Nature documentaries as catalysts for change: Mapping out the ‘Blackfish Effect’

1. It is essential for us to understand what drives human behaviour if we want to tackle anthropogenic damage to the environment. Popular media can play an important role in shaping public attitudes, behaviours and norms towards wildlife, and documentaries in particular have become an increasingly prominent tool for social change. There is, however, a need for robust impact evaluation both in documentary- making and in conservation, to refine future interventions. The its SeaWorld suffered financial and the company underwent structural changes, including a cessation of its orca breeding programme. These impacts have often been to the Blackfish but little evidence has been provided to justify these claims. We combined an analysis of stock market data and semi- structured interviews with 26 key informants to build an in- depth contribution


| INTRODUC TI ON
Environmental researchers increasingly recognise the pressing need to understand the cognitive, social and motivational processes that influence human behaviours contributing to issues such as climate change or the illegal wildlife trade, to achieve effective behaviour change (Reddy et al., 2017;Schultz, 2014). As empathetic perspectives towards the environment can contribute to the adoption of pro-environmental behaviours, it is essential for us to understand what shapes public perceptions of nature (Berenguer, 2007;Wright et al., 2015).
Popular media plays an important role in shaping public understanding and social norms. It can set public agendas and promote pro-environmental behaviours (Entman, 1993;Östman, 2014). Documentaries in particular have become an increasingly effective tool for social change (Barrett & Leddy, 2008;Whiteman, 2004).
Nature documentaries have the potential to shape public perceptions of the environment (Jones et al., 2019;Litchfield, 2013). They create an emotional bond with viewers as an initial step to prompt environmentally friendly behaviours and can improve knowledge (Barbas et al., 2009;Berenguer, 2007;Thomas-Walters et al., 2019).
Watching nature documentaries is positively correlated to the performance of pro-environmental behaviours, compared to other entertainment-related programmes, and may increase donations to environmental protection organisations (Arendt & Matthes, 2016).
There is, however, a need for greater evidence-based evaluation both in documentary-making and in conservation (Baylis et al., 2016;Sutherland et al., 2004;Whiteman, 2004). The lack of robust impact evaluation limits the accountability of a documentary, as well as the ability of practitioners-be it film-makers or conservationists-to learn from past works (Veríssimo et al., 2017). While calls for evaluation in the conservation field often focus on quantitative evaluation methods, documentaries have the potential to inspire change at the societal level (Barrett & Leddy, 2008;Baylis et al., 2016;Margoluis et al., 2009). As such, a coalition model of evaluation may be more suitable, which considers the full range of impacts on producers, activists and decision-makers, in addition to the typical focus on individual citizens (Whiteman, 2004).

| Blackfish documentary
The 2013 nature documentary Blackfish is considered to be a key example demonstrating the ability of nature documentaries to effect change (Sperb, 2016). It narrates the story of Tilikum, a performing orca at SeaWorld, who killed several people while in captivity.
Blackfish highlights the negative impacts of captivity on orcas, including a reduction in life spans, the collapse of male orcas' dorsal fins, aggression, toothaches and the separation of calves from their mothers (Karenina et al., 2013). The documentary also stresses the high level of risk posed by human-orca interactions.
Footage of orca shows illustrate that the spectacle is intended as entertaining both for the public-by footages of cheering audiences-and the orcas themselves-as a trainer says 'Namu doesn't do it because she has to, but because she really wants to' (Cowperthwaite, 2013). In contrast, the footage of wild whale populations presents nature as pristine (Mitman, 1999). This dichotomy of nature as commodity versus nature as 'Edenic' is intended to make the viewer reject captivity (Cronon, 1996;Snow et al., 1986).
Anthropomorphism in Blackfish serves to create an emotional bond with the viewer, which is necessary for the audience to support the documentary's activist message against captivity (Hastings, 1996;Sperb, 2016). Tilikum is both the protagonist and antagonist of the documentary, presented as a sympathetic character despite having been involved in three human fatalities (Sperb, 2016).
Tilikum's capture from the wild and his confinement reinforce the metaphor of Tilikum as a prisoner (Cowperthwaite, 2013;Sperb, 2016). He suffers from a 'psychosis', suggesting his aggressive behaviours are symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder induced by life in captivity, which contradicts with SeaWorld's narrative that orcas cooperate willingly during each show Cowperthwaite, 2013).
This portrayal of Tilikum as a victim clashes with the detailed account of Dawn's attack-Blackfish's opening scene is a transcription of the emergency call given by SeaWorld, reminding the viewer of the nature of orcas as apex predator .
Blackfish makes the case that one reason orca captivity should cease is because orcas are too dangerous to be kept under control.

