1
|
de Lange E, Milner-Gulland EJ, Keane A. Effects of social networks on interventions to change conservation behavior. Conserv Biol 2022; 36:e13833. [PMID: 34476844 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2021] [Revised: 07/28/2021] [Accepted: 08/20/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Social networks are critical to the success of behavioral interventions in conservation because network processes such as information flows and social influence can enable behavior change to spread beyond a targeted group. We investigated these mechanisms in the context of a social marketing campaign to promote a wildlife poisoning hotline in Cambodia. With questionnaire surveys we measured a social network and knowledge and constructs from the theory of planned behavior at 3 points over 6 months. The intervention initially targeted ∼11% (of 365) of the village, but after 6 months ∼40% of the population was knowledgeable about the campaign. The likelihood of being knowledgeable nearly doubled with each additional knowledgeable household member. In the short term, there was also a modest, but widespread improvement in proconservation behavioral intentions, but this did not persist after 6 months. Estimates from stochastic actor-oriented models suggested that the influences of social peers, rather than knowledge, were driving changes in intention and contributed to the failure to change behavioral intention in the long term, despite lasting changes in attitudes and perceived norms. Our results point to the importance of accounting for the interaction between networks and behavior when designing conservation interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emiel de Lange
- School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
- ICCS, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Aidan Keane
- School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kusmanoff AM, Fidler F, Gordon A, Garrard GE, Bekessy SA. Five lessons to guide more effective biodiversity conservation message framing. Conserv Biol 2020; 34:1131-1141. [PMID: 32043648 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13482] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2019] [Revised: 01/31/2020] [Accepted: 02/07/2020] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
Communication and advocacy approaches that influence attitudes and behaviors are key to addressing conservation problems, and the way an issue is framed can affect how people view, judge, and respond to an issue. Responses to conservation interventions can also be influenced by subtle wording changes in statements that may appeal to different values, activate social norms, influence a person's affect or mood, or trigger certain biases, each of which can differently influence the resulting engagement, attitudes, and behavior. We contend that by strategically considering how conservation communications are framed, they can be made more effective with little or no additional cost. Key framing considerations include, emphasizing things that matter to the audience, evoking helpful social norms, reducing psychological distance, leveraging useful biases, and, where practicable, testing messages. These lessons will help communicators think strategically about how to frame messages for greater effect.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander M Kusmanoff
- ICON Science, School of Global Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, Australia
- National Environment Science Programme, Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Room 532, Goddard Building, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia
| | - Fiona Fidler
- School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville Campus, Victoria, 3010, Australia
| | - Ascelin Gordon
- ICON Science, School of Global Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, Australia
| | - Georgia E Garrard
- ICON Science, School of Global Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, Australia
- National Environment Science Programme, Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Room 532, Goddard Building, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia
| | - Sarah A Bekessy
- ICON Science, School of Global Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, Australia
- National Environment Science Programme, Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Room 532, Goddard Building, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia
- ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Room 525, University of Queensland, Goddard Building, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hampton JO, Fisher PM, Warburton B. Reconsidering humaneness. Conserv Biol 2020; 34:1107-1113. [PMID: 32104929 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2019] [Revised: 02/19/2020] [Accepted: 02/21/2020] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Animal welfare is increasingly important in the understanding of how human activity affects wildlife, but the conservation community is still grappling with meaningful terminology when communicating this aspect of their work. One example is the use of the terms "humane" and "inhumane." These terms are used in scientific contexts, but they also have legal and social definitions. Without reference to a defined technical standard, describing an action or outcome as humane (or inhumane) constrains science communication because the terms have variable definitions; establish a binary (something is either humane or inhumane); and imply underlying values reflecting a moral prescription. Invoking the term "humane," and especially the strong antithesis "inhumane," can infer a normative judgment of how animals ought to be treated (humane) or ought not to be treated (inhumane). The consequences of applying this terminology are not just academic. Publicizing certain practices as humane can create blurred lines around contentious animal welfare questions and, perhaps intentionally, defer scrutiny of actual welfare outcomes. Labeling other practices as inhumane can be used cynically to erode their public support. We suggest that, if this normative language is used in science, it should always be accompanied by a clear, contextual definition of what is meant by humane.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Penny M Fisher
- Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln, 7640, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yanco E, Nelson MP, Ramp D. Cautioning against overemphasis of normative constructs in conservation decision making. Conserv Biol 2019; 33:1002-1013. [PMID: 30734367 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13298] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2018] [Revised: 01/09/2019] [Accepted: 01/31/2019] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
Questions around how to conserve nature are increasingly leading to dissonance in conservation planning and action. While science can assist in unraveling the nature of conservation challenges, conservation responses rely heavily on normative positions and constructs to order actions, aid interpretations, and provide motivation. However, problems can arise when norms are mistaken for science or when they stymy scientific rigor. To highlight these potential pitfalls, we used the ethics-based tool of argument analysis to assess a controversial conservation intervention, the Pelorus Island Goat Control Program. The program proponents' argument for restorative justice was unsound because it relied on weak logical construction overly entrenched in normative assumptions. Overreliance on normative constructs, particularly the invocation of tragedy, creates a sense of urgency that can subvert scientific and ethical integrity, obscure values and assumptions, and increase the propensity for flawed logic. This example demonstrates how the same constructs that drive biodiversity conservation can also drive poor decision making, spur public backlash, and justify poor animal welfare outcomes. To provide clarity, a decision-making flowchart we devised demonstrates how values, norms, and ethics influence one another. We recommend practitioners follow 3 key points to improve decision making: be aware of values, as well as normative constructs and ethical theories that those values inform; be mindful of overreliance on either normative constructs or ethics when deciding action is justified; and be logically sound and transparent when building justifications. We also recommend 5 key attributes that practitioners should be attentive to when making conservation decisions: clarity, transparency, scientific integrity, adaptiveness, and compassion. Greater attention to the role of norms in decision making will improve conservation outcomes and garner greater public support for actions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esty Yanco
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| | - Michael Paul Nelson
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A
| | - Daniel Ramp
- Centre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia
| |
Collapse
|