# Nature Based Solutions and Cleaner Environment Advertising Campaign Testing

Final Report
February 2023

Prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada

Supplier: Sage Research Corporation
Contract number: # CW2245540
Contract value: CAD $79,015.25 (including HST)
Award date: October 18, 2022
Delivery date: February 10, 2023
Registration number: POR 067-22

For more information on this Report, please contact Environment and Climate Change Canada at POR-ROP@ec.gc.ca

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

Cat. No.: En4-535/1-2023E-PDF
ISBN: 978-0-660-47808-1
EC22057

Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials in this publication, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from Environment and Climate Change Canada's copyright administrator. To obtain permission to reproduce Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes, apply for Crown Copyright Clearance by contacting:

Environment and Climate Change Canada
Public Inquiries Centre
12th Floor, Fontaine Building
200 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard
Gatineau QC K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-938-3860
Toll Free: 1-800-668-6767 (in Canada only)
Email: enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca

© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 2023

Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Solutions fondées sur la nature et test de la campagne publicitaire pour un environnement plus propre - Rapport final

Political Neutrality Certification

I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Sage Research Corporation 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, and standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Signed:

(original signed by)

Anita Pollak, President
Sage Research Corporation

## Table of contents

- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Method
- Research Findings
  - Overall comments about the results
  - Nature at work
  - Everyday people changing everything
  - See nature as something new
  - Likelihood of going to the website
  - "Climate change" versus alternatives
- Appendix A – Screening Questionnaire
- Appendix B – Discussion Guide
- Appendix C – Ad Concepts
  - Ad Concept: See nature as something new
  - Ad Concept: Nature at work
  - Ad Concept: Everyday people changing everything

## Executive Summary

Sage Research Corporation
Contract number: # CW2245540
Registration number: POR 067-22
Award date: October 18, 2022
Contract value: CAD $79,015.25 (including HST)

### Background and Objectives

Natural climate solutions embrace the power of nature to reduce the effects of and adapt to climate change all while supporting biodiversity. For example, forests, wetlands, grasslands, and oceans have the ability to absorb and store large amounts of carbon (CO2), reduce the effects of climate change, keep our air and water clean, and provide habitat for wildlife.

Public opinion research indicates that "nature-based solutions" and the relationship between nature and the fight against climate change is not well understood by Canadians. Findings from 2021 polling by Nature Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation found that 40% of Canadians hold an inaccurate definition of "nature-based climate solutions", many believing it is related to actions such as using natural products and recycling.

The objective for Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)'s planned advertising in 2023 is to improve Canadians' understanding of the role nature plays in addressing the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

Three alternative conceptual approaches for the campaign were developed for evaluation:

- Everyday people changing everything
- Nature at work
- See nature as something new

For testing purposes, these were produced as 30-second animatic videos.

The objectives of the research were to:

- Assess the communication effectiveness of each advertising campaign concept
- Identify which of the concepts is strongest overall in communicating the intended messages
- Identify possible revisions to each concept that might improve communication effectiveness

### Research Methodology

To achieve these objectives, a qualitative research approach was undertaken. A total of eight two-hour online focus groups, split by community size, were conducted between November 18th and November 24th, 2022. Specifically: six English-language sessions were conducted, two in each of the Ontario/Atlantic region, the Prairies and the West. And, two French-language sessions were held with participants from Quebec and New Brunswick. Participants received an honorarium of $125. Qualified participants were individuals 18 years of age and older who were at least somewhat concerned about climate change. In each group, there was a spread of ages and a mix of men and women. There were some participants in the sessions who represented Official Language Minority Communities (OLMCs).

This report presents the findings from the study. Caution must be exercised when interpreting the results from this study, as qualitative techniques are used in marketing research as a means of developing insight and direction, rather than collecting quantitatively precise data or absolute measures. As such, the results provide an indication of participants' views about the topics explored, but cannot be statistically generalized to the full population, with any degree of statistical confidence. It is the insight and direction provided by qualitative research that makes it an appropriate tool for exploring reactions to the campaign ad concepts.

### Key Findings

All three concepts were perceived to be about addressing climate change and the role of nature in tackling climate change. The understanding of the role of nature varied by ad concept, that is participants mostly perceived the messaging to be about the specific aspects of nature shown in the ad:

- The Nature at work concept was perceived to be a message about trees
- The See nature as something new concept was perceived to be a message about the importance of wetlands
- Everyday people changing everything was perceived to be about a broader range of activities involving nature

While participants rarely relayed back the specific phrase nature-based solutions as the message of the ads, most did intuitively understand the connection between nature and tackling climate change based on the three ad concepts.

There is no clear winner among the three ad concepts. First place preference was split about equally between Everyday people changing everything and See nature as something new with each having strengths and weaknesses to consider. Notably, though, reaction to Everyday people changing everything was more polarized, as participants ranked it as their least favourite more often than See nature as something new. The Nature at work concept was the least preferred of the three.

Nature at work: The message that tree are beneficial and have a role to play in addressing climate change was clearly understood and participants liked that it was a simple, easy to understand message and one that they could relate to. Executionally, the pacing made it easy to follow.

There were two main issues with Nature at work, including:

- Quite a few participants said they/"everybody" already know what trees do, and that trees are important to the environment, and so did not perceive the ad as telling them anything new. Thus, the ad was not perceived as improving people's understanding of the role nature can play in climate change.
- In this regard, some perceived it as more aimed at children, to teach children about what trees do – that is, it's a science lesson for children.
- Many said the ad does not say what one is supposed to do – it was basically perceived to say that trees are important but not what people can do or what the government or industry are doing.

Everyday people changing everything: The ad clearly conveyed the message that individuals and communities should do their part in addressing climate change and can do so at the local level. The activities shown were perceived for the most part to be concrete, doable things that people and communities can actually do to help tackle climate change.

Everyday people changing everything was the strongest concept in getting interest to go to the website, because the ad was perceived to be all about what people and communities can do. That created the impression for some participants that the website would indeed contain information about what people and communities can do or have done.

There were three main perceived issues with Everyday people changing everything:

- There was a significant perceived executional issue, in that the ad was perceived by quite a few participants to be difficult to follow. The pacing of the ad with a lot of changing scenes and voices was hard to follow and the voice-over did not match the super on the screen, resulting in attention being divided.
- The opening voice-over says, "If you want to take on climate change – forget about the world." The phrase "forget about the world" was noticed, and it got attention. This was both a positive and a negative. The positive was that it got attention early in the ad. Some also said they realized that this was a way of setting up the message about the importance of local action. However, the majority, often including those who said it was attention-getting, reacted negatively. They reacted negatively because climate change is seen to be a global problem, requiring a global solution.
- Some perceived the ad as putting the onus on individuals and communities to deal with climate change, and downplaying the role that government and industry need to play.

See nature as something new: The main perceived message is that wetlands can help in dealing with climate change, and for some also that government is doing something to help wetlands – albeit it is not clear whether government is protecting or creating wetland areas. Executionally, the first 15 seconds of the ad were attention-getting and motivated people to continue to watch because of the simple white text on black screen, good pacing with time to read the text, and the statements shown:

- States the problem, The world is experiencing a climate change crisis, which acknowledges that climate change is a global issue and includes the word "crisis", which about half of participants preferred as a term to describe their perception of the current status of climate change.
- The statement "There is hope" and the inclusion of the statements "A marvel of environmental science" and "Capable of capturing up to 200 metric tons of carbon" also generated interest in the rest of the ad.

There were three main perceived issues with See nature as something new, including:

- The biggest perceived issue with the See nature as something new ad concept was that it does not say anything about what a person or community can do – that is, there was no perceived "call to action."
- After the big dramatic build-up, some felt the reference to "wetlands" was a letdown. That is, they think all that's being done to tackle climate change is something to do with wetlands.
- The ad was perceived to imply government is taking action on wetlands, but does not give any indication of what that action might be.

"Climate Change" versus Alternatives: The tested concepts used the phrase "climate change", albeit with one notable exception in See nature as something new, which also uses the phrase "climate change crisis". When presented with alternatives to "climate change", preference was split between using "climate change" and "climate crisis".

- Those who favoured staying with "climate change" felt it is a widely known and familiar phrase and should be used in order to appeal to a broader audience, and also not to turn off people who are skeptical of the seriousness of climate change.
- Those who favoured "climate crisis" did so because they believe it is a crisis and should be called as such, and that the climate change" has been around for a long time and they believe it has lost emotional impact. "Climate crisis" is better at evoking an emotional response and a sense of urgency.

## Introduction

Background

Natural climate solutions embrace the power of nature to reduce the effects of and adapt to climate change all while supporting biodiversity. For example, forests, wetlands, grasslands, and oceans have the ability to absorb and store large amounts of carbon (CO2), reduce the effects of climate change, keep our air and water clean, and provide habitat for wildlife.

Natural climate solutions allow us to:

- decrease net greenhouse gas emissions
- advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples
- support biodiversity and habitat for wildlife
- adapt rural and urban communities to the harmful effects of climate change
- increase the resilience of our nature-based economic sectors, including agriculture
- create green jobs in communities across the country

These benefits will add up over time, and will provide Canadians with cleaner air and water, protect them from the effects of climate change, and improve their quality of life. Furthermore, Canada is home to 30% of the world's boreal forests and peatlands, and the world's longest coastline, all of which are biodiverse and carbon-rich ecosystems.