| The Blackfish crisis
Blackfish premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on 19 January 2013 and its rights were acquired by Magnolia Pictures and CNN Films in the USA (Marine Science Today, 2013). On its first airing on CNN on 24 October 2013, Blackfish was watched by 472,000 viewers aged between 25 and 54 years, far more than other contemporaneous documentaries such as Sole Survivor and Dinosaur 13 which had 289,000 and 218,000 CNN viewers, respectively (CNN, 2014;O'Connell, 2014). In just one month, Blackfish had nearly 21 million viewers (Waller & Iluzada, 2020). Blackfish was also made available for online streaming through Netflix on 12 December 2013 (Marek, 2015).
Following its release, a series of major events occurred (Figure 1).
[Correction added on 11 June 2021, after first online publication: sentence has been removed here.] Public reactions to Blackfish started online: on its first airing, CNN started a Twitter conversation which comprised more than 67,000 Tweets seen by 7.3 million people (Rogers, 2014). A grassroots anti-captivity movement manifested itself as a 'Tweet storm' with hashtags such as '#EmptyTheTanks' (Brammer, 2015). Blackfish developed a 'loyal following' which pressured artists to cancel their shows at SeaWorld or corporate sponsors like Southwest Airlines to drop their partnerships with the company (Raab, 2004;Wright et al., 2015). It also sparked physical protests against SeaWorld, often orchestrated by the animal rights organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) which explicitly promoted the documentary (Newman, 2014;SeaWorld of Hurt, 2018).
Blackfish has notably been presented as a key driver in SeaWorld's stock market fall and changes in orca captivity policy (Parsons & Rose, 2018;Wright et al., 2015). Initially a privately held company since its opening in 1964, SeaWorld became publicly traded in April 2013, which required its financial reports to be made public (Alden, 2013). In its Full Year 2014 report, SeaWorld (2015) outlined a decrease in attendance of 1 million visitors compared to 2013, attributing it to 'the seasonal nature of the business' (p. 2).
In its 2015 Second Quarter Report, SeaWorld (2015b) announced a 84% drop in income in 2015 compared to the same time frame in 2014 while attendance dropped by more than 100,000 visitors.
Such a decrease was again attributed to seasonal variables-the 'timing of Easter, record levels of rainfall in Texas and continued brand challenges in California' (p. 1)-and 'competitive challenges' (p. 1) in Florida, since other theme parks Disneyland and Universal Studios are also located in Orlando.
Alongside this drop in revenues, SeaWorld experienced a 'sinking' in its share price, with a 33% fall on 13 August 2014, largely attributed to Blackfish in the media (Cohen, 2014;Lewis, 2013).
In September 2014, SeaWorld's shareholders launched a lawsuit against the company, claiming it had been misleading investors about the impact of Blackfish on attendance and mistreating its orcas (Kosman, 2014). The resignation of SeaWorld's CEO Jim Atchison, effective in January 2015, was also interpreted in the media as fallout from Blackfish (Tadeo, 2014).
SeaWorld deployed an 'aggressive brand restoration campaign' following Blackfish (Arthur W. Page Society, 2016).  (Manby, 2015). Presented as inspiring and educational, this orca encounter focuses on 'orca enrichment, exercise and overall health', breaking away from SeaWorld's tradition of theatrical, 'razzle dazzle' shows (SeaWorld Cares, 2017a;SeaWorld Entertainment Inc, 2016). This shift to a more naturalistic-looking show included a change in the set-up of the stage, mimicking orcas' natural habitats.
Regulatory instruments aiming to ban captive orca breeding programmes are also presented as a consequence of Blackfish, as attempts to modify regulations surrounding captive orcas were made in the United States (Wright et al., 2015). In February 2014, Assembly Member Richard Bloom put forth the California Assembly Bill (AB) 2140 which would have made it illegal to 'hold in captivity, or use, a wild-caught or captive-bred orca for performance or entertainment purposes' (S.4502(a)(1)), thus banning captive orca breeding programmes and theatrical orca shows. Bloom cited Blackfish as one of his inspirations for the bill, and the initiative was dubbed the 'Blackfish Bill' (Sneed, 2014). Bloom reintroduced the amended bill as AB-2305 in March 2016 and the 'Orca Protection Act' was signed into law in September 2016: compared to the initial proposal, this new bill did not stipulate the removal of orcas currently in captivity to sea pens but specified that they could only be used 'for educational presentations' (Hugo, 2016;AB-2305AB- , 2016(1)(B)).
While SeaWorld opposed the bill in 2014, the company adopted a neutral position in 2016, which may have been instrumental in its adoption (Parsons & Rose, 2018).
In March 2016, SeaWorld announced the immediate cessation of their captive orca breeding programme, effectively making the 22 orcas currently at SeaWorld the 'last generation' (Groves, 2016; McManus, 2018; SeaWorld Entertainment Inc., 2016a). SeaWorld F I G U R E 1 Timeline of key events preand post-release of Blackfish. [Correction added on 11 June 2021, after first online publication: 19 January 2012 date changed to 19 January 2013] explained its decisions to change both its orca show and breeding policy by saying that the company 'has been listening' and adapting to its time: since 'society is changing', SeaWorld is 'changing with it'. Media and animal welfare organisations were quick to attribute such decisions to years of pressure by campaigners (Grimm, 2016).
Blackfish is often invoked as having contributed to SeaWorld's changes (Chan, 2016;George et al., 2016). The goal of this paper is to effectively evaluate what may have been the role of the documentary.

