Hi all,
Conservation policy is ambitious. Marine protected areas now cover almost 10% of the world’s oceans, and protected lands account for almost one-fifth of Earth’s terrestrial surface. On paper, this progress is impressive.
Yet there is a phenomenon called “paper parks” that has been known by conservationists for a long time. These are protected areas that exist in law but not in practice. After the legislation passes, government announcements are made, and rules are changed, but the wildlife, fish, and forests remain unprotected because the behaviors those rules depend on do not shift. Conservationists have learned over time that structural change in the form of policy and legislation is important, but not enough.
There’s an interesting debate around this in a recent book, It’s On You: How Corporations and Behavioral Scientists Have Convinced Us That We’re to Blame for Society’s Deepest Problems. The authors are leading behavioral scientists, and focus their central argument on the “i-frame” vs. the “s-frame”. The “i-frame” is an intervention that aims to change behavior within existing systems, such as reminder messages, information campaigns, and default settings. The authors argue that corporations and policymakers prefer this approach because it draws attention away from structural changes that might threaten powerful institutions. Carbon footprint calculators promoted by the oil giant BP are a great example. The alternative, the “s-frame”, centres around changing the system itself through laws and regulation. The authors make the point that many nudges are not large or significant enough for the problems they target. Transforming energy, food and financial systems requires more than behavioral tweaks. While this may be true, the field of conservation demonstrates that for many complex situations, both structural reforms and behavioral interventions are required.
Consider that a fisher might be aware of the areas she cannot fish, a farmer might know the forest boundary, and a community living next to a wildlife corridor might understand the laws against poaching. Yet all of these people might break the rules because the incentives favor extraction, enforcement is weak, or the social norms signal non-compliance. There is no question that legislation and regulation matter, but the expectations people form about whether others will comply, and the social infrastructure built around those expectations, will ultimately determine whether a law or policy changes real-world outcomes. In practice, this might mean clear boundary markers, community monitoring systems, and shared commitments that make breaking the rules both visible and socially costly.
Durable conservation occurs when people trust the regulations, expect their community to follow them, and participate in the social systems that make compliance real. When those behavioral foundations are absent, even the best policies become paper promises.
To read the full op-ed by Kevin Green, click here.
Conservation policy is ambitious. Marine protected areas now cover almost 10% of the world’s oceans, and protected lands account for almost one-fifth of Earth’s terrestrial surface. On paper, this progress is impressive.
Yet there is a phenomenon called “paper parks” that has been known by conservationists for a long time. These are protected areas that exist in law but not in practice. After the legislation passes, government announcements are made, and rules are changed, but the wildlife, fish, and forests remain unprotected because the behaviors those rules depend on do not shift. Conservationists have learned over time that structural change in the form of policy and legislation is important, but not enough.
There’s an interesting debate around this in a recent book, It’s On You: How Corporations and Behavioral Scientists Have Convinced Us That We’re to Blame for Society’s Deepest Problems. The authors are leading behavioral scientists, and focus their central argument on the “i-frame” vs. the “s-frame”. The “i-frame” is an intervention that aims to change behavior within existing systems, such as reminder messages, information campaigns, and default settings. The authors argue that corporations and policymakers prefer this approach because it draws attention away from structural changes that might threaten powerful institutions. Carbon footprint calculators promoted by the oil giant BP are a great example. The alternative, the “s-frame”, centres around changing the system itself through laws and regulation. The authors make the point that many nudges are not large or significant enough for the problems they target. Transforming energy, food and financial systems requires more than behavioral tweaks. While this may be true, the field of conservation demonstrates that for many complex situations, both structural reforms and behavioral interventions are required.
Consider that a fisher might be aware of the areas she cannot fish, a farmer might know the forest boundary, and a community living next to a wildlife corridor might understand the laws against poaching. Yet all of these people might break the rules because the incentives favor extraction, enforcement is weak, or the social norms signal non-compliance. There is no question that legislation and regulation matter, but the expectations people form about whether others will comply, and the social infrastructure built around those expectations, will ultimately determine whether a law or policy changes real-world outcomes. In practice, this might mean clear boundary markers, community monitoring systems, and shared commitments that make breaking the rules both visible and socially costly.
Durable conservation occurs when people trust the regulations, expect their community to follow them, and participate in the social systems that make compliance real. When those behavioral foundations are absent, even the best policies become paper promises.
To read the full op-ed by Kevin Green, click here.
