IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v61y2016icp124-128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing the private land conservation conversation: Strategic framing of the benefits of conservation participation could increase landholder engagement

Author

Listed:
  • Kusmanoff, Alexander M.
  • Hardy, Mathew J.
  • Fidler, Fiona
  • Maffey, Georgina
  • Raymond, Christopher
  • Reed, M.S.
  • Fitzsimons, James A.
  • Bekessy, Sarah A.

Abstract

How conservation messages are framed will impact the success of our efforts to engage people in conservation action. This is highly relevant in the private land conservation (PLC) sector given the low participation rates of landholders. Using a case study of PLC schemes targeted at Australian landholders, we present the first systematic analysis of communication strategies used by organisations and government departments delivering those schemes to engage the public. We develop a novel approach for analysing the framing of conservation messages that codes the stated benefits of schemes according to value orientation. We categorised the benefits as flowing to either the landholder, to society, or to the environment, corresponding to the egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations that have been shown to influence human behaviour. We find that messages are biased towards environmental benefits. Surprisingly, this is the case even for market-based schemes that have the explicit objective of appealing to production-focussed landholders and those who are not already involved in conservation. The risk is that PLC schemes framed in this way will fail to engage more egoistically oriented landholders and are only likely to appeal to those likely to already be conservation-minded. By understanding the frame in which PLC benefits are communicated, we can begin to understand the types of people who may be engaged by these messages, and who may not be. Results suggest that the framing of the communications for many schemes could be broadened to appeal to a more diverse group (and thus ultimately to a larger group) of landholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Kusmanoff, Alexander M. & Hardy, Mathew J. & Fidler, Fiona & Maffey, Georgina & Raymond, Christopher & Reed, M.S. & Fitzsimons, James A. & Bekessy, Sarah A., 2016. "Framing the private land conservation conversation: Strategic framing of the benefits of conservation participation could increase landholder engagement," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 124-128.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:61:y:2016:i:c:p:124-128
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116300739
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ulysse Soulat & Jeanne Lallement, 2023. "Can quantified-self change urban mobility behaviour? The importance of information presentation [Le quantified-self peut-il changer les comportements de mobilité urbaine ? De l'importance de la pré," Post-Print hal-04367651, HAL.
    2. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Tereza Aubrechtová & Eva Semančíková & Pavel Raška, 2020. "Formulation Matters! The Failure of Integrating Landscape Fragmentation Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    4. Baum, Julia & Cumming, Graeme S. & De Vos, Alta, 2017. "Understanding Spatial Variation in the Drivers of Nature-based Tourism and Their Influence on the Sustainability of Private Land Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 225-234.
    5. Coyne, L & Kendall, H & Hansda, R & Reed, M.S. & Williams, D.J.L., 2021. "Identifying economic and societal drivers of engagement in agri-environmental schemes for English dairy producers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    6. Kathryn N. Braddock & Joel T. Heinen, 2021. "Perceptions of, and Motivations for, Land Trust Conservation in Northern Michigan: An Analysis of Key Informant Interviews," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:61:y:2016:i:c:p:124-128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.