| Evaluating the Blackfish effect
The impact of Blackfish is widely touted not only in grey literature but also in a number of academic articles and reports (Doc Society, 2014;Fernández-Bellon & Kane, 2019;Waller & Iluzada, 2020). Yet, the overwhelming focus has been on output indicators such as the number of viewers, social media engagement or press coverage. These indicators, while strong evidence of wide reach, are not able to tell us anything about whether change occurred and what caused it. For this, an impact evaluation needs to be carried out.
Impact evaluations focus on causality and attribution, seeking to answer the question: 'what is the impact of an intervention on an outcome of interest?' (Gertler et al., 2016). Compared to 'black box' evaluations which are only interested in knowing whether the desired change occurred, theory-based qualitative approaches examine the assumptions underlying the causal chain from inputs to long-term impacts (White, 2009;White & Phillips, 2012). They are a methodologically rigorous alternative to quantitative methods and enable a better understanding of the mechanisms led to the outcome of interest, especially when interventions take place in a complex system (Baylis et al., 2016).
General elimination methodology (GEM) is one such theorydriven evaluation method, which sheds light on cause-and-effect relationships by systematically ruling out alternative explanations for the outcome of interest (Scriven, 2008). It has been used in several conservation contexts to substantiate causal claims where relationships between cause and effect are complex and appropriate counterfactuals are not available (Salazar et al., 2019;Scriven, 2008). Here we use GEM to evaluate the wider impacts of the documentary Blackfish.

| ME THODS
Numerous cultural, political and institutional changes have been attributed to Blackfish (Parsons & Rose, 2018). For this study, we identified three key changes affecting SeaWorld as outcomes of interest: (i) SeaWorld's decision to end its orca breeding programme

| Sampling strategy
As our aim was to explore relevant actors' understanding of Blackfish's impacts, we used a targeted sampling method. Our key informants were stakeholders who could provide informed opinions, knowledge and expertise on marine conservation, training with marine mammals, zoological and aquarium collections, animal welfare and narrative studies/media communication. Getting respondents from a wide range of backgrounds was crucial to apply GEM, since this method is built upon the premise that a mechanism is more likely to be true when interviewees from multiple, diverse stakeholder groups support it (Patton, 2008

| Interview process
Data were collected through individual semi-structured interviews.
We used mostly open-ended questions, which could be adapted to each interviewee's background (interview guide in Supporting Information 2). All interviews contained questions about the impacts of Blackfish on the stakeholder's specific field of work. Participation was not dependent on having watched Blackfish, although all respondents were aware of the documentary and its content. We did not ask questions directly about Blackfish until after the stock market exercise.
The stock market graph formed a central part of the interview process. Respondents were presented with the graph in Figure 2 and asked to rank the 16 possible causes according to their level of importance in altering SeaWorld's stock market price (Figure 3). We used a 5-point scale:

