Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tacit working models of human behavioural change I: Implementation of conservation projects

  • Review
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The “human dimension” of conservation is increasingly recognised as critical for success. Most conservation research involving people is based not on explicit “theories of change”, but tacit local knowledge or folk theories guiding programme design.In this study, I propose a schematization of the local socioecological knowledge and folk theories about the “human dimension” of conservation into tacit working models, comprised of individual factors and systemic factors influencing human behaviour in conservation contexts. These are called the Persuasion, Normative, Involvement and Uniformity tacit working models. I review a set of conservation interventions and programmes, in order to assess which of the implicit working models inform their design. I argue that in order to better understand how a project may arrive at different outcomes, the underlying assumptions about human behaviour and the implicit “theory of change” that went into programme design need to be made explicit. This schema does not evaluate different approaches to conservation, but it can help point out the underlying assumptions that structure interventions and that may be more or less suited to particular situations. This can allow researchers to recognise their own assumptions and test them explicitly, leading to the formulation of more reflective and explicit theories, and improving the quality of both discourse and practice in conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, W.M., and J. Hutton. 2007. People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society 5: 147–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, B. 2009. Gender and forest conservation: The impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics 68: 2785–2799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auld, G., L.H. Gulbrandsen, and C.L. McDermott. 2008. Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33: 187–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballantyne, R., J. Packer, K. Hughes, and L. Dierking. 2007. Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research 13: 367–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballantyne, R., J. Packer, and J. Falk. 2011. Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: Testing short-and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modelling. Tourism Management 32: 1243–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmford, A., L. Cole, C. Sandbrook, and B. Fisher. 2017. The environmental footprints of conservationists, economists and medics compared. Biological Conservation 214: 260–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barca, B., A. Lindon, and M. Root-Bernstein. 2016. Environmentalism in the crosshairs: Perspectives on migratory bird hunting and poaching conflicts in Italy. Global Ecology and Conservation 6: 189–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow, E., and M. Murphree. 2001. Community conservation: From concept to practice. In African wildlife and livelihoods: The promise and performance of community conservation, ed. E. Barrow, P. Bergen, M. Infield, and P. Lembuya, 24–37. Nairobi: African Wildlife Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barua, M., M. Root-Bernstein, R. Ladle, and P. Jepson. 2011. Defining flagship uses is critical for flagship selection: A critique of the IUCN climate change flagship fleet. Ambio 40: 431–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0116-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R.F., and J. Tierney. 2011. Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. New York: The Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baynham-Herd, Z., S. Redpath, N. Bunnefeld, T. Molony, and A. Keane. 2018. Conservation conflicts: Behavioural threats, frames, and intervention recommendations. Biological Conservation 222: 180–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bixler, R.P., J. Dell’Angelo, O. Mfune, and H. Roba. 2015. The political ecology of participatory conservation: Institutions and discourse. Journal of Political Ecology 22: 165–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackman, A., and J.E. Rivera. 2010. The evidence base for environmental and socioeconomic impacts of ‘sustainable’ certification. Discussion paper. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

