moderator will want to show material to participants to get their reactions – that will be an important part of the discussion. If you use glasses to read or a device for hearing, please wear them.
We recommend that you click on the link we will send you a few days prior to your session to make sure you can access the online meeting that has been setup and repeat these steps at least 10 to 15 minutes prior to your session.
So that we can contact you to remind you about the focus group or in case there are any changes, can you please confirm your name and contact information for me? [READ INFO AND CHANGE AS NECESSARY.]
First name:
Last Name:
Email:
Day time phone number:
Night time phone number:
If the respondent refuses to give his/her first or last name or phone number please assure them that this information will be kept strictly confidential in accordance with the privacy law and that it is used strictly to contact them to confirm their attendance and to inform them of any changes to the focus group. If they still refuse THANK & TERMINATE.
Moderation Guide
ECCC
Nature Legacy 2020-21 Creative Testing
Thank you all for joining the webconference!
Let’s go around – please tell us your name and a little bit about yourself, such as where you live, who lives with you, what you do for a living, etc.
Tonight we are going to be sharing with you some advertisement concepts that have been developed to inform Canadians of some new initiatives being rolled out. These are materials that will be used for a national advertising campaign from Environment and Climate Change Canada.
I want to emphasize that these concepts are drafts at this stage and have not been finalized.
I am going to be sharing with you the materials that have been developed so far. At each stage, there are several materials in different formats (online/social media, video), and I will be asking you to comment on what you think about each of these items at the same time. When we look at these, I would like to focus on both the message and content of the ad and the overall presentation (the creative work and the look).
We will be looking at three advertising campaign concepts, and I will ask you the same questions for each of the three campaigns.
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY:
Concept A = To protect our wildlife
Concept B = To support indigenous leadership
Concept C = We need to change
Randomize concepts for each group as follows:
Session 1: A, B, C
Session 2: B, C, A
Session 3: C, A, B
This is the first advertising campaign concept. The materials we are going to be looking at include [MODERATOR WILL SHOW ALL MATERIALS]:
ALL CREATIVE FORMATS FROM EACH OF THE CONCEPTS ARE SHOWN ONE AT A TIME, ONE AFTER ANOTHER.
I will ask you to start by answering a few questions I will show you on the screen, using the pen and paper we asked to have handy for the session, but don’t say your responses out loud yet, we will discuss right after you write down your answers. There is no need to spend more than 5 minutes on this, just jot down your first impressions. SHOW QUESTIONS ON SCREEN.
DISCUSS ANSWERS IN EXERCISE.
Who do you feel this advertising campaign is targeting?
Does it get your attention? Is it memorable? Why or why not?
Is there any information that you want/need to know that is not included in these ads? What is that? Why is this important to include?
What, if anything, are these ads trying to get you to do? What is the “call to action?” What, if anything, would you do if you came across these ads?
Would this advertising campaign make you want to:
Specific to the video ad:
Specific to the Social Media ads - what if you had seen this online when on Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram or Twitter? Would you click on the ad to find out more?
How could this advertising campaign be improved?
Which images in the concepts, if any, are the most memorable/did you like the best?
Which images in the concepts, if any, are the least memorable/did you like the least?
Which words or phrases in the concepts, if any, are the most memorable/did you like the best?
Which words or phrases in the concepts, if any, are the least memorable/did you like the least?
CONCEPT B ONLY:
Any other comments?
MODERATOR TO REPEAT THE SAME SEQUENCE OF QUESTIONS FOR EACH OF THE THREE CONCEPTS
This is the second/third concept for the advertising campaign. We will be looking at the same type of materials but with a different concept. Therefore, again, we have Social media ads, a general website banner ad, a 30-sec. video and a 15-sec. video.
We have seen and discussed three concepts for the advertising campaign. I would like to show you the three 30-second videos again for a final rating. SHOW ALL 30-SECOND VIDEOS IN THE SAME ORDER AS SHOWN EARLIER.
Are any of these ads difficult to understand? If so, which one and in which way?
Every day we are faced with a barrage of information and ads – which of these three ads stands out the most in your opinion? Enter your vote in the chat box.