Public opinion research indicates that "nature-based solutions" and the relationship between nature and the fight against climate change is not well understood by Canadians. Findings from 2021 polling by Nature Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation found that 40% of Canadians hold an inaccurate definition of "nature-based climate solutions", many believing it is related to actions such as using natural products and recycling.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and its agency have developed three advertising campaign concepts. The campaign objectives are to improve Canadians' understanding of the role nature plays in addressing the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

The campaign will run from February to March 2023. It will consist of variety of advertisement placements that draw attention to the topic of nature-based solutions and direct Canadians to a website for more information.

Three alternative conceptual approaches for the campaign were developed for evaluation– Everyday people changing everything, Nature at work, and See nature as something new. For testing purposes, these were produced as 30-second animatic videos.

Research Objectives

The objectives of the focus group research were to:

- Assess the communication effectiveness of each advertising campaign concept
- Identify which of the concepts is strongest overall in communicating the intended messages
- Identify possible revisions to each concept that might improve communication effectiveness

How the research will be used

The results of the research will be used to assess the effectiveness of the creative concepts and make adjustments as required.

## Method

Number and Location of Focus Groups

To achieve these objectives, a qualitative research approach was undertaken. A total of eight two-hour online focus groups, split by community size, were conducted between November 18th and November 24th, 2022. Specifically, six English-language sessions were conducted, two in each of the Ontario/Atlantic region, the Prairies and the West. And two French-language sessions were held with participants from Quebec and New Brunswick.

Participant Qualifications

The participant qualifications were the same for all focus groups.

Qualified participants were individuals 18 years of age and older who were at least somewhat concerned about climate change. In each group, representative mix of individuals was recruited along the following dimensions:

- Gender (quota at least 3 men/3 women)
- Age (quota at least 3 18-34/35 and older)
- Able to speak and read in the language of the focus group

There were some participants in the sessions who represented Official Language Minority Communities (OLMCs).

The following were excluded:

- Work in any of the following areas: marketing or marketing research, advertising, graphic design, Web site design, media, public relations, a government department

All participants met the GC Qualitative Standards for past participation in qualitative research: had not attended a qualitative session in the past six months, nor attended five or more qualitative sessions in the past five years.

This research was qualitative in nature, not quantitative. As such, the results provided an indication of participants' views about the topics explored, but cannot be statistically generalized to represent the full population. The insight and direction provided by this qualitative research in were effective in exploring participants' reactions to each of the ad concepts.

Group Size

A total of 66 participants were included in the eight focus groups. There were seven to nine participants in each session.

Discussion Approach

Participants were asked to evaluate the following three ad concepts in animatic format (see Appendix C for the scripts). In the focus groups the ad concepts were referred to using letters.

- Everyday people changing everything
- Nature at work
- See nature as something new

Participant Honoraria

Participants received an honorarium of $125.

## Research Findings

### Overall comments about the results

Message communication

All three concepts were perceived to be about addressing climate change.

The ads were perceived to be about a role for nature in tackling climate change. That said, the specifics of that understanding varied by ad concept. In particular, participants mostly perceived the messaging to be about the specific aspects of nature shown in the ad.

- The Nature at work concept was perceived to be a message about trees
- The See nature as something new concept was perceived to be a message about the importance of wetlands
- Everyday people changing everything was perceived to be about a broader range of activities involving nature

The specific phrase, nature-based solutions, was rarely relayed back as the message of the ads. That is, in most cases, participants did not say the message of the ad is about Canada using "nature-based solutions" to tackle climate change, and overall, this specific phrase was rarely mentioned spontaneously by participants.

That said, when participants were asked specifically about their understanding of "nature-based solutions", most could intuitively understand it given the context of the ads they had seen, which showed various aspects of nature in connection with tackling climate change.

Impact and preference

There is no clear winner among the three ad concepts. That said, the Nature at work concept was the least preferred of the three. The other two each have strengths and weaknesses to consider, which are discussed in the next section.

There are two important perceptions to note:

- One is the perception by some participants that the concepts put the onus of solving climate change on people or on "nature fixing itself", when some may perceive governments and corporations to be (a) causing the problem, (b) not doing enough, and/or (c) having more impact than individuals and communities can have with their nature-based actions.

> It removes accountability from a lot of corporations and people and governments who have contributed to this climate crisis. And so just nature based well, maybe does that mean, just let things be, nature will take care of it. And then you don't have to do anything, no one has to do anything. It will just sort itself out, kind of thing. Like, that's what I'm wondering if that's why, what nature-based solutions mean? (West/Urban)

> C'est comme si la publicité dit qu'on vient de constater qu'on peut laisser la nature faire son travail pour régler les problèmes de l'environnement. Je comprends le message, mais je ne suis pas sûr que c'est le bon. [It's as if the advertisement says that we have just realized that we can let nature do its job to solve the problems of the environment. I get the message, but I'm not sure it's the right one.] (French/Urban)

- The other is a perception by some participants that if nature-based solutions are the main focus of how the Government of Canada is tackling climate change, that this would not be enough or would be too simplistic.

> I just wonder, are they relying solely on nature-based solutions to get the job done because they don't really share anything else but that. (West/Rural)

### Nature at work

The main perceived messages of Nature at work were:

- Trees are beneficial and have a role to play in addressing climate change.

> I think that what they want to say is that there is a benefit all around us to trees, which is something that a lot of people can look outside and see. And that this is good for us, and is kind of a passive way to, you know, help with the climate crisis. (West/Urban)

> So trees are incredibly valuable and planting them, maintaining them, are crucial, I think, right, like for the environments and I mean it was a decent just like a basic sketch to remind you of that (Prairies/Urban)

- It's about what trees do – i.e. the science about removing CO2 and creating oxygen.

> Je trouvais que l'objectif n'était pas très bien défini. Ils nous donnent un fait que les arbres peuvent diminuer le CO2 mais est-ce que c'est vraiment ça le message? On ne le sait pas. C'est juste un fait. [I feel that the objective is not well defined. They give us a fact that trees can decrease CO2 but is it really the message? We don't know. It's only a fact.] (French/Rural)

The key perceived positive features of Nature at work were:

- It is simple and easy to understand in the sense of not being a complex message.

> I like that the idea that we can attack this problem is really simple by just taking care of nature that's already there for us, that's already doing its job. I think that will suck people in to see, okay, this doesn't seem so difficult, how can I participate in helping the solution. (East/Urban)

- The pacing makes it easy to follow.
- It is easy to relate to trees, because trees are everywhere.

Key perceived issues

- Quite a few participants said they/"everybody" already know what trees do, and that trees are important to the environment, and so did not perceive the ad as telling them anything new. Thus, the ad was not perceived as improving people's understanding of the role nature can play in climate change.

- In this regard, some perceived it as more aimed at children, to teach children about what trees do – that is, it's a science lesson for children.

> The tree one I just found was so slow paced, and it wasn't like grabbing your attention because everyone's always been told that their entire life that trees will make a difference. (Prairies/Rural)

> The main message for me was more education as to what benefit the trees have. Which I guess we all know, unless we haven't been to school. We know the benefits of trees. (West/Urban)

> It looked to me like it was geared towards elementary school-aged children, just the message that was involved because that's, you know, pretty much common knowledge about what a tree does. (Prairies/Urban)

> Si je me mets dans ma peau de prof, je trouve que ça s'explique bien à des enfants, et de montrer ça à des enfants, ça peut les accrocher, et ça se transpose bien pour plusieurs catégories d'âges aussi, et ça se veut simple d'accès. [As a teacher, I find this explains clearly to children, and to show this to children, this can catch their attention, and it easily transposes itself to many age categories, and it is easily accessible.] (French/Urban).

- Many said the ad does not say what one is supposed to do. It was basically perceived to say that trees are important, which they already know, and then the reaction is "so what now?". Participants said there needs to be a follow-up that states either what people can do, or information about what government is doing.

> Like some others have said, I learned that at school too. I understand how a tree works, and I just felt like the main point of the message was this is how a tree works. I know that, but what next? I felt like it was half a commercial, in my opinion. (East/Rural)

> I still don't really get the message of the ad like, you know, am I doing something? Is the government doing something? Am I supposed to take an action? Am I not supposed to take action? Are you informing? (Prairies/Urban)

> Là c'était comme une information quelconque tandis que ça aurait été reformulé différemment… Qu'est-ce qu'y veulent; qu'on plante des arbres? qu'on considère les changements climatiques? Qu'est-ce qu'ils veulent à propos de ce fait-là? Ce n'est pas défini. [There it was like any information, while it could have been formulated differently. What do you want – planting trees? What about climate change? What do they want about that fact? It's not defined.] (French/Rural)

Overall, it was the weakest in terms of preference across the three concepts. If the decision is to go ahead with the Nature at work concept, participants felt a follow-up line needs to be added that indicates how they can help, or a stronger message needs to be added indicating there are ways they can help that can be found on the website. Near the end of the ad, the voice-over says: It's a nature-based solution working to tackle climate change. And you can help, and this is followed by Learn how at Canada.ca/our-environment. For most participants, this was not perceived as a strong or motivating message on where they can find out how to help.