  • Börner, J., K. Baylis, E. Corbera, D. Ezzine-de-Blas, J. Honey-Rosés, U.M. Persson, and S. Wunder. 2017. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development 96: 359–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockington, D. 2001. Women’s income and the livelihood strategies of dispossessed pastoralists near the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Human Ecology 29: 307–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockington, D. 2004. Community conservation, inequality and injustice: Myths of power in protected area management. Conservation and Society 2: 411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broman Toft, M., G. Schuitema, and J. Thøgersen. 2014. The importance of framing for consumer acceptance of the Smart Grid: A comparative study of Denmark, Norway and Switzerland. Energy Resources Society and Science 3: 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, J.S., and K.A. Waylen. 2012. How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109: 21265–21270.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. 2003. Three challenges for a real people-centred conservation. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12: 89–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, A.G., R.E. Gullison, R.E. Rice, and G.A. Da Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291: 125–128.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buckwell, A. 1997. Rural Europe: A policy overview. Built Environment 23: 170–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burivalova, Z., F. Hua, L.P. Koh, C. Garcia, and F. Putz. 2017. A critical comparison of conventional, certified, and community management of tropical forests for timber in terms of environmental, economic, and social variables. Conservation Letters 10: 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.J., C. Kuczera, and G. Schwarz. 2008. Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 48: 16–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.J., and G. Schwarz. 2013. Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy 30: 628–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L.M., and A. Vainio-Mattila. 2003. Participatory development and community-based conservation: Opportunities missed for lessons learned? Human Ecology 31: 417–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K.M., E. Anderson, M. Chapman, K. Jespersen, and P. Olmsted. 2017. Payments for ecosystem services: Rife with problems and potential—For transformation towards sustainability. Ecological Economics 140: 110–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K.M.A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Gould, N. Hannahs, et al. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113: 1462–1465.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J.R.A., A. Jones, C.A. Potter, and M. Lobley. 1997. Conceptualising the evolution of the European Union’s agri-environment policy: A discourse approach. Environment and Planning A 29: 1869–1885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, C.F. 2013. Public interest in the extinction of a species may lead to an increase in donations to a large conservation charity. Biodiversity and Conservation 22: 2695–2699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, A.E., K. Bagstad, V. Esposito, A. Moulaert, and C.M. Rodriguez. 2010. Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica’s PES: Are we asking the right questions? Ecological Economics 69: 2116–2126.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Snoo, G.R., I. Herzon, H. Staats, R.J. Burton, S. Schindler, J. van Dijk, A.M. Lokhorst, J.M. Bullock, et al. 2013. Toward effective nature conservation on farmland: Making farmers matter. Conservation Letters 6: 66–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Young, R. 1993. Changing behavior and making it stick: The conceptualization and management of conservation behavior. Environment and Behavior 25: 485–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E.L., R. Koestner, and R.M. Ryan. 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125: 627–668.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Defrancesco, E., P. Gatto, F. Runge, and S. Trestini. 2008. Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures: A northern Italian perspective. Journal of Agricultural Economics 59: 114–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giminiani, P., and M. Fonck. 2018. Emerging landscapes of private conservation: Enclosure and mediation in southern Chilean protected areas. Geoforum 97: 305–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, L.R., and D. Veríssimo. 2013. Flagships or battleships: Deconstructing the relationship between social conflict and conservation flagship species. Environment and Society 4: 98–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley, N. (ed.). 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, R., F.A. St John, B. Büscher, and D. Brockington. 2015. The militarization of anti-poaching: Undermining long term goals? Environmental Conservation 42: 345–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duflo, E., M. Kremer, and J. Robinson. 2011. Nudging farmers to use fertilizer: Theory and experimental evidence from Kenya. American Economics Review 101: 2350–2390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekroos, J., J. Heliölä, and M. Kuussaari. 2010. Homogenization of lepidopteran communities in intensively cultivated agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 459–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, S., S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65: 663–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evely, A.C., M. Pinard, M.S. Reed, and I. Fazey. 2011. High levels of participation in conservation projects enhance learning. Conservation Letters 4: 116–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley, J., A. Aquino, A. Daniels, A. Moulaert, D. Lee, and A. Krause. 2010. Global mechanisms for sustaining and enhancing PES schemes. Ecological Economics 69: 2075–2084.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, A., V. Kerezi, B. Arroyo, M. Mateos-Delibes, D. Tadie, A. Lowassa, O. Krange, and K. Skogen. 