If you could only choose one advertising campaign, which one is most effective in terms of encouraging you to take part in activities to protect our land, oceans and wildlife? Why would you say that?
Does one move you to action more than the other?
Do you have any other feedback on these taglines?
Does anyone have any additional thoughts on what you have seen tonight?
ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
NATURE LEGACY PRE-CAMPAIGN
CONCEPT EVALUATION SURVEY
To be conducted before the ads are run in the media.
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for participating in this survey. Quorus Consulting Group, a Canadian market research firm, is conducting this survey on behalf of the Government of Canada. The survey should take you about 10 minutes to complete.
Your participation is voluntary and completely confidential. All your answers will remain anonymous. The information provided will be managed according to the requirements of the Privacy Act. The final report on the survey will be available through Library and Archives Canada.
Vous pouvez également répondre au sondage en français.
START SURVEY
Click here if you wish to verify the authenticity of this survey. To view our privacy policy, click here.
If you require any technical assistance, please contact XXX.
a) Does anyone in your household work for any of the following organizations? Select all that apply.
IF “NONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS” CONTINUE, OTHERWISE THANK AND TERMINATE.
b) What is your gender?
c) In what year were you born?
YYYY
ADMISSIBLE RANGE 1900-2002
IF > 2002, THANK AND TERMINATE
ASK D IF QUESTION C IS LEFT BLANK
d) In which of the following age categories do you belong?
SELECT ONE ONLY
IF “LESS THAN 18 YEARS OLD” OR “BLANK”, THANK AND TERMINATE
e) In which province or territory do you live?
SELECT ONE ONLY
IF NO PROVINCE OR TERRITORY IS SELECTED, THANK AND TERMINATE
CAMPAIGN SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
ASK ALL RESPONDENTS
Q1:
Over the past three weeks, have you seen, read or heard any advertising from the Government of Canada?
Q2:
Think about the most recent ad from the Government of Canada that comes to mind. Where have you seen, read or heard this ad?
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
Q3:
What do you remember about this ad?
Q4:
How did you know that it was an ad from the Government of Canada?
T1A:
Over the past few months, have you seen, read or heard any Government of Canada advertising about conserving and protecting Canada’s nature?
T1B:
Where have you seen, read or heard Government of Canada advertisements about conserving and protecting Canada’s nature? Select all that apply.
T1C:
What do you remember about this ad?
ASK ALL RESPONDENTS
T1D:
In your view, what are the three most important environmental issues facing Canada today? That is, the top environmental issues you feel should receive the greatest attention from your local leaders.
SELECT THREE ONLY
T1E. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: the Government of Canada is taking an active role in the conservation and protection of Canada’s natural environment.
1 – Strongly disagree
5 - Strongly agree
T1F. As part of Canada’s Nature Legacy program, Canada has committed to protect 25% of Canada’s lands and oceans by 2025. Have you heard about this?
T1G.Are you aware of Canada’s Nature Legacy funding programs to protect Canada’s ecosystems, landscapes and biodiversity, including species at risk?
T1H.To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? RANDOMIZE
| Strongly disagree |
Strongly agree |
||||
| a) If you had the opportunity, you would spend more time outside in nature. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| b) When you have spare time or when you are on vacation, you make an effort to connect with nature. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| c) Connecting with nature is an important part of your lifestyle. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
T1I. How would you rate your knowledge of nature conservation and protection activities?
1 – Not at all knowledgeable
5 - Very knowledgeable
T1J. How would you rate your level of interest in nature conservation and protection activities?
1 - Not at all interested
5 - Very interested
T1K. How would you rate your level of awareness of Government of Canada nature conservation and protection activities?
1 – Not at all aware
5 - Very aware
T1L:
We will now show you 3 different video ads. These ads will be displayed in social media and before YouTube videos.
