By Moises Reyes
Floridians believe politicians have too much influence in policy impacting endangered species, while private citizens don’t have enough, according to new research from the UF/IFAS Center for Public Issues Education.
The report’s findings indicate 38 percent of respondents believed political leaders had too much influence in endangered species policy on the national scale, while 60 percent believed citizens have too little influence. About half stated federal government agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture or Fish and Wildlife Service, had an appropriate amount.
At the state level, 57 percent of respondents felt Florida citizens have too little influence, while 39 percent believe the state’s political leaders have too much. The majority of respondents in the survey also stated they believe state government agencies have about the right amount of influence.
According to Tracy Irani, director of the PIE Center, this distinction stems from the fact that government agencies are the institutions enforcing the rules.
“It’s not surprising that the regulatory agencies are viewed as having just about the right amount of influence because the regulatory agencies are the ones who administrate the Endangered Species Act, the federal legislation that protects endangered species,” she said. “They’re the ones who are expected to be the experts.”
Nearly 500 Florida residents were polled online for their views on endangered species in the third public opinion survey by the PIE Center. Previous surveys have analyzed Floridians’ reactions to issues related to water and immigration reform in the state.
The center’s most recent study aims to explore what Floridians think about the importance of endangered species, as well as the rights, responsibilities, attitudes and behaviors associated with protecting endangered species and the environment.
Concerning the findings over how respondents feel about the role of political leaders in policy development, Irani said such findings are common in public issues research and, in the case of endangered species, may reflect differing political views about the existing legislation.
“Policymakers and legislators have been known to want to make changes to the Endangered Species Act, and our findings show that, if anything, people either want it unchanged or even strengthened,” she said.
According to the report, 66 percent of respondents said they want the law strengthened and 22 percent want it unchanged, while only 5 percent said they want the law weakened or revoked.
Irani said citizens’ perceived limited personal impact is also common in similar research.
“In general with public policy, you find that individual citizens may feel that their efforts are not really going to be significant enough in the big picture,” she said. “That creates a lot of challenges for people doing environmental work, to try to educate or inform and get people to behave in certain ways.”
While respondents perceived a gap in their ability to influence policy impacting endangered species, as compared to politicians and governmental agencies, they also stated that no single individual or institution solely bears responsibility. According to the results, respondents believed everyone is about equally responsible for what happens to endangered species. By only a three-point margin, respondents believed state governments should be most responsible, while businesses, landowners and private citizens were viewed as slightly less responsible.
“I think it’s a little bit surprising that individuals rated their level of responsibility at almost the same level as governmental authorities,” Irani said. “I thought it was very interesting that people saw the responsibility in their own individual actions. The fact that they, themselves, are individually responsible and at a fairly high degree, that was surprising.”