> It said learn more at the website but didn't really tell me what to do. I was like it's informative, trees are good and I know that. Good to see, but it didn't tell me what to do or to take any more steps. I feel that it would've been more effective for me if it said, start planting some more greenery in your community and stuff like that. (East/Rural)

> I probably wouldn't visit the link. I think that maybe if there was something more specific, like you can help and maybe give information about the ways that we can help or the specific programs. (West/Rural)

> With the link and stuff like that, I feel like it was such a vague advertisement. I didn't really know what you're clicking on the link for, like, is it yeah, for planting trees? Or is it you're clicking on it to find out more information about this or…? So I wouldn't have clicked on it or found out any more, because I didn't know what direction it was aiming even if I went to that link. (Prairies/Rural)

> Je n'ai pas compris le message parce que ça dit que les arbres sont bons pour contrer les changements climatiques et ça peut être une solution, et après ça dit : « Voyez comment vous pouvez faire votre part » mais je ne pense que le reboisement ou la gestion de la foresterie c'est quelque chose qu'on ne peut pas individuellement impacter, à part peut-être planter quelques arbres sur nos terrains, si on a l'opportunité d'avoir un terrain un jour. [I did not understand the message because it says that trees are good to fight against climate changes and that it can be a solution, and after that, it says "See how you can do your part" but I believe that reforestation or forestry management is not something we can individually have an impact on, except maybe by planting a few trees on our ground if we have the opportunity to have land one day]. (French/Rural)

"This is not a tree" phrase

The beginning of the ad shows a tree, and the voice-over says, "This is not a tree".

- This phrase was noticed, and is attention-getting, and some participants explicitly acknowledged that it got their attention.
- When it came up spontaneously, which it did, it was usually a negative reaction. These participants often suggested changing the line to "This is not just a tree", or some variation ("It is so much more than a tree", "This is more than just a tree", "This is not only a tree"). The reason given for changing the line: It is a tree.

> I think that at the beginning, it's tough for me because I think that it really grabs your attention when it says "this is not a tree", because you look at it and you say, of course that's a tree. I'd say that by the end of it, I'd rather it say "it's not just a tree". (West/Rural)

> Right off the top, like when they were like, this is not a tree. Well, obviously it's a tree and I know that that's how they're trying to grab attention. But I just felt so bothered. Can you just say like, this isn't just a tree, you know, let's emphasize that. (Prairies/Rural)

> I think it's probably more effective to say "this is not just a tree" rather than saying this is not a tree, because there's a bit of a cognitive dissonance there that comes up and I get what they're trying to do. But I think it's a bit jarring. I mean, my first thought was, what are you talking about? Yes, yes, it is. (Prairies/Rural)

> I know what a tree is. So I think adding the "just" in there, it makes a little bit more sense instead of saying this is not a tree, because it is a tree. (West/Urban)

- When probed, the majority preferred changing the line to "This is not just a tree". In French almost all preferred "Ceci n'est past seulement un arbre".

The phrase grabbed the attention of participants. In a group discussion like this, there can be a tendency for participants to take a rational analytic approach, which favours changing to "This is not just a tree". However, there doesn't appear to be a real downside to "This is not a tree".

Other issues mentioned by a small number of participants were:

- I live in a city – there's nothing I can do about trees.
- The big threat to trees is the forestry industry, and the ad does not say anything about what the forest industry is doing to help with the number of trees.

  > You look at the forestry industry, they are chopping down trees by the thousands. So I think, again, the response is passing the buck or the responsibility back to ordinary people, as opposed to taking action on a big corporation, big industry. (West/Urban)

### Everyday people changing everything

The main perceived messages of Everyday people changing everything were:

- We, that is people and communities, should do our part to help in addressing climate change.

  > I gave it a thumbs up because I like the overall message of the average person can make an impact in their own community on the climate change scale. (West/Rural)

  > For me, it sends the message, do your part. And then hopefully, everybody else joins and then we do it all together. (West/Urban)

  > So what I got from it was that it was telling you to get involved with your community, to help with the climate change crisis and see what's out there in your area that's helping it, or how you can get involved. (West/Rural)

  > Ce que j'ai compris dans le message c'est que tout le monde impliqué à travers le Canada et on doit tous faire quelque chose. [What I understood from the message is that everyone be involved across Canada and we all have to do something.] (French/Urban)

- This ad was perceived to clearly convey there are things involving nature that people and communities can do at the local level to help address climate change.

  > It felt like a call to action, like it was telling people that they can do something and that they can help the environment, whereas the other two were just kind of vague ideas of, yes, we're having a climate crisis…. It was more of a call to action that showed that you could do something in your community as simple as planting a garden or planting some flowers in a flower bed. And it doesn't have to be a big thing, it still helps with the change. (Prairies/Rural)

  > Le message que j'ai compris c'est que la lutte au changement climatique ça pouvait se faire via des petits gestes dans les communautés, à l'échelle plus locale et pas nécessairement à l'échelle nationale. [The message I understood is that fighting against climate changes could be done via small actions in the communities, on a more local basis and not necessarily at a country wide scale.] (French/Urban)

The key perceived positive features of Everyday people changing everything were:

- The activities shown are, for the most part, concrete doable things that people and communities can actually do to help tackle climate change.

  > I found that did the best at getting me feeling like there was something that I could be doing to help. There was ways that I could be participating. The other two didn't, these are trees and these are wetlands and they're important and so on and so forth but they didn't tell me that... I know they had the words, find out how you can get involved or whatnot, but they didn't actually get me thinking, I can be part of that, I can help. (East/Rural)

  > It just seemed more sort of close to home in terms of, okay, this is what these communities are doing. You know, here's some ideas, you know, if your own community you live in isn't already doing something like this, here's what some other communities are doing. Maybe your community is doing something and you don't know about it. So click on this link, and find out. (Prairies/Rural)

  > They're passing on that responsibility, but they're also limiting the scope of responsibility. I think it's something that's very manageable, it's something doable. They're not asking you to go 1000 miles somewhere and plant a million trees, just look at your own and start there, then. If enough people started doing that, it might actually make a difference. (West/Urban)

- Some participants liked seeing what different communities in Canada are doing.

Key perceived issues

There was a significant perceived executional issue, in that the ad was perceived by quite a few to be difficult to follow:

- Pacing issue – a lot of changing scenes and voices
- The voice-over does not match the super, which then divides attention, which is then aggravated by the rapid pacing

> I found it very hard to focus on the messages that were being presented within that timeframe, it felt a little scattered and muddled. (West/Urban)

> I also really struggled to read the text and listen to the voiceover at the same time because they weren't the same. I don't even know what the text was because I could not do both at the same time. (West/Rural)

> The transcript was different from what the person was saying. In each picture there was a sentence about each picture, but then I was not able to focus on it, like I was trying to read the message and listen at the same time. I think that the message in each picture was saying something else. (East/Urban)

> My major problem was that it was just busy…multiple scenes, multiple cities, multiple blurbs of text. It was just a very, very busy ad and it just didn't grab me at all. (Prairies/Urban)

> Je n'ai absolument rien compris du message, y en avait trop. Même la deuxième fois je n'ai pas compris. Y faudrait que je le voie encore pour comprendre; je ne voudrais pas le revoir, parce que j'aurais fermé la TV. Quand je ne catch pas vite, je passe à d'autres choses. [I absolutely did not understand a thing about the message, there was too much. Even the second time, I did not understand. I would need to see it again to understand; I would not want to see it again because I would already have turned off the TV. When I don't catch on quickly, I move on.] (French/Rural)

These factors were irritating to quite a few participants. It raises the question that if a person was not being essentially forced to view the ad a few times, as was done in the focus group, whether they would have actually watched the entire ad.

Some participants noted the need to reduce the perceived "busyness" of the ad. Some suggestions by participants were to use one voiceover throughout the ad, show fewer communities, and ensure that the super matches what the voiceover is saying.

Forget about the world: The opening voice-over says, "If you want to take on climate change – forget about the world." The phrase "forget about the world" was noticed, and it got attention. This was both a positive and a negative. The positive was that it got attention early in the ad. Some also said they realized that this was a way of setting up the message about the importance of local action. However, the majority, often including those who said it was attention-getting, reacted negatively.

They reacted negatively because climate change is seen to be a global problem, requiring a global solution. In this context, it was jarring to hear what seemed to be a message to forget about the global aspects of climate change.

> It got my attention but in a negative way. It made me not want to hear the rest of what was being said. (West/Rural)

> The phrase…forget about the world. That really knocked me back on my heels and, you know, I was kind of, what, huh? This is about our world, this is about Earth, and I really had a struggle with the rest of the message. I actually had to…I was excited to watch it the second time because then I had to sort of ignore that statement to see what the rest of what the ad was. (Prairies/Urban)

> I think one of the first lines in this video was like, forget the world. I don't think you should keep that in there. Because it's impossible to not think about how the rest of the world is affected by a climate emergency. There's people who will be displaced, there would be supply chain issues, there would be economics affected. I know that it's not the central point of the message, but like, they want you to think within your community, within your own city and country. But that's not a realistic ask to just forget about the world. So that really causes a negative reaction for me, and I would definitely remove that, or I would change it to something softer. (West/Urban)

Note that the French phrase corresponding to the English "forget about the world" is somewhat different: "il ne faut pas être intimidé par le monde entire." However, reactions were similar both in terms of getting attention but also being both a positive and a negative.

When asked if there were something else that could be done to get attention at the beginning of the ad:

- One participant suggested as an alternative, "Don't wait for the world"
- Another participant suggested "Focus on changes you can make"

Some perceived the ad as putting the onus on individuals and communities to deal with climate change, and downplaying the role that government and industry need to play.

> That phrase, "forget about the world", I really didn't like that. I think that in combination with the message, the ad feels like it's asking us to turn a blind eye to the systems and structures that caused this problem in the first place. (West/Rural)

> I try my best to do my part, but I know ultimately that it's corporations who are impacting the environment more so than the everyday person. (West/Urban)

> It's putting the onus on the individual again, when we know it's corporations, high rise buildings, like we need to hold those people accountable. But I find that the messaging that we always get on climate change is always, it's up to us as individuals, when we know that we're not the main contributors. (West/Urban)

> Peut-être qu'y a un peu de cynisme en moi qui transfère une responsabilité sur les épaules des communautés, alors que tant qu'il n'y a pas de changements radicaux qu'y se font en haut on n'arrivera à rien. [Maybe I am a bit cynical, but they transfer a responsibility on the communities while, until there are radical changes done at the top, we will get nowhere]. (French/Urban)

Other observations

- Everyday people changing everything appeared to do a bit better in preference among rural participants than among urban participants. There are scenes that are clearly relevant to people living in cities in the animatic tested, but the imagery in the animatic may not have made that apparent.
- Relatively small numbers of participants made the following suggestions:
  - Show an Indigenous community at work on tackling climate change
  - The ad shows only summertime activities and should include activities that can be done during other seasons
  - Consider removing the segment with the excavator as this was found either to be confusing and not something that the average person or community organization would be able to do, or reminded some people of issues related to the oil sands

### See nature as something new

The main perceived messages of See nature as something new were:

- Wetlands can help in dealing with climate change.

  > I know that they say that in the commercial, that they're using wetlands as a solution to climate change, which I believe is the main message. (West/Rural)

  > Wetlands are important. That's what I got from it. I wasn't sure, you know, if it's about protecting or restoring wetlands, but I was just like, okay, they're talking about wetlands. That's what I got as the main message. (Prairies/Rural)

  > I feel like the main message was more about how protecting the wetlands can help with climate change. (Prairies/Rural)

- For some, the perceived message is that government is doing something to help wetlands – albeit it is not clear whether government is protecting or creating wetland areas.
- A small number of participants phrased a more general message, namely, that the ad is about using nature as a way of tackling climate change.

  > Nature itself can combat climate change, we just need to let it or help it in certain cases, do what it's already doing. (East/Urban)

  > It's more about how the environment now can impact the health of the climate and climate change going forward, and you're talking about wetlands (East/Urban)

The key perceived positive features of See nature as something new:

- The first 15 seconds of the ad were attention-getting and motivated people to continue to watch. Some positives identified by participants included:
  - Simple white text on black screen
  - Good pacing, with time to read
  - States the problem The world is experiencing a climate change crisis:
    - Acknowledges that climate change is a global issue
    - includes the word "crisis", in "climate change crisis" ("crise climatique" in French)
  - Then says, "There is hope" – which got some attention
  - For some, "A marvel of environmental science" was noted, while more commented on the inclusion of a fact, "Capable of capturing up to 200 metric tons of carbon"

> After the first 15 seconds, the ad had people's attention, and had their interest in what comes next – that is, what the solution is.

> > I like the bold lettering on it. I like the short phrases because it wasn't a whole lot to read. I had time to read it and I had time to process it. (East/Rural)

> > You're starting with a problem, but then there's hope, and here's the solution. And we're going to give you a little bit of information to pique your interest about that solution. (Prairies/Rural)

> > I like the like the beginning the music and the emergency of it, like that kind of caught my attention right away. (Prairies/Rural)

> > J'ai aimé la musique dramatique au début, ça capte l'attention. Le fond noir, on n'est pas habitué d'avoir un fond noir avec du texte blanc. [I liked the dramatic music at first, it grabs attention. The black background, we are not used to having a black background with white text.] (French/Urban)

> > That's what I like to see that there's a positive because I feel when you say like there is a climate crisis, it's important. And then another statement saying "there is hope" means that they're doing something, and then I want to find out what they're doing. So, I like the statement that there is hope. It helped to keep my attention to see what that hope is. (Prairies/Urban)

> > Calling it a marvel environmental science makes you think that it's going to be a technological solution as opposed to, I guess, a more land-based solution. (West/Rural)

> > That amount, like 200 cubic meters, whatever, of carbon, you feel like, wow, that must be something that makes a huge impact and I want to find out what it is. Like is it a magic box, like what is it? And then you see something that you are familiar with it but you don't know the exact impact of what it can do, so that intrigues me to say, oh, like, yeah, because everybody knows, you know, the little wetlands or whatever that you might have in your area -- so that intrigues me maybe to go to the website to see how much of an impact it's making for me like where I live kind of thing. (Prairies/Urban)

- Overall, See nature as something new seemed to generate more interest than Nature at work, mainly because people said they already knew what trees do, but were not clear how wetlands can help with climate change.

  > I didn't know the wetlands and a lot of times wetlands are thought of as swamps and not helpful. (East/Urban)

  > You drive by one of those things. You'd look and go, are the ducks there, and that's about it, right. It's just always on the landscape but you don't realize it's on the landscape and it's sucking in CO2 and spitting out oxygen, right, so it's like, oh, okay. So for me it was a very positive message. (Prairies/Urban)

Key perceived issues

The biggest issue with the See nature as something new ad concept was that it does not say anything about what a person or community can do – that is, there was no perceived "call to action."

> I look at wetlands and somebody else said it like, so what? What do they want me to do, flood my backyard? I don't get what we are supposed to do. They are way too passive. (East/Urban)

> The problem is, and we're talking about how does this impact us, seeing commercials like that, and I see no way it can. I'm seeing something about the wetlands, what am I supposed to do? What am I as quote unquote an average Joe, let's say, how am I supposed to help with this? Except be a little bit more conscious of what the government let's say is doing to try and improve climate change. There's nothing I can personally do. (East/Urban)

> Mais la deuxième partie ne me parle pas comme citoyenne; c'est plus aux compagnies qui doivent garder ces milieux humides. Je ne sais pas ce que je peux faire comme citoyenne. [The second part doesn't speak to me as a citizen; it's more for the companies that must safeguard these wetlands. I don't know what I can do as a citizen.] (French/Urban)

> I just found that it left me feeling like okay, well, what do you want me to do about it? You know, it felt like a little out of my hands, like can I help save a wetland? You know, I feel like I can maybe help more with the trees. But I felt like the wetlands was a little bit out of my scope. I didn't really know what they wanted me to do. So I probably wouldn't click it.(Prairies/Rural)

Other key issues for some participants:

- After the big dramatic build-up, the solution is "wetlands"? For some it was a let-down. That is, they think all that's being done to tackle climate change is something with wetlands.

  > It keeps you in suspense and it introduces it as if it's some environmental technology, but it's actually wetlands. I felt like it was a little bit clever and I liked that piece of it, but I also felt like it's lame. This is what you're doing to combat climate change is like just take something that we already have and you're spending money on an ad to tell us about something that Canada already has. There were some strengths, but I also think that I feel like that it's like this big suspense and then it's just something that we already have. (West/Rural)

  > I thought the message was overall positive, they're trying to promote conservation, combating climate change, but at the same time there was this build-up tone and then they didn't really present any information to back up what they're talking about. They just said wetlands, carbon, the end – it just felt a little disappointing. (West/Rural)

  > I also was thinking, climate change goes beyond the wetlands, too. So to me just talking about that one specific thing, it's just a bit confusing in regards to saying climate change overall is a bad thing. And this is what we're doing. It's very like narrow minded and specific. (West/Urban)

- The ad was perceived to imply government is taking action on wetlands, but does not give any indication of what that action might be.

  > I didn't think that gave me any idea of what the government is actually doing. So it was just like, the wetlands are what should be protected anyway. So what in addition to that is the government going to do? (West/Urban)

  > It was just very neutral. They brought it to our attention. That's about it. There was no plan. (West/Urban)

Other observations

Some participants said it is hard for them to relate to wetlands – e.g. they live in a city where so far as they know there are no wetlands.

A few said the reference to "200 metric tons of carbon" was hard to interpret, that is, without some context, it is hard to know how significant this figure is.

> When it was saying 200 metric tons of CO2, but is that over a year, is that over a day, is that over a lifetime? I just thought it seemed like a non-fact to me. (East/Urban)

Innovative: The word "innovative" was used near the end of the ad in both the voice-over and the super (in the French ad, "innovante" was used only in the voice-over). For reference, the voice-over said, Nature-based solutions, like protecting marshes to reduce greenhouse gases, are part of Canada's innovative approach to tackle climate change . Reaction to the use of the word "innovative" in this context was probed, and participants were given the alternatives of "cutting edge", "state-of-the-art", "inventive" and "advanced".

There were three different reactions:

- Don't use any of these words. The reason given is that there is nothing perceived to be innovative about protecting wetlands. It's just something that you do or don't do.

