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- Repealed decisions and legislation – protected area downgrading and degazettement; legislation e.g. USA & Brazil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
Social networks
Similar kinds of people tend to interact more with each other (homophily)
i) Social selection - similar people interact
ii) Social influence/contagion - people influenced by those they interact with and conform
Shark bycatch: Hawaii longline tuna fishery
2.34 sharks per 1,000 hooks
Information exchange
1.76 sharks per 1,000 hooks
1.79 sharks per 1,000 hooks
Could save 46,000 sharks (2008-12) Just 1 fishery!
Barnes et al. 2016 PNAS 2016;113:6466-6471
Cultural ecosystem services
‘non-material benefits that people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience’
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 • Health & well-being benefits • Aesthetic • Educational services • Recreation & tourism • Social capital
Health & well-being benefits
Benefit
Description
Examples
Psychological & cognitive -
Positive effect on mental processes, behaviour & cognitive ability or function
- Psychological well-being
-Attention restoration
-Decreased depression, stress, frustration, anger, aggression
-Increased self-esteem, improved mood
-Increased happiness, calmness, creativity
-Reduced mental fatigue
-Improved academic performance
Physiological
- Positive effect on physical function and/or physical health
- Better general health
- Reduced illness / mortality / blood pressure / heart rate
- Increased longevity
- Reduced inflammatory disease & intestinal disorders
- Reduced pre-term births
- Faster healing
Social science survey instruments
Recruitment/ delivery methods • Face to face (site or • door-to-door) • Online • Postal
Factors • Bias: interest & socio-demographics • Sample size • Labour intensity • Cost • Duration • Targeted groups
Response rates
Designing Questions
Rule 1: Non-leading questions
‘is conservation important?’
‘what are your views on conservation?’
Rule 2: Decide on qualitative versus quantitative questions
Qualitative: open-ended, rich data, useful when limited understanding of the system, more difficult to analyse
e.g. Why don’t you participate in higher level stewardship?
Quantitative: closed questions, less rich data, but easier to analyse, often Likert scale (strongly agree…strongly disagree)
e.g. Insufficient financial rewards limit my participation in higher level stewardship
Rule 3: Use non-technical language
Rule 4: Pilot!
Additional techniques
Focus groups:
Encourage discussion & feedback Useful for initial exploration Careful management
Semi-structured interviews:
Conversational & discursive
Useful when people cautious/wary of officials
evidence and opportunities Frontiers Ecol & Environment 16, 159-168
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fee. 1777
Social science survey
instruments
Which instrument (questionnaire, focus group etc.)? How select respondents?
4-5 questions
IUCN Near-threatened
UK biggest terrestrial avian conservation issue
Sedge management – 2 options with different time implications: a) physical control b) herbicide rags Issues/data needed: Perceived effectiveness Costs of action Indirect costs on profits
Summary
Reading list
Carter et al 2014 Coupled human and natural systems approach to wildlife research and conservation Ecology and Society 19(3), 43
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss3/art43/
Byerly et al. 2018 Nudging pro‐environmental behavior: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fee. 1777
Ultimately conservation depends on changing human attitudes, values and behaviour
Social science is crucial for achieving this, but is not easy Education rarely sufficient in isolation to change behaviour
People don’t base decisions entirely on financial implications
Need to use combination of financial and contextual interventions to nudge human behaviour
1 Consider other approaches to increase conservation support:
• Co-design & community based natural resource management
• Reframing conservation goals to appeal more widely
2 Consider wider debates in conservation regarding these methods
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
17 goals
Arose from Millennium Development Goals
171 studies in 165 PAs
Protected areas associated with positive socioeconomic outcomes were more likely to report
positive conservation outcomes. Positive conservation and socioeconomic outcomes were more likely to occur when PAs adopted co-management regimes, empowered local people, reduced economic inequalities, and maintained cultural and livelihood benefits.
Land sharing versus land sparing
Intensification & bees
ON - Organic near to natural areas
OF - Organic far from natural areas
CF - Conventional far from natural areas
Amount required for producing marketable fruit
Kremen C et al. 2002 PNAS 99, 16812-16816
SDGs: 167 targets & 230 indicators
15.7 Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products
15.7.1 Proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked
15.c Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities
15.c.1 Proportionof traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked
9 indicators repeat for 2 or more targets
SDGs: 167 targets & 230 indicators
Co-design conservation solutions
Imposing ideas/regulations can create resentment and reduce compliance
Issues greatest when social or ethnic differences between ‘rule’ creators and receivers
Preferable to work together to co-design workable solutions that take advantage of local knowledge and increase trust and mutual understanding? 15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements
15.1.1 Forest area as a proportion of total land area
15.1.2 Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected areas, by ecosystem type
Covered by PAs – measuring a policy not the outcome of the policy
Co-design: e.g. albatross bycatch
2004: 19 of 22 spp IUCN red list 100,000
albatrosses killed per year
Bait loss to birds = no catch • Tori lines • Line weighting – double weighting • Night setting 99% by-catch reduction in South Africa 7 out of 10 fisheries use methods 4 species removed from IUCN red list
CBNRM – community based natural resource management
Arose in 1980s
Community decision making facilitated by conservationists = co-design
Equitable access to natural resources and the promotion of sustainable livelihoods
Joint conservation and non-conservation goals
Mixed outcomes but can be highly successful