2013. (De)legitimising hunting—Discourses over the morality of hunting in Europe and eastern Africa. Land Use Policy 32: 261–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, R. 2018. License to kill: Contesting the legitimacy of green violence. Conservation and Society 16: 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galvin, K., T. Beeton, and M. Luizza. 2018. African community-based conservation: A systematic review of social and ecological outcomes. Ecology and Society 23: 588–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, J.M., E. Nicholson, E.J. Milner-Gulland, and J.P. Jones. 2011. Should payments for biodiversity conservation be based on action or results? Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 1218–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giovannucci, D., and S. Ponte. 2005. Standards as a new form of social contract? Sustainability initiatives in the coffee industry. Food Policy 30: 284–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun, E., R. De Groot, P.L. Lomas, and C. Montes. 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69: 1209–1218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, G.D., and M.D. Leo. 2003. Repeated behavior and environmental psychology: The role of personal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33: 1261–1296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2007. The Polanyian way? Voluntary food labels as neoliberal governance. Antipode 39: 456–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackel, J.D. 1999. Community conservation and the future of Africa’s wildlife. Conservation Biology 13: 726–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hainmueller, J., M.J. Hiscox, and S. Sequeira. 2015. Consumer demand for fair trade: Evidence from a multistore field experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics 97: 242–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ham, S.H., D.S. Sutherland, and R.A. Meganck. 1993. Applying environmental interpretation in protected areas of developing countries: problems in exporting a US model. Environmental Conservation 20: 232–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, C., and G. Davies. 2002. Conserving biodiversity that matters: Practitioners’ perspectives on brownfield development and urban nature conservation in London. Journal of Environmental Management 65: 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasund, K.P. 2013. Indicator-based agri-environmental payments: A payment-by-result model for public goods with a Swedish application. Land Use Policy 30: 223–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, T.M. 2006. Parks, people, and forest protection: An institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Development 34: 2064–2075.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazzah, L., S. Dolrenry, L. Naughton, C.T. Edwards, O. Mwebi, F. Kearney, and L. Frank. 2014. Efficacy of two lion conservation programs in Maasailand, Kenya. Conservation Biology 28: 851–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein, T.A. 2012. Navigating environmental attitudes. Conservation Biology 26: 583–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, N. 2017. Des valeurs. Une approche sociologique. Paris: Editions Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzon, I., and M. Mikk. 2007. Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: A comparative study from Estonia and Finland. Journal for Nature Conservation 15: 10–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, J.Mc.C. 1995. Putting power in the anthropology of bureaucracy: The immigration and naturalization service at the Mexico-United States border. Current Anthropology 36: 261–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoag, C. 2011. Assembling partial perspectives: Thoughts on the anthropology of bureaucracy. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 34: 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoag, C. 2014. Dereliction at the South African Department of Home Affairs: Time for the anthropology of bureaucracy. Critique of Anthropology 34: 410–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, I. 2013. Agri-environment policy in an era of lower government expenditure: CAP reform and conservation payments. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56: 254–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hvenegaard, G.T., E.A. Halpenny, and S.F. McCool. 2012. Protected area tourism and the Aichi Targets. Parks 18: 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Infield, M., and A. Namara. 2001. Community attitudes and behaviour towards conservation: an assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35: 48–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jager, E., and E.A. Halpenny. 2012. Supporting the CBD AICHI biodiversity conservation targets through park tourism: A case study of Parks Canada’s visitor experience programme. Parks 18: 78–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepson, P., and S. Canney. 2003. Values led conservation. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12: 271–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P.N., and K. Oatley. 1992. Basic emotions, rationality, and folk theory. Cognition and Emotion 6: 201–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jongman, R.H. 2002. Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: Ecological consequences and solutions. Landscape and Urban Planning 58: 211–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky (eds.). 2000. Choices, values, frames. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashima, Y., P. Bain, N. Haslam, K. Peters, S. Laham, J. Whelan, B. Bastian, S. Loughnan, L. Kaufmann, and J. Fernando. 2009. Folk theory of social change. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 12: 227–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8: 239–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremer M., A. Ahuja, and A.P. Peterson-Zwane. 2010. Providing safe water: Evidence from randomized evaluations. Discussion paper, 10–23. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Environmental Economics Program.