  > This isn't innovative, this is getting back to the basics. And to say it's cutting edge or state-of-the-art or inventive, this is actually something that should have been happening the whole time, so yeah, I would agree to just remove that adjective entirely. (Prairies/Urban)

  > Wetland isn't innovative. It's always been there. It's not cutting edge. It's always been there. It's not state of the art. It's always been there. And I guess it's inventive that we're using it, but that's about it. Right? It's not advanced, either. So it's just, it's a weird set of words, I guess. (Prairies/Rural)

  > Protecting marshes to reduce greenhouse gases. That's neither innovative, cutting edge, state of the art, inventive or advanced. That's old school thinking. None of those words apply. And it doesn't matter which one you put in, protecting marshes has been happening my entire life and probably quite a bit further back. So I think that none of these words would trick me into thinking that something new is happening. (West/Urban)

  > Innovative really means that we're featuring new methods and that it's a new idea. I don't know if wetlands existing in Canada and leaving them alone is really a new, innovative idea. (West/Rural)

- "Advanced"/"avant-gardiste" appealed to some as an adjective, or was the least objectionable. To some it meant "advanced thinking", or one person said it could mean using methods proven to be effective, unlike things that are "innovative" or "cutting edge".

  > We're on this and we're making advances, we're moving forward. I think innovative is experimental whereas advanced is based on what has been proven to have caused results and now we're advancing, we're moving forward. (East/Rural)

  > "Advanced" for me, because that would at least open the pathway to believing that the government is taking this approach based on some advanced studies, or something they have done. (West/Urban)

  > I feel like cutting edge, state of the art, inventive, innovative, it sounds like it's a new idea which this protecting marshes is not a new idea. So advanced, I feel like could be from like other things like studies, or potentially an advancement on how we were protecting marshes before. (West/Urban)

- "Innovative" could be used; however, several suggested it only really applies if wetlands are somehow being created. If it's just about the protection of wetlands, then it does not really apply.

Importantly, the issue is that the reaction to the word "innovative", and the suggested alternatives, were all being associated by most participants to wetlands, and not to the general concept of using "nature-based solutions to tackle climate change".

### Likelihood of going to the website

Based on participant comments and suggestions, the most powerful reason to go to a website in the context of these types of ads is if there is something on the website that a person can do or get involved in. If the impression is there might be just general information on the website, then there is less interest in going to the site.

Of the three ad concepts:

- Everyday people changing everything was the strongest in getting interest to go to the website, because the ad was perceived to be all about what people and communities can do. That created the impression for some participants that the website would indeed contain information about what people and communities can do or have done.

  > This one, it made you feel like the link is actually going to provide you with information about how to get involved, instead of just a random link. (Prairies/Rural)

  > I think this would be something where I would feel like if I sat down and clicked on that link, I would get some answers as to what I can do as an individual. (Prairies/Rural)

  > I feel like if I clicked that link, I would want a series of ideas based on what ecosystem you were in. And maybe something that's actionable with three to five people, or 30 plus, like a couple different ideas for each area. But not all options work in all ecosystems, either. So just think maybe some geographically tailored ideas on what to get started with, with the friends and family you have with you. (Prairies/Rural)

- Neither Nature at work nor See nature as something new were perceived to convey the impression that the website will have information about what people and communities can do – although, that is what a number of participants said they would like to see on the website.
- Nature at work was the weakest of the three concepts in motivating visit to the website, simply because participants said they already know what trees do.

### "Climate change" versus alternatives

The tested concepts used the phrase "climate change", albeit with one notable exception in See nature as something new, which also uses the phrase "climate change crisis".

In the groups, participants were asked which of the following descriptors they would prefer:

- Climate change
- Extreme weather
- Climate crisis
- Climate emergency

Preference was split between "climate change" and "climate crisis".

Those who favoured staying with "climate change" gave two types of reasons:

- "Climate change" is widely known and familiar.

  > I think it's a term that majority of people are familiar with, you know. Basically all sorts of people with different levels of education have seen and heard this term throughout their life. So there's a bit of a common understanding for this phrase. (West/Urban)

  > It's a more recognized term across all audiences. So, using common vocabulary, I think you'll get more reception across a wider range of people. (Prairies/Rural)

  > Changements climatiques ça fait plusieurs années qu'on en entend parler. Là ils veulent mettre ça fancy et ils changent de nom, mais le changement climatique tout le monde sait ce que c'est. [We have heard climate change for several years now. Now, they want to make it fancy and they change the name, but climate change, everybody knows what it is]. (French/Rural)

- Some people who are skeptical of how serious the climate change issue is might be turned off by using stronger language such as "climate crisis", so the ad should use the phrase "climate change" to appeal to a broader audience.

  > I don't mind them saying climate crisis or emergency, because in my mind it pretty much is. But you know, there's some folks out there who dispute the whole climate change issue in the first place, and all that. So as soon as you start saying "climate crisis" or "climate emergency", you might get some people's hackles up, depending on where they lean on it. I think climate change is what they should stay with. It's a recognizable term that I think politically is going to be most acceptable to the largest number of people. (Prairies/Rural)

There were also a few participants who felt that using the word crisis may actually discourage belief in individual action because the task seems to be overwhelming for individuals to tackle. One participant summed it up this way:

> > The message that they're going for is, you can do something, you can help, you've got a part in this. If you then throw in the word of like, this is a giant global scary thing, it's going against the, "I can do something", I can participate, me as a little person has things that I can do. I think climate change is a term that we all know, but also like it feels something that's actionable that the individual can do something about. Whereas if you throw crisis in there, I'm like, that seems something big and it's something that companies and not companies, sorry, governments are supposed to be doing. I can't deal with a crisis all by myself. (East/Rural)

Those who preferred "climate crisis" gave two reasons:

- They believe it is indeed a "crisis", and therefore should be called as such.

  > I think we're past climate change. It's now an emergency. It is a crisis. Out of all the words I heard, crisis and emergency is what stuck out because we are past just climate change. This is becoming a crisis, so that's why I picked the crisis because emergency is not as much of an attention-grabber but crisis is, and that's why that one stuck out to me. (Prairies/Urban)

- The phrase "climate change" has been around for a long time and they believe it has lost emotional impact. "Climate crisis" is better at evoking an emotional response and a sense of urgency.

  > But I also think climate crisis, it evokes an emotion. Like, it makes me feel a bit more of like the urgency of it. Because climate change, we hear it so often that it's almost like people are numb to it now. Whereas crisis puts a different bit of a more emergency spin on it. (West/Urban)

  > ["Climate change"] it's like that's just a neutral term. I hear it all the time, whatever. I personally preferred climate crisis because it's like, this is a big deal. It's not just change, it's a big deal. I found that one just hit harder for me because climate change has just been dulled out on my head over the past couple years. (East/Rural)

  > I said crisis, because as much as climate change is the wording that's usually used, I find that if I talk to people about climate change, they just kind of almost roll their eyes and kind of just shrug it off, because, yeah, climate change. We've been talking about climate change forever. But I think it does need to be more like extreme… "crisis" sounded more, like a reason to go and check it out and find more information about it, to me. (Prairies/Rural)

  > Je mettrais « crise climatique » parce que justement on n'est plus dans les « changements », on est dans un état de crise et y faut que les gens s'en rendent compte, parce qu'en disant « changements » on dirait que c'est pas grave: J'me change les cheveux, le linge, etc. Je peux changer pleins d'affaires sur moi c'pas grave. [I would use « climate crisis » because we are no longer in « changes », we are in a state of crisis and people must be made aware. With "change" it does not seem severe: I change my hair style, my clothes, etc. I can change many things and it's not serious] (French/Urban)

With regard to the wording in the first part of See nature as something new, where it used the phrase, "The world is experiencing a climate change crisis", this was a strong feature in getting attention.

> > The message is that the government appears to be trying to find measures to tackle the problem here. The ad basically spoke to me because calling it a crisis opposed to just climate change grabbed me more than the first option [Nature at work] did. (Prairies/Urban)

## Appendix A – Screening Questionnaire

NBS Advertising Campaign Concept Testing

-- Screener --

Hello/Bonjour, I'm ___________ of Synchro Research, a public opinion and marketing research company. First off, let me assure you that we are not trying to sell you anything. We are organizing a research project on behalf of the Government of Canada. I'd like to ask you some questions to see if you would be interested in possibly taking part in this study. This will take about 5 or 6 minutes.

May I continue?

Yes | 1 |
No | 2 | Thank and end interview

Would you prefer that I continue in English or in French? Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? [If prefers French, either switch to the French screener and continue, or say the following and then hang up and arrange French-language call-back] Nous vous rappellerons pour mener cette entrevue de recherche en français. Merci. Au revoir.

[Determination of preferred language and whether or not belongs to an OLMC (Official Language Minority Community]

If in Quebec and has chosen to continue in English:

1. qualifies as OLMC, and
2. for an English group session

If outside Quebec and has chosen to continue in French:

1. qualifies as OLMC, and
2. for a French group session

The Government of Canada is planning to run an advertising campaign later this year. They have several alternative ideas for how to do this advertising campaign. In this research project, you would participate in an online group discussion session led by a professional moderator. In this online discussion session, you would be asked to review some of these advertising materials and give your ideas and opinions about these materials.

Your participation is voluntary and confidential. All information collected, used and/or disclosed will be used for research purposes only and administered per the requirements of the Privacy Act. The full names of participants will not be provided to the government. Your decision to take part will not affect any dealings you may have with the Government of Canada. May I continue?

Yes | 1 |
No | 2 | Thank and terminate

I need to ask you a few questions to see if you fit the profile of the type of people we are looking for in this research.

Note to recruiter: When terminating a call because of their profile say: "Thank you for your cooperation. We already have enough participants who have a similar profile to yours, so we are unable to invite you to participate at this time."

0) Do you indentify yourself as a man, a woman or in some other way? (Accept one answer only)

Man | 1
Woman | 2
or in some other way | 3

Quota: at least 3 men and at least 3 women per group

1) Do you, or does anyone in your household, work for . . .? (Read list)

A marketing research firm | No | Yes
An advertising agency, web or graphic design firm | No | Yes
A magazine or newspaper | No | Yes
A government department | No | Yes
A marketing company | No | Yes
A radio or television station | No | Yes
A public relations company | No | Yes

If "yes" to any, thank and terminate

2) I am going to read you some statements about climate change. For each one, I will ask you to rate whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

a) The first statement is "I believe that climate change is real".Do you …. (Read scale and accept one answer only)

Strongly disagree | 1 | Thank and terminate
Somewhat disagree | 2 | Thank and terminate
Neither agree nor disagree | 3 |
Somewhat agree | 4 |
Strongly agree | 5 |

b) The next statement is "Climate change will bring about serious negative consequences".Do you …. (Read scale and accept one answer only)

Strongly disagree | 1 | Thank and terminate
Somewhat disagree | 2 | Thank and terminate
Neither agree nor disagree | 3 |
Somewhat agree | 4 |
Strongly agree | 5 |

c) The next statement is "It will be a long time before the consequences of climate change are felt".Do you…. (Read scale and accept one answer only)

Strongly disagree | 5 |
Somewhat disagree | 4 |
Neither agree nor disagree | 3 |
Somewhat agree | 2 | Thank and terminate
Strongly agree | 1 | Thank and terminate

d) The next statement is "I am willing to make substantial changes in my life to help limit climate change".Do you…. (Read scale and accept one answer only)

Strongly disagree | 1 | Thank and terminate
Somewhat disagree | 2 | Thank and terminate
Neither agree nor disagree | 3 |
Somewhat agree | 4 |
Strongly agree | 5 |

e) How do you currently feel about the issue of climate change? Would you say that you are…. (Read scale and accept one answer only)

Not at all worried | 1 | Thank and terminate
Slightly worried | 2 | Thank and terminate
Moderately worried | 3 |
Very worried | 4 |
Extremely worried | 5 |

f) How do you currently feel about the issue of climate change? Would you say that you are…. (Read scale and accept one answer only)

Not at all hopeful | 1 |
Slightly hopeful | 2 |
Moderately hopeful | 3 |
Very hopeful | 4 |
Extremely hopeful | 5 | Thank and terminate

g) I have one more statement to read to you. "People who are close to me generally expect that I do my part to help limit climate change". Do you…. (Read scale and accept one answer only)

Strongly disagree | 1 | Thank and terminate
Somewhat disagree | 2 | Thank and terminate
Neither agree nor disagree | 3 |
Somewhat agree | 4 |
Strongly agree | 5 |

3) Now I would like to ask you in what province or territory do you currently live? (Do not read list)

Province/Territory | Q.3 | Q.4: City/Town | OFFICE USE ONLY
Alberta | 1 |  | Urban Rural
British Columbia | 2 |  | Urban Rural
Manitoba | 3 |  | Urban Rural
New Brunswick | 4 |  | Urban Rural
Newfoundland & Labrador | 5 |  | Urban Rural
Northwest Territories | 6 |  | Urban Rural
Nova Scotia | 7 |  | Urban Rural
Nunavut | 8 |  | Urban Rural
Ontario | 9 |  | Urban Rural
Prince Edward Island | 10 |  | Urban Rural
Quebec | 11 |  | Urban Rural
Saskatchewan | 12 |  | Urban Rural
Yukon | 13 |  | Urban Rural

4) In what city or town do you live? (Record above)

Quotas by Region

English: ATL/ON/QC/Nunavut | Urban (10 participants per session) | At least 6 from ON and at least 2 from ATL
English: ATL/ON/QC/Nunavut | Rural (10 participants per session) | At least 6 from ON and at least 2 from ATL
English: MAN/SASK/AB | Urban (10 participants per session) | At least 4 from AB and at least 1 from each of SASK and MAN
English: MAN/SASK/AB | Rural (10 participants per session) | At least 4 from AB and at least 1 from each of SASK and MAN
English: BC/YK/NWT | Urban (10 participants per session) | At least 8 from BC
English: BC/YK/NWT | Rural (10 participants per session) | At least 8 from BC
French | Urban (10 participants per session) | At least 5 from QC and at least 2 from NB
French | Rural (10 participants per session) | At least 5 from QC and at least 2 from NB

5) We would like to talk to people in different age groups. Into which one of the following groups should I place you? (Read list)

Under 18 | 1 – Thank and terminate
18 to 24 | 2
25 to 34 | 3
35 to 44 | 4
45 to 54 | 5
55 to 64 | 6
65 or over | 7

Quota: At least 3 from codes 2 or 3

Quota: At least 3 from codes 4 through 7

6a) We would also like to include a mix of people from different backgrounds. Were you born in Canada or were you born elsewhere?

Canadian-born | 1 | Ask Q.6b
Born elsewhere | 2 | Go to Q.7a

6b) Are you an Indigenous person, that is First Nations, Métis or Inuk (Inuit)? First Nations includes Status and Non-Status Indians.

Yes, I am | 1 | Watch quotas– at least 2 in each region (out of 20 recruits)
No, I am not | 2 |

7a) Sometimes people with a disability use adaptive technology or devices to watch or listen to advertisements on TV or on the internet. Do you need to use any adaptive technology or devices to watch or listen to ads?

Yes | 1 | Qualifies for individual interview; Ask Q.7b
No | 2 | Go to Q.8
Prefer not to say | 3 | Go to Q.8

7b) What type of adaptive technology or device do you use to to watch or listen to advertisements?

Thank you. I'd like to confirm if you would have the profile to participate in an online individual interview on your opinions about the Government of Canada ads for this project.

8) The discussion session for this project will be conducted online using a webcam, and it will require the use of a laptop, desktop computer or computer tablet connected to high speed internet. Note that you cannot use a smartphone to participate in the online session.

a) Do you have access to high speed internet that you can use for the online discussion session?

Yes | 1 | Continue
No | 2 | Thank and end interview

b) Do you have access to a laptop, desktop computer or computer tablet to take part in the online discussion session?

Yes, laptop or desktop | 1 | Go to Q.8d
Yes, computer tablet | 2 | Ask Q.8c
No | 3 | Thank and end interview

c) What is the screen size of the computer tablet you will be using to take part in the online discussion session?

Up to 4 inches/small | 1 | Thank and end interview
5 to 9 inches/medium | 2 | Continue
At least 10 inches or more/large | 3 | Continue

d) You will need to be in a place that is quiet and free of distractions for the duration of the online session. Would you able to participate in this type of location?

Yes | 1 | Continue
No | 2 | Thank and end interview

If "no" to Q.7a and "yes" to Q.8d, schedule for online group discussion

If "yes" to Q.7a and "yes" to Q.8d, schedule for individual online interview

Instructions for Q.8a-d "Thank and end interview": Based on your answers, we are unable to invite you to take part in an online discussion session, as you do not meet the technical requirements. Thank you for your interest in this research.

9a) Have you ever participated in an in-depth research interview or a focus group involving a small group of people where people were asked to discuss different topics?

Yes | 1 | Continue
No | 2 | Go to Q.10

9b) And when was the last time you attended an interview or discussion group?

6 months ago or less | 1 | Thank and end interview
or more than 6 months ago | 2 | Continue

9c) In the past 5 years, how many in-depth research interviews or discussion groups have you attended? Would you say less than 5 in total, or would you say 5 or more?

Less than 5 | 1 | Continue
5 or more | 2 | Thank and end interview

10) Thank you. Let me tell you some more about this study to see if you would like to take part.

a) There may be some people from the Government of Canada who have been involved in this project observing the session. However, they will not take part in the discussion in any way, and they will not be given your full name. Is this acceptable to you?

Yes | 1 | Continue
No | 2 | Thank and end interview

b) The session will be audio and video recorded. These recordings are used to help with analyzing the findings and writing the report. Your name will not appear in the research report, and the recording will not be given to the Government of Canada. Is this acceptable to you?

Yes | 1 | Continue
No | 2 | Thank and end interview

Invitation – If qualifies for an individual interview at Q.7a/Q.8d above

Thank you. We would like to invite you to participate in one of our online individual interviews. The session will last one hour, and after you have completed the session you will be paid $75.

Would you be willing to participate in one of these sessions?

Yes | 1 | Continue
No | 2 | Thank and end interview

Arrange for a daytime session sometime between Friday, November 18 and Thursday, November 24. Do not schedule within one hour of any group session.

We will send instructions for logging in to the online session at least two days in advance. What email address should we use?

As I mentioned, you will be paid $75 after you have finished participating. We can send this to you by Interac e-transfer or by cheque, whichever you prefer. Would you prefer to receive payment by Interac e-transfer or by cheque?

Interac e-transfer | 1
Cheque | 2

Go To Payment Details

Invitation – If qualifies for a group session

If in Quebec and qualifies as English OLMC, offer English session

If outside Quebec and qualifies as French OLMC offer French session

The session will be held on [insert date], at [insert participant's local time]. Would you be available to attend?

Yes | 1 | Continue
No | 2 | Thank and end interview

Thank you. We would like to invite you to participate in one of our online group discussions. The session will last two hours, and after you have completed the session you will be paid $125 to thank you for your participation.

