Ambio

, Volume 44, Issue 8, pp 788–792 | Cite as

A human-centered framework for innovation in conservation incentive programs

Perspective

Abstract

The promise of environmental conservation incentive programs that provide direct payments in exchange for conservation outcomes is that they enhance the value of engaging in stewardship behaviors. An insidious but important concern is that a narrow focus on optimizing payment levels can ultimately suppress program participation and subvert participants’ internal motivation to engage in long-term conservation behaviors. Increasing participation and engendering stewardship can be achieved by recognizing that participation is not simply a function of the payment; it is a function of the overall structure and administration of the program. Key to creating innovative and more sustainable programs is fitting them within the existing needs and values of target participants. By focusing on empathy for participants, co-designing program approaches, and learning from the rapid prototyping of program concepts, a human-centered approach to conservation incentive program design enhances the propensity for discovery of novel and innovative solutions to pressing conservation issues.

Keywords

Adaptive governance Design thinking Human-centered design Incentive programs Participation Stewardship 

References

  1. Banerjee, S., S. Secchi, J. Fargione, S. Polasky, and S. Kraft. 2013. How to sell ecosystem services: A guide for designing new markets. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment 11: 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, T., and J. Wyatt. 2010. Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review 8: 30–35.Google Scholar
  3. Bowles, S. 2008. Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine “the moral sentiments”: Evidence from economic experiments. Science 320: 1605–1609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clements, T., A. John, K. Nielsen, D. An, S. Tan, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2010. Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecological Economics 69: 1283–1291.Google Scholar
  5. DeCaro, D., and M. Stokes. 2008. Social-psychological principles of community-based conservation and conservancy motivation: Attaining goals within an autonomy-supportive environment. Conservation Biology 22: 1443–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donlan, C.J. 2015. Proactive strategies for protecting species: Pre-listing conservation and the Endangered Species Act. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ferraro, P.J. 2011. The future of payments for environmental services. Conservation Biology 25: 1134–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferraro, P.J., and A. Kiss. 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298: 1718–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frey, B.S., and R. Jegen. 2001. Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys 15: 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gelcich, S., and C.J. Donlan. 2015. Incentivizing biodiversity conservation with artisanal fishing communities through territorial user rights and business model innovation. Conservation Biology. doi:10.1111/cobi.12477.Google Scholar
  12. Greene, H. 2005. Organisms in nature as a central focus for biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heyman, J., and D. Ariely. 2004. Effort for payment. Psychological Science 15: 787–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jack, B.K., C. Kousky, and K.R.E. Sims. 2008. Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 9465–9470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Langpap, C. 2006. Conservation of endangered species: Can incentives work for private landowners? Ecological Economics 57: 558–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leopold, A. 1949. A sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lett, J. 1990. Emics and etics: Notes on the epistemology of anthropology. In Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate, ed. T.N. Headland, K.L. Pike, and M. Harris. Frontiers of Anthropology, vol. 7. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Liedtka, J. 2011. Learning to use design thinking tools for successful innovation. Strategy & Leadership 39: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liedtka, J., and T. Ogilvie. 2011. Designing for growth. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, R. 2009. The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  21. Melles, G., I. de Vere, and V. Misic. 2011. Socially responsible design: Thinking beyond the triple bottom line to socially responsive and sustainable product design. CoDesign 7: 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milne, S., and E. Niesten. 2009. Direct payments for biodiversity conservation in developing countries: Practical insights for design and implementation. Oryx 43: 530–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muradian, R., E. Corbera, U. Pascual, N. Kosoy, and P.H. May. 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 1202–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Naeem, S., J.C. Ingram, A. Varga, T. Agardy, P. Barten, G. Bennett, E. Bloomgarden, L.L. Bremer, et al. 2015. Get the science right when paying for nature’s services. Science 347: 1206–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Osbaldiston, R., and K.M. Sheldon. 2003. Promoting internalized motivation for environmentally responsible behavior: A prospective study of environmental goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peterson, M.N., T.R. Peterson, M.J. Peterson, R.R. Lopez, and N.J. Silvy. 2002. Cultural conflict and the endangered Florida key deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 921–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryan, R.M., and E.L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55: 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scherfig, C., M. Brunander, and C. Melander. 2010. From the world’s first design policy to the world’s best design policy. Design Management Review 21: 6–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sommerville, M.M., J.P. Jones, and E. Milner-Gulland. 2009. A revised conceptual framework for payments for environmental services. Ecology & Society 14: 1–14.Google Scholar
  30. Sorice, M.G., and T. Abel. 2015. A landowner-centered approach to obtaining participation in pre-compliance conservation programs. In Proactive strategies for protecting species: Pre-listing conservation and the Endangered Species Act, ed. C.J. Donlan, 105–114. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sorice, M.G., and J.R. Conner. 2010. Predicting private landowner intentions to enroll in an incentive program to protect endangered species. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15: 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sorice, M.G., W. Haider, J.R. Conner, and R.B. Ditton. 2011. Incentive structure of and private landowner participation in an endangered species conservation program. Conservation Biology 25: 587–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sorice, M.G., C. Oh, T. Gartner, M. Snieckus, R. Johnson, and C.J. Donlan. 2013. Increasing participation in incentive programs for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Applications 23: 1146–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Vugt, M. 2009. Averting the tragedy of the commons: Using social psychological science to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18: 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vohs, K., N.L. Mead, and M.R. Goode. 2006. The psychological consequences of money. Science 314: 1154–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Worrell, R., and M.C. Appleby. 2000. Stewardship of natural resources: Definition, ethical and practical aspects. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wunder, S., S. Engel, and S. Pagiola. 2008. Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65: 834–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Resources & Environmental ConservationVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Advanced Conservation StrategiesMidwayUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations