19 pages., via online journal., The rapidly increasing rate of biodiversity and habitat loss across the globe can be largely attributed to human behaviors. Conservation practitioners have struggled to influence behaviors through traditional awareness-raising efforts and been slow to adopt techniques from the behavioral sciences such as social marketing to change behaviors and improve conservation outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis of 84 social marketing campaigns that applied the same theory of change for human behavior to disrupt patterns of destructive activities such as illegal hunting and overfishing. Questionnaires of more than 20,000 individuals across 18 countries measured changes in behavioral variables pre- and post-campaigns, including knowledge, attitudes, interpersonal communication, behavior intention, and behavior. For each campaign, we extracted data and validated data for behavioral variables, estimated mean effect sizes for each variable across all campaigns, and used path analysis to measure relationships among variables included in seven different models. On average, all behavioral variables increased significantly (p < .001) from 16.1 to 25.0 percentage points following social marketing campaigns. The full model used a combination of all variables and had the highest explained variation in behavior change (71%). Our results highlight the importance of (a) incorporating behavioral theory and social marketing into traditional conservation programs to address threats to biodiversity across the globe; (b) designing interventions that leverage a combination of community knowledge, attitudes, and communication about a behavior; and (c) facilitating more opportunities for interpersonal communication as a main driver of behavior change. We conclude with potential applications for practitioners interested in behavior change campaigns.
Hibbs, Amber Campbell (author), Kahl, Daniel (author), PytlikZillig, Lisa (author), Champion, Ben (author), Abdel-Monem, Tarik (author), Steffensmeier, Timothy (author), Rice, Charles W. (author), and Hubbard, Kenneth (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2014-06
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 140 Document Number: D06056
Online from publisher via membership. 2 pages., "In my view, people were placed upon this earth to be a part of nature, not apart from it. I believe that God expects us to appreciate its majesty, utilize its renewable resources wisely, and pass its treasures along to our children and grandchildren. It is our responsibility to serve as conscientious stewards of those, perhaps the greatest of His gifts, rather than to ignore it, keep it at arm's length, and to leave its care to somebody else or to some government agency."
Ben-Othmen, Marie Asma (author) and Ostapchuk, Mariia (author)
Format:
Paper
Publication Date:
2019-05
Published:
France
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 32 Document Number: D10583
Notes:
16 pages., Paper presented at the 172nd European Association of Agricultural Economists Seminar,"Agricultural policy for the environment or environmental policy for agriculture?" Brussels, Belgium, May 28-29, 2019., via database., Results of this study indicate that environmental consideration is not the key factor behind farmers' preference involving land restoration programs. The financial component remains the main incentive.
10 pages., Via online journal., Forest ownership is changing in Europe. Reasons include recent institutional changes in Eastern Europe, changing lifestyles of non-agricultural owners and afforestation. At present, there is little comparative analysis across Europe, and the implications that these changes have for forest management and for the fulfilment and redefinition of policy objectives have not been addressed systematically. This paper has been developed in the framework of a European research network on forest ownership change, based on conceptual work, literature reviews and empirical evidence from 28 European countries. It aims to provide an overview of the state of knowledge, to discuss relevant issues and provide conceptual and practical foundations for future research, forest management approaches, and policy making. In particular, it discusses possible approaches for classifying forest ownership types and understandings of “new” forest ownership. One important insight is that the division into public and private forests is not as clear as often assumed and that an additional category of semi-public (or semi-private) forms of forest ownership would be desirable. Another recommendation is that the concepts of “new forest owners” vs. “new forest owner types” should be differentiated more consciously. We observe that, in research and policy practice, the mutual relations between forest ownership structure and policies are often neglected, for instance, how policies may directly and indirectly influence ownership development, and what different ownership categories mean for the fulfilment of policy goals. Finally, we propose that better support should be provided for the development of new, adapted forest management approaches for emerging forest owner types. Forest ownership deserves greater attention in studies dealing with forest policy or forest management.