For the group discussion we will be using Zoom which is an online platform that allows the moderator to share the advertising ideas that you will be asked to discuss and offer your opinions. A few days before the session we will send you a link to the Zoom meeting.

The person leading the discussion will be Anita Pollak/Nadia Papineau-Couture of Sage Research, which is a public opinion research company.

Would you be willing to attend?

Yes | 1 | Continue
No | 2 | Thank and end interview

Region | Type | Date | Time:
--- | --- | --- | ---
English: ATL/ON/QC/Nunavut | Urban | Fri. Nov. 18 | 5:30 pm ET
English: ATL/ON/QC/Nunavut | Rural | Sat. Nov. 19 | 10:00 am ET
English: MAN/SASK/AB | Urban | Sat. Nov. 19 | 1:30 pm ET
French | Urban | Tues. Nov. 22 | 5:30 pm ET
English: BC/YK/ NW | Urban | Tues. Nov. 22 | 8:30 pm ET
French | Rural | Wed. Nov. 23 | 5:30 pm ET
English: BC/YK/ NW | Rural | Wed. Nov. 23 | 8:30 pm ET
English: MAN/SASK/AB | Rural | Thurs. Nov. 24 | 7:30 pm ET

As I mentioned, you will be paid $125 after you have finished participating. We can send this to you by Interac e-transfer or by cheque, whichever you prefer. Would you prefer to receive payment by Interac e-transfer or by cheque?

Interac e-transfer | 1
Cheque | 2

Payment details

Refer to preferred payment method

If prefer Interac e-transfer

What email address would you like the Interac e-transfer sent after you have finished participating in the session?

And please confirm the spelling of your name:

If prefer cheque

What mailing address should we use to send you the cheque after you have finished participating in the session?

Street

City

Province

Postal code

And please confirm the spelling of your name as it should appear on the cheque

If Individual Interview

In the event you are unable to attend, let us know as soon as possible so we can find a replacement. Please call us at [Insert recruiting company phone #]and ask for [Insert recruiting company contact name]. Also note that you may not send someone else in your place if you are unable to attend.

Please also arrive 5 minutes prior to the starting time. The interview will begin promptly at [TIME].

If Group Discussion

As these are small sessions and with even one person missing, the overall success of the group may be affected, I would ask that you make every effort to attend the group. But, in the event you are unable to attend, let us know as soon as possible so we can find a replacement. Please call us at [Insert recruiting company phone #]and ask for [Insert recruiting company contact name]. Also note that you may not send someone else in your place if you are unable to attend.

Please also arrive 10 minutes prior to the starting time. The discussion begins promptly at [time]. People who arrive too late to participate in the focus group will not receive the honorarium.

Closing

Someone from our office will be calling you back to confirm these arrangements. May I please have your contact information where we can reach you during the evening and during the day?

Name
Evening phone
Day time phone
Email address

Thank you very much!

Recruited by
Confirmed by

Note to recruiter: Should a participant require validation that this is a legitimate research project, please refer them to:
Name: Public Opinion Research Team at Environment and Climate Change Canada
Contact information: Por-Rop@ec.gc.ca

## Appendix B – Discussion Guide

NBS Advertising Campaign Concept Testing

Discussion Guide

1) Introduction (10 minutes)

a) Introduce self, and explain purpose of research: This research is being sponsored by the Government of Canada. The Government is considering running an advertising campaign early in 2023. They have several alternative ideas for how to do this advertising campaign. What I'll be doing is showing you the different alternative ideas they have, and asking you for your opinions.

b) Review group discussion procedures:

- Role of moderator
- Role of participants: there are no right or wrong answers; just want everyone to participate and offer your own views, and to feel free to agree or disagree with others in the group
- Confidentiality: Your name will not appear in the report
- Recording: The session is being recorded. The recording is for my use only to help in preparing the report on this research, and will not be provided to the Government of Canada or anyone else
- Presence of observers from the Government of Canada online – they are not given your full name; they are here to observe the moderator and to increase their general understanding of the topics we are discussing tonight
- Please turn off cell phones and any other electronic devices
- We ask you to not take any screenshots during our discussion to respect the privacy of others and confidentiality of content
- Discussion to last 2 hours

c) Any questions?

d) Participant self-introductions: First name only, what you are doing these days – are you working outside the home, raising a family or attending school?

2) Overview and explanation of ad concepts (3 minutes)

a) Overview of procedure: The Government of Canada is planning to run an advertising campaign, and they have developed three alternative concepts for the design of the ads. Each advertising concept consists of a 30-second video ad that is planned to be shown on TV and in movie theatres and an ad that would appear on social media.

I'm going to show you the advertising concepts one at a time, and after each one we will discuss your opinions about the concept.

b) Explanation of how ad concepts have been rendered:

The ad campaign would consist of a 30-second video ad. None of the ads have actually been produced yet. Instead, each video is represented by an animation, with still images instead of real footage and music and voices that aren't final as well. This is just to give you the idea of what the ad would look and sound like, before it gets produced with real footage and professional announcers and music.

I will present each concept by playing these animations. In order to evaluate these ads, you will have to overlook the fact that these are rough animations and not the final ads. Instead focus on the messages of these ads, the feelings they give you, and how effective you think the overall ideas are. So please don't worry about the quality of the production, colours or fonts please. We will not be talking about the quality of the images, or the quality of the sound track. Instead, I want you to remember that these animations would be produced later on with real photography, real announcers and more professional music and soundtracks, and react to the ads on that basis.

Concept letter assignments

- G: 1 – Everyday people changing everything
- N: 2 – Nature at work
- R: 3 - See nature as something new

3) Present first ad concept/Concept G [In this version of the guide, the order is G, N, R] (30 minutes) (order will be rotated across groups)

a) First campaign concept (give code to participants, i.e., "this is concept G"): I am about to play the first ad.

I'll now play the Cocnept G video ad twice, and then we will discuss the ad.

Play animatic ad twice

b) Discussion of first campaign video ad

To get started, thinking both about what the ad is saying, and how the ad is done, how would you rate it… (Do vote)

- Thumbs up
- Thumbs down, or
- Neutral

What were your reasons for rating the ad the way you did? [Note to moderator: start the discussion with those most positive towards the ad, but please make sure also those who are not positive about it say briefly what they liked/disliked]

What did you like? What, if anything, did you not like? [Note to moderator: keep like/dislike discussion brief]

What did you see as being the main idea or message of this ad concept?

Probes:

- Was there anything in the ad that was confusing? Are there any specific parts that are unclear? Is there anything that could be done to clarify the message?
- What, if anything surprised you in this ad? Is there anything missing in this ad that you had expected to see or would want to know?
- Did you learn anything from this ad? Was there anything new you didn't know before seeing it? If so, what was it?
- Who is this ad campaign being aimed at? What gives you that impression? (Probe if not mentioned): Does it speak to someone like you?
- (If time allows) Is this an important message for Canadians to hear and see? Why/why not? Could something more be done to make it more relevant to you?

What if anything would you do if you saw this ad?

Probe:

- The ad ended with the announcer saying, "These are some of the communities changing everything for Canada's climate", and while the announcer was saying this, there was a message on the screen that said, "Learn how nature-based solutions can improve your community" and there was a website, Canada.ca/our-environment. Did you notice this last message on the screen, and if so, what was your reaction? (Prompt if not said:) Would you visit the website? Would watching this ad spark a conversation with someone you know? Would you do anything else?

Would you change anything about the ad? Anything you would suggest changing to improve the concept – e.g. what more, if anything, could be done to increase the appeal of the ad, or to make it catch your attention more?

Probes:

- This ad uses the phrase "climate change." For example:
  - Concept G:The announcer says near the beginning of the ad, "If you want to take on climate change – forget about the world"
  - Concept N: Near the end of the ad, a message appears on the screen, "A nature-based solution working to tackle climate change"
  - Concept R: At the beginning of the ad, a message appears on screen that says, "The world is experiencing a climate change crisis"
- My question is, is the phrase "climate change" the best phrase to use? Alternatives could be phrases such as "extreme weather", or "climate crisis" or "climate emergency." Do you think they should stay with "climate change", or do you prefer one of these alternative phrases? What are your reasons?

4) Present second ad concept/Concept N [In this version of the guide, the order is G, N, R] (30 minutes) (order will be rotated across groups)

a) Second campaign concept (give code to participants, i.e., "this is concept N"): I am now moving on to the second ad concept to show you.

I'll now play the Concept N video ad twice, and then we will discuss the ad.

Play animatic ad twice

b) Discussion of second campaign video ad

To get started, thinking both about what the ad is saying, and how the ad is done, how would you rate it… (Do vote)

- Thumbs up
- Thumbs down, or
- Neutral

What were your reasons for rating the ad the way you did? [Note to moderator: start the discussion with those most positive towards the ad, but please make sure also those who are not positive about it say briefly what they liked/disliked]

What did you like? What, if anything, did you not like? [Note to moderator: keep like/dislike discussion brief]

What did you see as being the main idea or message of this ad concept?

Probes:

- Was there anything in the ad that was confusing? Are there any specific parts that are unclear? Is there anything that could be done to clarify the message?
- What, if anything surprised you in this ad? Is there anything missing in this ad that you had expected to see or would want to know?
- Did you learn anything from this ad? Was there anything new you didn't know before seeing it? If so, what was it?
- Who is this ad campaign being aimed at? What gives you that impression? (Probe if not mentioned): Does it speak to someone like you?
- (If time allows) Is this an important message for Canadians to hear and see? Why/why not? Could something more be done to make it more relevant to you?

As you may recall, the ad began with a picture of a tree. I want to ask you about what the announcer said at this point. The announcer said, "This is not a tree". Would it read better if the announcer said "This is not JUST a tree?" or does it not really make any difference? What are your reasons for saying that?

What if anything would you do if you saw this ad?

Probe:

- The ad ended with the announcer saying, "It's a nature-based solution working to tackle climate change. And you can help", and after that there was a message on the screen that said, "Learn how at Canada.ca/our-environment". [Note to moderator: This would have been tested already in the first ad, please focus on how strong the call to action is considering this is a different concept.] Did you notice this last message on the screen, and if so, what was your reaction? (Prompt if not said): Would you visit the website? Would watching this ad spark a conversation with someone you know? Would you do anything else?

Would you change anything about the ad? Anything you would suggest changing to improve the ad – e.g. what more, if anything, could be done to increase the appeal of the ad, or to make it catch your attention more?

5) Present third ad concept/Concept R [In this version of the guide, the order is G, N, R] (30 minutes) (order will be rotated across groups)

a) Third campaign concept (give code to participants, i.e., "this is concept R"): I am now moving on to the third ad concept.

I'll now play the Concept R video ad twice, and then we will discuss the ad.

Play animatic ad twice

b) Discussion of third campaign video ad

To get started, thinking both about what the ad is saying, and how the ad is done, how would you rate it… (Do vote)

- Thumbs up
- Thumbs down, or
- Neutral

What were your reasons for rating the ad the way you did? [Note to moderator: start the discussion with those most positive towards the ad, but please make sure also those who are not positive about it say briefly what they liked/disliked]

What did you like? What, if anything, did you not like? [Note to moderator: keep like/dislike discussion brief]

What did you see as being the main idea or message of this ad concept?

Probes:

- Was there anything in the ad that was confusing? Are there any specific parts that are unclear? Is there anything that could be done to clarify the message?
- What, if anything surprised you in this ad? Is there anything missing in this ad that you had expected to see or would want to know?
- Did you learn anything from this ad? Was there anything new you didn't know before seeing it? If so, what was it?
- Who is this ad campaign being aimed at? What gives you that impression? (Probe if not mentioned): Does it speak to someone like you?
- (If time allows) Is this an important message for Canadians to hear and see? Why/why not? Could something more be done to make it more relevant to you?

As you may recall, the announcer says, "Nature-based solutions, like protecting marshes to reduce greenhouse gases, are part of Canada's innovative approach to tackling climate change", and while they're saying this, you see on the screen, "Nature-based solutions are part of Canada's innovative approach to tackling climate change". I have a question about the phrase "innovative approach." Show on screen:

Announcer: "Nature-based solutions, like protecting marshes to reduce greenhouse gases, are part of Canada's innovative approach to tackling climate change"

On screen: "Nature-based solutions are part of Canada's innovative approach to tackling climate change"

Some possible alternatives to "innovative": Nature-based solutions are part of Canada's…

- cutting edge approach to tackling climate change
- state-of-the art approach to tackling climate change
- inventive approach to tackling climate change
- advanced approach to tackling climate change

Do you think "innovative" is the appropriate word to use, or do you prefer one of these other words or phrases? If the latter, which one and why?

[Always ask for concept R]: Near the beginning of the ad, the following statements appeared on the screen. The first statement was, "The world is experiencing a climate change crisis."And this was followed by the statement, "There is hope." What do you think of that follow-up statement, "There is hope"? Where do you think "nature-based solutions" fits in this context? What do you think is the role of "nature-based solutions" compared to other actions that might or should be taken?

What if anything would you do if you saw this ad?

Probe:

- The ad ended with the announcer saying, "See nature as something new at Canada.ca/our-environment." Did you notice this last message on the screen, and if so, what was your reaction? (Prompt if not said) Would you visit the website? Would watching this ad spark a conversation with someone you know? Would you do anything else?

Would you change anything about the ad? Anything you would suggest changing to improve the ad – e.g. what more, if anything, could be done to increase the appeal of the ad, or to make it catch your attention more?

6) Comparison of the three concepts (15 minutes)

A phrase used in the ads that I showed you is "nature-based solutions." What does this phrase mean to you, or is it unclear what it means? As you understand it, what are some examples of nature-based solutions?

Probes:

- Examples of what you as an individual can do
- Examples of what your community/the country/the world can do
- (If time allows) What would be your own definition of "nature-based solutions" after seeing these ads?
- (If time allows) Instead of using the phrase "nature-based solutions", do you have any suggestions for a different phrase that better or more clearly communicates this concept?

a) [Play all 3 video ads again and do vote:] Of the three ad concepts – G, N and R – which had the greatest impact on you in terms of creating interest in nature-based solutions to tackling climate change? Which one was your last choice?

b) [Among those most preferring a concept] What are your reasons for saying this had the greatest impact?

c) [Among those least preferring a concept] What are your reasons for ranking this concept last?

7) Wrap up (2 minute)

The final report for this project will be available to the public and will be posted on the Library and Archives Canada website.

Thank you for coming today and giving us your opinions.

## Appendix C – Ad Concepts

### Ad Concept: See nature as something new

MUSIC: BOLD, EPIC, ORCHESTRAL
OPEN ON A BLACK SCREEN. WHITE SUPERS APPEAR.

SUPER: The world is experiencing a climate change crisis.
SUPER: There is hope.
SUPER: A marvel of environmental science.
SUPER: Capable of capturing up to 200 metric tons of carbon.

MUSIC CLIMAXES

FADE IN: A SERENE LANDSCAPE OF WETLANDS
SUPER: Wetlands
VO: Wetlands.

WE SEE CLOSE-UP SHOTS OF PLANT LIFE & WILDLIFE: DUCKS, LOONS, BEAVERS, & FROGS.

SUPER: Nature-based solutions are part of Canada's innovative approach to tackle climate change.
VO: Nature-based solutions, like protecting marshes to reduce greenhouse gases, are part of Canada's innovative approach to tackle climate change.

SUPER: See nature as something new at Canada.ca/our-environment
VO: See nature as something new at Canada.ca/our-environment

### Ad Concept: Nature at work

WE SEE A FULLY GROWN TREE

SUPER: This is not a tree.
VO: This is not a tree.

SUPER: It's a CO2 Air Purifier
VO: It's a CO2 Air Purifier.

WE SEE A MEDIUM CLOSE-UP OF LEAVES TURNING TOWARD THE SUN
VO: From sunup to sundown, it absorbs sunlight.

WE SEE AN EXTREME CLOSE UP OF THE LEAF AND ITS PORES
VO: ...and CO2, transforming it into fresh air...

WE ENTER ONE OF THE PORES AND FADE TO BLACK.
WE FADE IN ON THE WOMAN IN THE PARK AS SHE EXHALES. ENJOYING THE BEAUTIFUL DAY.
VO: ...for all of us.

WE SEE A WIDE SHOT OF THE TREE. THE COUPLE RELAXING UNDERNEATH IT
SUPER: This is not a tree.
VO: This is not a tree.

SUPER: A Nature-based Solution working to slow climate change.
VO: It's a nature-based solution working to tackle climate change. And you can help.

SUPER: Learn how at canada.ca/our-environment
VO: Learn how at canada.ca/our-environment

### Ad Concept: Everyday people changing everything

IMAGINE SWEEPING SHOTS OF NATURE ACROSS CANADA.
WOMAN 1 VO: If you want to take on climate change — forget about THE world.

CUT TO VARIOUS CANADIANS IN THEIR FRONT AND BACK YARDS, BALCONIES, ROOFTOPS, GREEN SPACES, ETC.
MAN 1 VO: Focus on your own.

WE THEN SEE A MAN AND OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN WETSUITS PLANTING EELGRASS IN A HARBOUR.
MAN 2: Nature makes where you live — liveable.
SUPER: Keeping the harbour clean with Eelgrass. Gibsons, BC

WE SEE A GROUP OF PEOPLE LANDSCAPING A PARK TO INCLUDE A RAIN GARDEN.
WOMAN 2: But you have to care for it.
SUPER: Removing pollution with rain gardens. Halifax, NS

WE SEE ANOTHER MAN, 20s, LOOKING AT CAMERA. WE REVEAL HE'S SPEAKING TO A CONDO BOARD.
ON A NEARBY EASEL, THERE IS A PRESENTATION: GREEN ROOF – A NATURE-BASED SOLUTION.
MAN 3: Getting dirty is optional.
SUPER: Reducing flood risks with living roofs. Fort Gary, MB

WE SEE A TEAM OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS CLEARING A SAND BERM AS WATER RUSHES THROUGH INTO A WETLAND.
WOMAN 3: Getting involved is not.
SUPER: Restoring wetlands in Joliette, QC.

WE SEE A CLOSE-UP OF A SWALLOW PERCHED ON GRASSES.
ZOOM OUT TO A GIRL GUIDE TROOP CLEANING UP GRASSLANDS.
KID: It's up to us.
SUPER: Strengthening biodiversity. Saskatoon, SK

WE REPRISE VARIOUS PEOPLE FEATURED THROUGHOUT.
PEOPLE VO: ...Including you.

ANNCR: These are some of the communities changing everything for Canada's climate.
SUPER: Learn how nature-based solutions can improve your community canada.ca/our-environment