| Data analysis
Our theoretical approach was primarily inductive, in which detailed readings of interview transcripts are used to derive themes through interpretations made from the raw data. Field notes made during a visit at SeaWorld were also used to identify key themes, namely the current focus SeaWorld places on their conservation and educational mission in the narration of orca shows and on park signage. The coding framework was not predefined prior to analysing interview transcripts, but rather stemmed from an iterative process, alternating between reflections on interview transcripts and field notes of a visit at SeaWorld. The coding structure chosen was both descriptivedetailing the impacts of SeaWorld-and analytical-assessing how different factors, in addition to Blackfish, interacted to produce causality. All coding was carried out by LB in NVivo (12.1.0).

| General elimination methodology process
General elimination methodology relies on the perspectives of a diverse array of stakeholder groups with specific relevant expertise, rather than a large number of individuals who have limited knowledge or experience of the target phenomenon. When multiple interviewees from different stakeholder groups support a potential causal explanation for the outcome of interest, our confidence in it is increased.
When there is disagreement, we assess the coherence of the reasoning supplied by interviewees and the existing literature and data to judge the likelihood of impact. For this reason, overall sample size has limited importance, beyond ensuring that the key perspectives around an intervention are being adequately represented. What is critical is the diversity of expertise included in the study, and continued sampling until theoretical saturation of coding has been reached.
In this study, a factor was considered influential overall for a stakeholder group if it was supported by at least half of the respondents within that group. We compiled a list of possible causes for the observed impacts experienced by SeaWorld based on the analysis of the stakeholder interviews and supporting evidence. We then constructed potential causal pathways for each of these possible causes.
As causal mechanism is more likely to be true when different sources provide the same evidence, we triangulated responses within and across stakeholder groups (Patton, 2008). To analyse the stock market exercise, we synthesised ratings for each factor into one of two categories: (i) Influential: includes the two first categories on the initial scale, that is, 'very likely' and 'likely' to have been influential (ii) Not influential: encompasses the three remaining categories on the scale, that is, 'neutral', 'unlikely' and 'very unlikely' to have been influential.
Causal pathways were considered valid if they were supported by a plurality of interviewees and four out of the six stakeholder groups. This threshold of four stakeholder groups was chosen to account for more than half of the groups. We refined the remaining causes into an overall theory of change.

| Participants
We interviewed 26 participants between June 2018 and August 2018. Interviews averaged 43 min in length and ranged from 32 min to 107 min. We had at least three interviewees from each stakeholder group.

| Distribution
Interviewees across stakeholder groups A, B, C, D and F highlighted that the documentary's impact was facilitated via its airing on CNN. The

| Other influential factors
Aside from Blackfish, there were several other significant concurring events that had an impact on SeaWorld.

| Legislation
The California Orca Protection and Safety Act was entered into law 6 months after SeaWorld announced its immediate cessation of its orca breeding programme, so did not induce any institutional changes at SeaWorld. However, the ban was passed due to campaigns and animal welfare concerns raised by the public. Such campaigns leading up to the legislation and their media coverage affected SeaWorld more than the adoption of the legislation itself.
Rather than the act of approving the legislative text, the 'process'

| Altered relations with investors
Interviewees from all stakeholder groups agreed that investors care more about profits than about the conservation status or welfare of orcas. Relations between SeaWorld and its investors deteriorated after the release of Blackfish. Investors considered SeaWorld a 'losing business model' (C12) and decided to sell their shares, leading to the fall in the company's stock value. SeaWorld's shareholders went on to launch a lawsuit against the company, directly mentioning Blackfish in the filing documents.

| Factors disputed between stakeholder groups
For three factors mutually exclusive competing explanations were put forward by multiple stakeholder groups.

| Drop in attendance due to a loss of purchasing power by potential visitors
Interviewees from stakeholder groups A and B claimed the drop in attendance at SeaWorld could be attributed to a loss of purchasing power. As one said, 'the world economy was not doing so great' (A1). However, groups C, D, E and F disputed any loss of purchasing power from guests. D16 explained that when We therefore included the potential lack of awareness in the overall Theory of Change, bearing in mind that its influence is uncertain.