  • Lele, S., P. Wilshusen, D. Brockington, R. Seidler, and K. Bawa. 2010. Beyond exclusion: Alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in the developing tropics. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 94–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindon, A., and M. Root-Bernstein. 2015. Pheonix flagships: Conservation values and guanaco reintroduction in an anthropogenic landscape. Ambio 44: 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0608-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorimer, J. 2007. Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25: 911–932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorimer, J., and C. Driessen. 2014. Wild experiments at the Oostvaardersplassen: Rethinking environmentalism in the Anthropocene. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39: 169–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, S., S.M. Swinton, F. Lupi, and C. Jolejole-Foreman. 2012. Farmers’ willingness to participate in payment for environmental services programmes. Journal of Agricultural Economics 63: 604–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace, G.M. 2014. Whose conservation? Changes in the perception and goals of nature conservation require a solid scientific basis. Science 345: 1558–1560.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Margulies, J.D. 2018. The conservation ideological state apparatus. Conservation and Society 16: 181–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, A.S. 2008. State making, knowledge, and ignorance: Translation and concealment in Mexican forestry institutions. American Anthropologist 110: 484–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, K., and D. Blackman. 2014. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology 28: 1167–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. 2004. Networks of agri-environmental policy implementatio: A case of England’s Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Land Use Policy 21: 177–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosse, D. 2004. Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development and Change 35: 639–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, J.K., A. Morrison-Saunders, and M. Hughes. 2008. Environmental interpretation evaluation in natural areas. Journal of Ecotourism 7: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazarea, V.D. 2006. Local knowledge and memory in biodiversity conservation. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 317–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, F., and A. Agrawal. 2008. Patronage or participation? Community-based natural resource management reform in sub-Saharan Africa. Development and Change 39: 557–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochoa-Ochoa, L., J.N. Urbina-Cardona, B. Vázquez, O. Flores-Villela, and J. Bezaury-Creel. 2009. The effects of governmental protected areas and social initiatives for land protection on the conservation of Mexican amphibians. PLoS ONE 4: e6878.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam, P., J.I. Nassauer, Z. Wang, C. Albert, G. Bentrup, C.J. Castella, C. McAlpine, J. Liu, et al. 2013. Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecology 28: 1439–1445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulson, S., L.L. Gezon, and M. Watts. 2003. Locating the political in political ecology: An introduction. Journal of Political Ecology 62: 205–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peluso, N.L. 1993. Coercing conservation: The politics of state resource control. Global Environmental Change 3: 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot, J.C., J.F. Lund, and T. Treue. 2010. Democratic decentralization in sub-Saharan Africa: Its contribution to forest management, livelihoods, and enfranchisement. Environmental Conservation 37: 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocheleau, D.E. 2008. Political ecology in the key of policy: From chains of explaination to webs of relation. Geoforum 39: 716–727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, A.S., S.J. Andelman, M.I. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T.M. Brooks, R.M. Cowling, L.D. Fishpool, G.A. da Fonseca, et al. 2004. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: 640.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roe, D., F. Booker, M. Day, W. Zhou, S. Allebone-Webb, N.A. Hill, N. Kumpel, and G. Petrokofsky. 2015. Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to specified elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation status of those elements? Environmental Evidence 4: 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P. 2014. Theory of change, methodological briefs: impact evaluation 2. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, C., E.O. Sills, M.R. Guariguata, P.O. Cerutti, G. Lescuyer, and F.E. Putz. 2017. Evaluation of the impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of natural forest management in the tropics: a rigorous approach to assessment of a complex conservation intervention. International Forestry Review 19: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, M. 2014. Nostalgia, the fleeting and the rare in Chilean relationships to nature and non human animals. Society & Animals 22: 560–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, M., and J. Armesto. 2013. Selection and implementation of a flagship fleet in a locally undervalued region of high endemicity. Ambio 42: 776–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0385-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, M., A. Bondoux, M. Guerrero-Gatica, and F. Zorondo-Rodriguez. 2020. Tacit working models of human behavioural change II: Farmers’ folk theories of conservation programme design. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01315-6

