Putting Behavioral Science to Work in Conservation
If you ask conservationists to discuss their impact, they will tell you stories about forests and species being protected, or about new technologies that are making a difference. But take a step back from that and you will see that conservation is about people and their behaviors, as well as the choices that we have all made that have led to our current biodiversity crisis. This means that behavior change is absolutely key to the work that conservationists do, and on that front, there is much more progress to be made. Here are a few ways to gain momentum:
Bring behavioral science out of its silo.
Major conservation groups seem to recognize that conservation is, at its essence, behavior change work. But despite this recognition, behavior change work still exists in a silo. Currently, behavior change professionals tend to be cordoned off in a behavior change branch or “nudge unit” of the organization, and they are consulted late in a project’s development rather than being involved from the outset. If we see every aspect of conservation through the lens of behavior change, we might start streamlining behavioral science so that it is at the core of our organizational structure. Non-governmental organizations like Rare and TRAFFIC already do this.
Make evaluation mandatory.
In fields like public health and development, rigorous evaluation is mandatory, and interventions are not believed to be complete until outcomes are fully measured and understood. In conservation, by contrast, interventions often end with activity or outreach delivery. This is the case because funders make it so. They emphasize the tracking of outputs (e.g., workshops delivered, materials distributed) rather than the impact from these activities (i.e., did anyone actually change their behavior?). However, conservation is turning a page in this regard. More interventions are conducting experimental or quasi-experimental impact evaluations. For example, researchers recently conducted a randomized control trial to determine if paying Indonesian fishers to release accidentally caught endangered sharks would decrease shark mortality. Traditional measurements pointed to success: hundreds of sharks were released. But when compared to a counterfactual, the truth came to the forefront: the intervention had actually increased shark mortality by 44 percent. The fishers were catching more sharks in order to get the payments. Had experimental design not been used, this perverse incentive would have remained undetected.
Standardize the language.
Many communication barriers exist in conservation because the field intersects with so many others: psychology, social marketing, economics, etc. This diversity adds richness to our understanding, but the distinct terminology from each field causes confusion. For example, when we’re talking about failing to act on our intentions, do we say “intention-action gap”, “attitude-behavior gap” or “value-action gap”? Thankfully, some standardized tools and frameworks are emerging in the field. Groups such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) or the Conservation Measures Partnership are in a great position to bring forth shared taxonomies.
As with anything, knowing about these solutions isn’t enough. Behavioral science in conservation needs accountability. To be serious about impact, incentives should push resources towards interventions that are effective and away from those that aren’t. This is already the case in the private sector and in fields where behavioral science flourishes. We also need to remember that to strengthen behavioral science in conservation, people and their behavior must be the cornerstone. That includes us.
To read the full article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review, click here.
If you ask conservationists to discuss their impact, they will tell you stories about forests and species being protected, or about new technologies that are making a difference. But take a step back from that and you will see that conservation is about people and their behaviors, as well as the choices that we have all made that have led to our current biodiversity crisis. This means that behavior change is absolutely key to the work that conservationists do, and on that front, there is much more progress to be made. Here are a few ways to gain momentum:
Bring behavioral science out of its silo.
Major conservation groups seem to recognize that conservation is, at its essence, behavior change work. But despite this recognition, behavior change work still exists in a silo. Currently, behavior change professionals tend to be cordoned off in a behavior change branch or “nudge unit” of the organization, and they are consulted late in a project’s development rather than being involved from the outset. If we see every aspect of conservation through the lens of behavior change, we might start streamlining behavioral science so that it is at the core of our organizational structure. Non-governmental organizations like Rare and TRAFFIC already do this.
Make evaluation mandatory.
In fields like public health and development, rigorous evaluation is mandatory, and interventions are not believed to be complete until outcomes are fully measured and understood. In conservation, by contrast, interventions often end with activity or outreach delivery. This is the case because funders make it so. They emphasize the tracking of outputs (e.g., workshops delivered, materials distributed) rather than the impact from these activities (i.e., did anyone actually change their behavior?). However, conservation is turning a page in this regard. More interventions are conducting experimental or quasi-experimental impact evaluations. For example, researchers recently conducted a randomized control trial to determine if paying Indonesian fishers to release accidentally caught endangered sharks would decrease shark mortality. Traditional measurements pointed to success: hundreds of sharks were released. But when compared to a counterfactual, the truth came to the forefront: the intervention had actually increased shark mortality by 44 percent. The fishers were catching more sharks in order to get the payments. Had experimental design not been used, this perverse incentive would have remained undetected.
Standardize the language.
Many communication barriers exist in conservation because the field intersects with so many others: psychology, social marketing, economics, etc. This diversity adds richness to our understanding, but the distinct terminology from each field causes confusion. For example, when we’re talking about failing to act on our intentions, do we say “intention-action gap”, “attitude-behavior gap” or “value-action gap”? Thankfully, some standardized tools and frameworks are emerging in the field. Groups such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) or the Conservation Measures Partnership are in a great position to bring forth shared taxonomies.
As with anything, knowing about these solutions isn’t enough. Behavioral science in conservation needs accountability. To be serious about impact, incentives should push resources towards interventions that are effective and away from those that aren’t. This is already the case in the private sector and in fields where behavioral science flourishes. We also need to remember that to strengthen behavioral science in conservation, people and their behavior must be the cornerstone. That includes us.
To read the full article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review, click here.
