A human-centered framework for innovation in conservation incentive programs
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.
KeywordsAdaptive governance Design thinking Human-centered design Incentive programs Participation Stewardship
We thank the following organizations for financial support: Wildlife Conservation Society through the Wildlife Action Opportunities Fund (with support from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation), and the David & Lucille Packard Foundation. C. J. Donlan also thanks D. Newman for introducing him to the world of design thinking. This material is based in part upon work supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems (CNH) Program (GEO-1211877), the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station and the McIntire Stennis Program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- Brown, T., and J. Wyatt. 2010. Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review 8: 30–35.Google Scholar
- 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
- Donlan, C.J. 2015. Proactive strategies for protecting species: Pre-listing conservation and the Endangered Species Act. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Leopold, A. 1949. A sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Liedtka, J., and T. Ogilvie. 2011. Designing for growth. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Martin, R. 2009. The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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