  • Root-Bernstein, M., J. Gooden, and A. Boyes. 2018. Rewilding in practice and in policy. Geoforum 97: 292–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, M., M. Root-Bernstein, and R. Root-Bernstein. 2014. Tools for thinking applied to nature provide an inclusive pedagogical framework for environmental education. Oryx 48: 584–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Mallén, I., C. Schunko, E. Corbera, M. Rös, and V. Reyes-García. 2015. Meanings, drivers, and motivations for community-based conservation in Latin America. Ecology and Society 20: 393–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, C.S. 2004. Environmental labeling and consumers’ choice—An empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47: 411–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito-Jensen, M., I. Nathan, and T. Treue. 2010. Beyond elite capture? Community-based natural resource management and power in Mohammed Nagar village, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Conservation 37: 327–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomers, S., and B. Matzdorf. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services 6: 16–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, P.W. 2011. Conservation means behavior. Conservation Biology 25: 1080–1083.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwanen, T., D. Banister, and J. Anable. 2012. Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: The case of low-carbon mobility. Journal of Transport Geography 24: 522–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheng, J., and H. Qiu. 2018. Governmentality within REDD + : Optimizing incentives and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation. Land Use Policy 76: 611–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebert, R., M. Toogood, and A. Knierim. 2006. Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis 46: 318–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slocum, R. 2004. Polar bears and energy-efficient lightbulbs: Strategies to bring climate change home. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22: 413–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svarstad, H., T.A. Benjaminsen, and R. Overå. 2018. Power theories in political ecology. Journal of Political Ecology 25: 350–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallis, H., J. Lubchenko, et al. 2014. A call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515: 27–28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Telesca, J.E. 2015. Consensus for whom? Gaming the market for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna through the empire of bureaucracy. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 33: 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R., and C. Sustein. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titz, A., T. Cannon, and F. Krüger. 2018. Uncovering ‘community’: Challenging an elusive concept in development and disaster related work. Societies 8: 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tree, I. 2018. Wilding. London: Picador Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaccaro, I., O. Beltran, and P.E. Paquet. 2013. Political ecology and conservation policies: Some theoretical genealogies. Journal of Political Ecology 20: 255–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Loo, E.J., V. Caputo, R.M. Nayga, H.S. Seo, B. Zhang, and W. Verbeke. 2015. Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes. Ecological Economics 118: 215–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vellend, M., K. Verheyen, K.M. Flinn, H. Jacquemyn, A. Kolb, H. Van Calster, G. Peterken, B.J. Graae, et al. 2007. Homogenization of forest plant communities and weakening of species–environment relationships via agricultural land use. Journal of Ecology 95: 565–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veríssimo, D., H.A. Campbell, S. Tollington, D.C. MacMillan, and R.J. Smith. 2018. Why do people donate to conservation? Insights from a ‘real world’ campaign. PLoS ONE 13: e0191888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veríssimo, D., G. Vaughan, M. Ridout, C. Waterman, D. MacMillan, and R.J. Smith. 2017. Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species. Biological Conservation 211: 95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, S., and D. Sheil. 2007. Partnerships for tropical conservation. Oryx 41: 434–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verplanken, B., I. Walker, A. Davis, and M. Jurasek. 2008. Context change and travel mode choice: Combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 121–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlaeminck, P., T. Jiang, and L. Vranken. 2014. Food labeling and eco-friendly consumption: Experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket. Ecological Economics 108: 180–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waage, E.R., and K. Benediktsson. 2010. Performing expertise: Landscape, governmentality and conservation planning in Iceland. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 12: 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallen, K.E., and E. Daut. 2018. The challenge and opportunity of behaviour change methods and frameworks to reduce demand for illegal wildlife. Nature Conservation 26: 55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R.T. 2005. Turning science into policy: Challenges and experiences from the science-policy interface. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 360: 471–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, N.M., and K.S. Lekies. 2006. Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments 16: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Western, D., and R.M. Wright. 1994. Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation. Washington, DC: Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T.A. 2011. Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E.O. 2016. Half-earth: Our planet’s fight for life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, A.J., D. Veríssimo, K. Pilfold, E.C.M. Parsons, K. Ventre, J. Cousins, R. Jefferson, and H. Koldewey. 2015. Competitive outreach in the 21st century: Why we need conservation marketing. Ocean and Coastal Management 115: 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, S. 2007. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 21: 48–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasué, M., A. Nellas, and A.C.J. Vincent. 2012. Seahorses helped drive creation of marine protected areas, so what did these protected areas do for the seahorses? Environmental Conservation 39: 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Countless people have listened to me try to express versions of these ideas over several years, and their feedback has been helpful in refining my argument; particular thanks go to Anne-Caroline Prevot for her supportiveness and Colin Hoag for an introduction to anthropology of bureaucracy. I acknowledge funding from a Marie Curie FP7 COFUND Agreenskills Plus Fellowship, and support from the Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CONICYT PIA/BASAL FB0002) during the preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UMR Sciences pour l’Action et le Développement, Activités, Produits, Territoires, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78850, Thiverval-Grignon, France

    Meredith Root-Bernstein

  2. Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad, Santiago, Chile

    Meredith Root-Bernstein

  3. Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Santiago, Chile

    Meredith Root-Bernstein

Authors
  1. Meredith Root-Bernstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meredith Root-Bernstein.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Root-Bernstein, M. Tacit working models of human behavioural change I: Implementation of conservation projects. Ambio 49, 1639–1657 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01298-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01298-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation