People and Conservation Flashcards
Explore why understanding people through social science is key to conservation
Explore different approaches to changing human behaviour
Briefly discuss social science survey methods
Global biodiversity continues to decline
Tittensor et al 2014
Why?
“Conservation science is a mature discipline armed with knowledge and tools for effective management of populations and habitats”
- Johnson et al (2017) Science 356
Why?
“Conservation science is a mature discipline armed with knowledge and tools for effective management of populations and habitats”
- Johnson et al (2017) Science 356
Outcomes of conservation responses for Swiss birds and plants
Population increase 18%
Population stabilisation 33%
Unsuccessful attempt 4%
Techniques known but not attempted 30%
Techniques unknown 6%
Success not assessed 9%
Gigon et al 1998
Lack of conservation support
- Inadequate funds – especially government & corporate investment
- Non-compliance – illegal logging/wildlife trade, pesticide use regulations
- Repealed decisions and legislation – protected area downgrading and degazettement; legislation e.g. USA & Brazil
- Individual choices – consumption, transport etc.
- Out-competed by other societal goals
Human behaviour
Key differences exist between the developed and developing worlds
but human behaviours play a key role in all cases. In general…
Developed world – lack of conservation support despite the ‘ability’ to support it, conflict with other personal goals
Developing world – lack of conservation support because of perceived conflict with ‘legitimate’ development issues
Quantifying level of conservation support
Methods
Randomly selected c. 300 people in urban areas across England Measured behavioural and financial support
Behavioural scale
Commitment to environmental sustainability scale (CESS) – 3 questions, 12 points available
e.g. “the environment is a low priority for me compared with a lot of other things in my life”
Mean = 8; 16% score of 11 or 12
Willingness to sacrifice scale (WTS) – 5 questions, 40 points available e.g. “I am willing to give things up that I like doing if they harm the natural environment”
Mean = 26; 27% score of 33 or more
Quantifying level of conservation support
Financial scale
Donations across charitable sectors – actual & hypothetical
Environment and conservation. Actual 8.0% vs. Hypothetical 17.5%
Coupled natural-human systems
Human-natural coupling “human system impacts
and re-organises natural system”
• human induced forest loss & fragmentation increases conflict (associated with forest cover decline < 30-40%) • 40-50 elephants killed annually during crop raiding
Natural-human coupling “natural system responds to human
management & other drivers influencing human system”
100 people (max 300) killed annually by crop-raiding elephants
Individual farmers experience severe economic loss
Social science is crucial
To understand human attitudes and responses to natural world and conservation, e.g.
- conservation advertising
- promote sustainable pro-environmental behaviour
- quantifying human benefits (& costs) of conservation
Conservation advertising
‘the biggest and most effective campaign the RSPB has ever launched’ ‘hugely-successful, award-winning advertisement’
‘increased membership’
RSPB Press Release & Annual Reports
Increased membership? Perverse outcomes? – a single message
Changed behaviour?
TV advert
Conservation advertising
SAVE THE RHINO: Nothing we do will ever bring them back
ENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUST: If you don’t pick it up they will
Bold, simple messages
Raise awareness but do they change behaviour?
Conservation advertising: eco-labels
https://fsc-watch.com/
Theory - mimic labels of health & quality standards that benefit individual
But…
• Consumers care less about eco-labels as effects spread across society
• No adverse consequences for consumers who cannot distinguish effective and ineffective eco-labels so lots of ‘mimics’
• Industries use weak eco-labels to avoid strong regulation
Need more robust independent regulation?
How do we change behaviour?
Economically rational? Financial incentives
Changing behaviour: skylark plots
2% uptake rate!
Economically rationale or other factors?
http://www.rspb.org.uk/whatwedo/projects/details.aspx?id=198328
How do we change behaviour?
Economically rationale? Decision making: 25% logic + 75% emotion e.g. 9 million UK adults in serious debt Other values and attitudes strong influencers
Promote nature connectedness?
Baba Dioum 1968 IUCN Meeting
“In the end we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught”
David Attenborough Guardian 4th Nov 2018
“You want people to understand the wonder of nature. Some spin-off is that if they appreciate the wonder, then they care about it, and that’s when it brings you to your other mission – which is to make people interested, then more likely to care and conserve, and become active in saving the planet”
50% respondents never/once or twice a year, every few months go to countryside
Coldwell & Evans 2017 PLoS One 12: e0174376
But nature connectedness and pro- environmental attitudes often poor predictors of pro-environmental behaviour
e.g. air travel - discretionary flights
People with higher pro-environmental attitudes and climate concern scores MORE likely to fly
Within ‘flyers’ distance flown and pro-environmental attitudes POSITIVELY correlated
Alcock et al 2017 Global Environ Change 42, 136-147
Deficit model: assumes lack of information is key, educate people and they ‘do the right thing’
Knowledge Financial constraints Attitudes Values Emotions Efficacy Responsibility
i.e. cognitive constraints and biases have key roles in decision making
Nudging behaviour
Financial incentives & education target controlled conscious deliberation
But people tend to put off making complex hard decisions, which can further reduce effectiveness
Nudging targets contextual variables that often moderate behaviour through automatic, unconscious cognitive processes
Systematic review of contextual vs traditional interventions on pro-environmental behaviour
e. g. change default café menu to veggie only & move meat options to separate menu
e. g. celebrities, match gender/ethnicity
e. g. living in a sustainably designed building primes engagement in pro-environmental behaviour
Byerly et al. 2018 Frontiers Ecol & Environment 16, 159-168
Promising (≥75% studies) Mixed (1-74% studies) No effect
- contextual interventions outperform education interventions
- financial incentives also outperformed education interventions
- contextual vs financial pattern unclear (insufficient data)
- combined approaches may be most effective