[RANDOMIZE CAMPAIGNS]
CAMPAIGN A
[INSERT MEDIA FOR CAMPAIGN A]
[CLICK TO GO TO THE NEXT PAGE]
T1MA1:
To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements:
| RANDOMIZE STATEMENTS | Strongly disagree |
Strongly agree |
|||
| When these ads are played/shown among other unrelated ads, they will stand out | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| These ads inspire me to take action in some way to protect Canada’s land, oceans and wildlife | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| These ads are easy to understand | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
T1MA2:
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this campaign.
| RANDOMIZE STATEMENTS | 1 Strongly disagree |
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Strongly agree |
| These ads stand out from other Government of Canada ads in a good way | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads are relevant to me | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads talk about an important topic | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads provide new information | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads clearly convey that the Government of Canada is taking an active role in the conservation and protection of Canada’s natural environment | o | o | o | o | o |
CAMPAIGN B
[INSERT MEDIA FOR CAMPAIGN B]
[CLICK TO GO TO THE NEXT PAGE]
T1MB1:
To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements:
| RANDOMIZE STATEMENTS | Strongly disagree |
Strongly agree |
|||
| When these ads are played/shown among other unrelated ads, they will stand out | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| These ads inspire me to take action in some way to protect Canada’s land, oceans and wildlife | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| These ads are easy to understand | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
T1MB2:
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this campaign.
| RANDOMIZE STATEMENTS | 1 Strongly disagree |
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Strongly agree |
| These ads stand out from other Government of Canada ads in a good way | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads are relevant to me | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads talk about an important topic | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads provide new information | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads clearly convey that the Government of Canada is taking an active role in the conservation and protection of Canada’s natural environment | o | o | o | o | o |
CAMPAIGN C
[INSERT MEDIA FOR CAMPAIGN C]
[CLICK TO GO TO THE NEXT PAGE]
T1MC1:
To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements:
| RANDOMIZE STATEMENTS | Strongly disagree |
Strongly agree |
|||
| When these ads are played/shown among other unrelated ads, they will stand out | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| These ads inspire me to take action in some way to protect Canada’s land, oceans and wildlife | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| These ads are easy to understand | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
T1MC2:
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this campaign.
| RANDOMIZE STATEMENTS | 1 Strongly disagree |
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Strongly agree |
| These ads stand out from other Government of Canada ads in a good way | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads are relevant to me | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads talk about an important topic | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads provide new information | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads clearly convey that the Government of Canada is taking an active role in the conservation and protection of Canada’s natural environment | o | o | o | o | o |
T1N. Of the three campaigns, which campaign caught your attention the most? Rank your responses in order.
T1O:
What do you think is the main point these ads are trying to get across?
T1P. After watching these campaigns and their ads, how likely would you be to take part in any of the following activities? RANDOMIZE
| Unlikely | Very Likely | ||||
| a) Visit a Government of Canada website to learn more about how you can help to conserve and protect nature | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| b) Participate in conservation activities | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| c) Spend time in a National Wildlife area | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| d) Visit a National Park | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| e) Make conserving and protecting nature a personal priority | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| f) Volunteer with a nature conservation or protection organization | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| g) Share online a personal moment of you experiencing nature | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| h) Listen to a podcast, watch a documentary, or educational videos online about the environment | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
T1Q.Which social media hashtag is better suited for all these ads? Please select one only.
T1R.Which of the following calls to action are better suited for these ads? Please select one only.
PRETEST QUESTIONS [TO BE REMOVED AFTER COMPLETING PRETEST]:
P1. Overall, how would you rate the extent to which the questions in this survey were easy to understand? Please use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means “very difficult”, and 10 means “very easy”.
P2. [IF P1 IS LESS THAN 8] Please tell us why you gave this rating to the survey. What specific words or questions did you find difficult to understand?
P3. Approximately, how long did it take you to complete the survey?
______ minutes
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
D1:
Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status? Are you…
SELECT ONE ONLY
D2:
What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
SELECT ONE ONLY
D3:
Are there any children under the age of 18 currently living in your household?
D4:
Which of the following categories best describes your total annual household income, including income from all household members, before taxes are deducted?
SELECT ONE ONLY
D5:
Where were you born?