| Overall theory of change
Given the complex system of interacting variables, attributing a direct cause-effect relationship is difficult. Rather, General Elimination Methodology allows us to identify likely influences 'beyond reasonable doubt' (Scriven, 2008). Overall, Blackfish had an influence, sometimes indirectly, on the three outcomes of interest-SeaWorld's orca breeding policy, its new orca show and its market value. We triangulated responses across a wide range of stakeholders in an attempt to reach an informed judgement based on 'cumulative evidence'. The interaction of these factors and their influence on SeaWorld is illustrated in Figure 4. We included factors added by interviewees that were mentioned by multiple interviewees from different stakeholder groups, namely, Kirby's book Death at SeaWorld and a 'change in public attitudes with regards to captivity'. We summarise the short-and medium-term outcomes, and the longer-term impacts prompted by Blackfish. Arrows represent the causal mechanisms that were validated through this study. removed.] Blackfish is said to have 'opened the eyes of a nation' (C9) by making the public 'reconsider the ethics of captivity itself' (D16). The public has become more sensitive to the welfare of animals in captivity-in the words of one interviewee 'the next generation of park-goers don't want to see smart social wide-ranging animals doing dumb tricks' (D16). These statements illustrate the broader cultural questioning of the role of zoos and aquaria, marked by a growing concern for animal welfare (George et al., 2016;Maynard, 2018). Throughout history, zoos and aquaria have fulfilled various roles (Packer & Ballantyne, 2010).

| The 'Blackfish Effect'
Traditionally considered as sites of entertainment, modern zoos and aquaria purport to have four key aims: conservation, research, education and recreation (Carr & Cohen, 2011;Ogden & Heimlich, 2009).
Yet, our results suggest that this shift may not be enough and that zoos and aquaria will need to do more to address growing concerns around the welfare of animals kept in captivity. Ignoring these changes can not only negatively impact individual institutions regardless of size, as showcased by SeaWorld, but could also affect wildlife conservation more broadly, as it may curtail the important contributions that zoos and aquaria can make to biodiversity conservation (Che-Castaldo et al., 2018;Gilbert & Soorae, 2017).  (Whiteman, 2004). From its initial anti-captivity focus, the documentary created a spill-over 'Blackfish Effect' which now rallies crowds campaigning on both welfare and conservation issues.

| CON CLUS ION
Zoos and aquaria frequently promote their role in conservation and education as mission-orientated institutions. However, to survive financially, they need to continually attract members of the public, which they set out to do by promoting animal-based shows and entertainment (Carr & Cohen, 2011;Whitworth, 2012). The existence of zoos and aquaria depends on the continued public acceptability of wild animal captivity, and the use of these animals to entertain human audiences (Wassermann et al., 2018). Therefore, zoos and aquaria are forced to navigate the increasingly difficult tension between generating revenue through animal entertainment and retaining public approval. Blackfish demonstrates the power of documentaries to change public attitudes towards wild animal entertainment and animal suffering, and there is continued interest in such documentaries.
Zoos and aquaria should monitor trends in public perceptions' of captivity and animal-based entertainment to quickly adapt their business model to changing societal sentiment (George et al., 2016;Hutchins, 2003). This will require flexibility, and above all a commitment to honesty and clarity in their communications with the public. The lack of transparency around orca killings highlighted by Blackfish, and the delayed and inadequate reaction by SeaWorld, contributed to the documentary's impact on the public. Although these trade-offs between financial sustainability through entertainment and a commitment to conservation and welfare are complex and rarely have a clear answer, zoos and aquaria must make a genuine effort to engage with them. As a first step, they could develop a set of publicly available guidelines justifying their choice in the species they keep, breed and display. This may mean no longer keeping species, such as orcas, when there is evidence that their welfare needs have not been met in captivity (Lott & Williamson, 2017;Marino et al., 2020).
Furthermore, zoos and aquaria may decide to only keep threatened species which will ultimately benefit from the conservation work they fund. This would require finding new ways to generate revenue, especially in the aftermath of COVID-19 which has imposed park closures in many countries worldwide (Briggs, 2020;Rodriguez, 2020).

ACK N OWLED G EM ENTS
We are grateful to key informants who kindly accepted to provide us with their time and insights during the interviews supporting this research. We are also thankful to the University of Oxford for their continuous support throughout this research.

CO N FLI C T O F I NTE R E S T
We have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
As the interviews contain sensitive information that could identify study participants, they cannot be made available.