D6:
Please indicate whether you belong to any of the following indigenous groups:
Yes 1
No 2
D7: [IF YES TO ANY IN PREVIOUS QUESTION, ASK:]
Do you live…
On Reserve In a Metis settlement In an Inuit nunangat None of the above (please describe) |
1 2 3 4 |
D8:
Do you identify as a person with a disability? A person with a disability is a person who has a long-term or recurring impairment such as vision, hearing, mobility, flexibility, dexterity, pain, learning, developmental, memory or mental health-related impairments which limits their daily activities inside or outside the home such as at school, work, or in the community in general.
| Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 |
That concludes the survey. This survey was conducted on behalf of Environment and Climate Change Canada. In the coming months the report will be available from Library and Archives Canada. We thank you very much for taking the time to answer this survey, it is greatly appreciated.
NATURE LEGACY #3 ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN EVALUATION TOOL
POST-CAMPAIGN SURVEY
To be conducted after the ads are run in the media.
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for participating in this survey. Quorus Consulting Group, a Canadian market research firm, is conducting this survey on behalf of the Government of Canada. The survey should take you about 10 minutes to complete.
Your participation is voluntary and completely confidential. All your answers will remain anonymous. The information provided will be managed according to the requirements of the Privacy Act. The final report on the survey will be available through Library and Archives Canada.
Vous pouvez également répondre au sondage en français.
START SURVEY
If you wish to verify the authenticity of this survey, or to view our privacy policy, go to the website below: http://quorusconsulting.com/index.php/en/privacy-policy.
If you require any technical assistance, please contact legerweb@legerweb.com.
f) Does anyone in your household work for any of the following organizations? Select all that apply.
IF “NONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS” CONTINUE, OTHERWISE THANK AND TERMINATE.
g) What is your gender?
h) In what year were you born?
YYYY
ADMISSIBLE RANGE 1900-2003
IF > 2002, THANK AND TERMINATE
ASK D IF QUESTION C IS LEFT BLANK
i) In which of the following age categories do you belong?
SELECT ONE ONLY
IF “LESS THAN 18 YEARS OLD” OR “BLANK”, THANK AND TERMINATE
j) In which province or territory do you live?
SELECT ONE ONLY
IF NO PROVINCE OR TERRITORY IS SELECTED, THANK AND TERMINATE
CORE QUESTIONS
ASK ALL RESPONDENTS
Q1:
Over the past three weeks, have you seen, read or heard any advertising from the Government of Canada?
Q2:
Think about the most recent ad from the Government of Canada that comes to mind. Where have you seen, read or heard this ad?
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
Q3:
What do you remember about this ad?
Q4:
How did you know that it was an ad from the Government of Canada?
CAMPAIGN SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
T1A:
Over the past few months, have you seen, read or heard any Government of Canada advertising about conserving and protecting Canada’s nature?
T1B:
Where have you seen, read or heard Government of Canada advertisements about conserving and protecting Canada’s nature? Select all that apply.
T1C:
What do you remember about this ad?
ASK ALL RESPONDENTS
T1D:
In your view, what are the three most important environmental issues facing Canada today? That is, the top environmental issues you feel should receive the greatest attention from your local leaders.
SELECT THREE ONLY
T1E. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: the Government of Canada is taking an active role in the conservation and protection of Canada’s natural environment.
1 – Strongly disagree
5 - Strongly agree
T1F. As part of Canada’s Nature Legacy program, Canada has committed to protect 25% of Canada’s lands and oceans by 2025. Have you heard about this?
T1G. Are you aware of Canada’s Nature Legacy funding programs to protect Canada’s ecosystems, landscapes and biodiversity, including species at risk?
T1H.To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? RANDOMIZE
| Strongly disagree |
Strongly agree |
||||
| a) If you had the opportunity, you would spend more time outside in nature. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| b) When you have spare time or when you are on vacation, you make an effort to connect with nature. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| c) Connecting with nature is an important part of your lifestyle. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
T1I. How would you rate your knowledge of nature conservation and protection activities?
1 - Not at all knowledgeable
5 - Very knowledgeable
T1J. How would you rate your level of interest in nature conservation and protection activities?
1 - Not at all interested
5 - Very interested
T1K. How would you rate your level of awareness of Government of Canada nature conservation and protection activities?
1 - Not at all aware
5 - Very aware
T1L:
Here are some ads that have recently been broadcast on various media. Click here to watch.
[INSERT VIDEO, PRINT AND RADIO ADS]
[CLICK TO GO TO THE NEXT PAGE]
Over the past few months, have you seen, read or heard any of these ads?
T1M:
Where have you seen, read or heard these ads?
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
T1N:
What do you think is the main point these ads are trying to get across?
T1O:
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about these ads?
RANDOMIZE STATEMENTS
| 1 Strongly Disagree |
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Strongly Agree |
|
| These ads catch my attention | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads are relevant to me | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads are difficult to follow | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads do not favour one political party over another | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads talk about an important topic | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads provide new information | o | o | o | o | o |
| These ads clearly convey that the Government of Canada is committed to protecting Canada's lands and oceans. | o | o | o | o | o |
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
D1:
Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status? Are you…
SELECT ONE ONLY
D2:
What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
SELECT ONE ONLY
D3:
Are there any children under the age of 16 currently living in your household?
D4:
Which of the following categories best describes your total annual household income, including income from all household members, before taxes are deducted?
SELECT ONE ONLY
D5:
Where were you born?
D6:
Please indicate whether you belong to any of the following indigenous groups:
| Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 |
D7: [IF YES TO ANY IN PREVIOUS QUESTION, ASK:]
Do you live…
On reserve In a Metis settlement In an Inuit nunangat None of the above (please describe) |
1 2 3 4 |
D8:
Do you identify as a person with a disability? A person with a disability is a person who has a long-term or recurring impairment such as vision, hearing, mobility, flexibility, dexterity, pain, learning, developmental, memory or mental health-related impairments which limits their daily activities inside or outside the home such as at school, work, or in the community in general.
| Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 |
That concludes the survey. This survey was conducted on behalf of Environment and Climate Change Canada. In the coming months the report will be available from Library and Archives Canada. We thank you very much for taking the time to answer this survey, it is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for participating in this survey. Quorus Consulting Group, a Canadian market research firm, is conducting this survey on behalf of the Government of Canada. The survey will ask you questions regarding various issues and challenges facing Canada these days and your feedback is very important. The survey should take you about 10 minutes to complete. The survey is not a test of your knowledge, we simply seek your candid opinions.
Your participation is voluntary and completely confidential. All your answers will remain anonymous. The information provided will be managed according to the requirements of the Privacy Act. The final report on the survey will be available through Library and Archives Canada.
Vous pouvez également répondre au sondage en français.
PROV. Which province or territory do you live in?
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 1 |
| Nova Scotia | 2 |
| Prince Edward Island | 3 |
| New Brunswick | 4 |
| Quebec | 5 |
| Ontario | 6 |
| Manitoba | 7 |
| Saskatchewan | 8 |
| Alberta | 9 |
| British Columbia | 10 |
| Yukon | 11 |
| Nunavut | 12 |
| Northwest Territories | 13 |
| Don’t know/Prefer not to answer | 99 |
AGE. Please indicate in which of the following age categories you belong?
| 18 - 24 | 1 |
| 25 - 34 | 2 |
| 35 - 44 | 3 |
| 45 - 54 | 4 |
| 55 - 64 | 5 |
| 65 - 74 | 6 |
| 75 or older | 7 |
| Prefer not to answer | 9 |
GENDER. What is your gender?
| Male gender | 1 |
| Female gender | 2 |
| Gender diverse | 3 |
| Prefer not to answer | 9 |
HOME OWNERSHIP. What is your current living arrangement?
A. ATTITUDES TOWARDS ENVIRONMENT[1]
1. What do you think are the three most important environmental issues facing Canada right now? [RANDOMIZE]
2. Ten years from now, do you think the environment in Canada as a whole will be in better shape than it is today, in worse shape than it is today or about the same?
3. Using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that you strongly disagree and 7 means that you strongly agree, please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: [RANDOMIZE]
4. Using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means they are doing a very bad job and 7 means they are doing a very good job, please tell me how good a job you think the Government of Canada is doing in addressing the following priorities? [RANDOMIZE]
5. Please state your level of awareness regarding the following Government of Canada environmental issues?
Scale
Very aware
Somewhat aware
Not too aware
Not at all familiar
Don’t know
B. ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOURS
1. Would you personally say you are doing enough or not doing enough to reduce your impact on the environment?
2. Do you feel you know what you can do on a personal level to reduce your impact on the environment?
3. Over the past few years, have you made any changes regarding the products and services you buy or use, specifically to reduce your impact on the environment?
C. SIMPLE ACTIONS
1. Thinking about the past year, how often have you done the following actions to help reduce your impact on the environment? [ROTATE BLOCKS AND RANDOMIZE WITHIN BLOCK]
BLOCK ONE – AT HOME RECYCLE REUSE
BLOCK TWO – FOOD AND GARDENING
BLOCK THREE – EFFICIENCY AND TRANSPORTATION
Scale
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Not applicable
2. And which of these other actions to reduce your impact on the environment have you taken? (RANDOMIZE)
Scale
I have done this in the past year
I have done this but not in the past year
I have not done this
I plan to do this in the future
Not applicable
3. What is preventing you from doing more of the previously listed actions to reduce your impact on the environment? Select all that apply.
4. Looking again at the list of environmental actions an individual can take, please select the actions that, in your opinion, would have the most positive environmental impact. Select up to 5 responses. [RANDOMIZE]
[For home owners only. Exclude those who have done energy efficient renovations at QC2]
5. How likely are you to upgrade the energy efficiency of your home over the next five years?
[For home owners only. Exclude those who have done energy efficient renovations at QC2]
6. How likely do you think you would be to upgrade the energy efficiency of your home if you qualified for and could use a grant of up to $5,000?
[For home owners only.]
7. With consideration to the COVID-19 pandemic, how comfortable would you feel with providing an energy advisor access to your home in order to conduct an energy audit?
D. Media
1. In the past month, did you use any of the following social networking sites? Select all that apply.
2. What is your primary source for news?
E. Demographics
The last few questions are strictly for statistical purposes. All of your answers are completely confidential.
1. Do you currently live in…
| A city or metropolitan area with a population of at least 100,000 | 1 |
| A city with a population of 30,000 to 100,000 | 2 |
| A city or town with a population of 10,000 to 30,000 | 3 |
| A town or rural area with a population under 10,000 | 4 |
| Prefer not to answer | 9 |
2. Please indicate whether you belong to any of the following indigenous groups:
| Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 |
| Prefer not to answer | 9 |
3. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed? Select one only.
| Grade 8 or less | 1 |
| Some high school | 2 |
| High school diploma or equivalent | 3 |
| Registered Apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma | 4 |
| College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma | 5 |
| University certificate or diploma below bachelor's level | 6 |
| Bachelor's degree | 7 |
| Postgraduate degree above bachelor's level | 8 |
| Prefer not to answer | 9 |
4. Please specify the number of children living at home with you in the following age categories:
| # of children age 12 or younger | ______ |
| # of children 13 to 17 years old | ______ |
| I do not have children under 18 living with me | 88 |
| Prefer not to answer | 99 |
5. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income in 2020? That is, the total of all persons in your household combined, before taxes.
| Under $20,000 | 1 |
| $20,000 to $39,999 | 2 |
| $40,000 to $59,999 | 3 |
| $60,000 to $79,999 | 4 |
| $80,000 to $99,999 | 5 |
| $100,000 to $149,999 | 6 |
| $150,000 or more | 7 |
| Prefer not to answer | 9 |
PRETEST QUESTIONS [TO BE REMOVED AFTER COMPLETING PRETEST]:
The survey you just finished is one of the very first we have done for this project, please answer the following few questions to help us improve the survey.
P1. Overall, how would you rate the extent to which the questions in this survey were easy to understand? Please use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means “very difficult”, and 10 means “very easy”.
| Very difficult | Very Easy | |||||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
P2. [IF P1 IS LESS THAN 8] Please tell us why you gave this rating to the survey. What specific questions or words did you find difficult to understand?
P3. Approximately how long did it take you to complete the survey?
______ minutes
This concludes the survey. Your answers have been submitted. Thank you for your participation!
[1] Section titles are for internal use only.