IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i15p8348-d602002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Triadic Framework: Integrating Nature, Communities, and Belief Systems into the Self-Concept for Sustained Conservation Action

Author

Listed:
  • Jill Korach

    (Department of Biology and Project Dragonfly, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA)

  • Allen R. McConnell

    (Department of Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA)

Abstract

It can be difficult for people to perform the behaviors necessary to address sustainability challenges because selfish actions are often more appealing than choices that benefit nature and future generations. Although many useful approaches to pro-environmentalism focus on strengthening relatively simple bivariate relations (e.g., nature connectedness and community-based conservation), we propose that more effective outcomes can be realized by combining three mutually reinforcing elements that support sustainability. Specifically, we outline our Triadic Framework, which focuses on the integration of nature, communities, and belief systems with each other and within people’s self-concepts. In addition to emphasizing the shared overlap among these reciprocal elements, this framework stresses that greater integration of one’s sense of self with these elements will heighten personal motivations to perform sustainable actions. Our paper examines (1) the interconnections among nature, communities, and belief systems and (2) how these three elements can be interrelated and enmeshed in people’s self-concepts to produce greater commitment to conservation. Finally, we describe a real-world example of the Triadic Framework used effectively to promote conservation of mature forests in the Western Ghats of India, and we outline ways for others to leverage this framework to address everyday sustainability challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • Jill Korach & Allen R. McConnell, 2021. "The Triadic Framework: Integrating Nature, Communities, and Belief Systems into the Self-Concept for Sustained Conservation Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:15:p:8348-:d:602002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8348/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8348/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antoinette van de Water & Kevin Matteson, 2018. "Human-elephant conflict in western Thailand: Socio-economic drivers and potential mitigation strategies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Måns Nilsson & Dave Griggs & Martin Visbeck, 2016. "Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals," Nature, Nature, vol. 534(7607), pages 320-322, June.
    3. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    4. Michael C. Gavin & Joe McCarter & Fikret Berkes & Aroha Te Pareake Mead & Eleanor J. Sterling & Ruifei Tang & Nancy J. Turner, 2018. "Effective Biodiversity Conservation Requires Dynamic, Pluralistic, Partnership-Based Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vincent R. Nyirenda & Bimo A. Nkhata & Oscar Tembo & Susan Siamundele, 2018. "Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Marjolein L.J. Mooij & Sabina Dessartre Mendonça & Koen Arts, 2018. "Conserving Biocultural Diversity through Community–Government Interaction: A Practice-Based Approach in a Brazilian Extractive Reserve," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Inmaculada Aznar-Díaz & Francisco-Javier Hinojo-Lucena & María-Pilar Cáceres-Reche & Juan-Manuel Trujillo-Torres & José-María Romero-Rodríguez, 2019. "Environmental Attitudes in Trainee Teachers in Primary Education. The Future of Biodiversity Preservation and Environmental Pollution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-11, January.
    4. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    5. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    6. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    7. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    8. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    9. Henrik Skaug Sætra, 2021. "AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    10. Preetha Kizhakkekara Vannadil & Chitra Karunakaran Prasanna, 2023. "Integrating sustainable development goals into environment impact assessment in India: A conceptual analysis," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 3993-4006, December.
    11. Joyeeta Gupta & Louis Lebel, 0. "Access and allocation in earth system governance: lessons learnt in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-18.
    12. Prashamsa Thapa & Brijesh Mainali & Shobhakar Dhakal, 2023. "Focus on Climate Action: What Level of Synergy and Trade-Off Is There between SDG 13; Climate Action and Other SDGs in Nepal?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-32, January.
    13. Lucia de Strasser, "undated". "Calling for Nexus Thinking in Africa’s Energy Planning," ESP: Energy Scenarios and Policy 263161, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Ida Kubiszewski & Kenneth Mulder & Diane Jarvis & Robert Costanza, 2022. "Toward better measurement of sustainable development and wellbeing: A small number of SDG indicators reliably predict life satisfaction," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 139-148, February.
    15. Gadamus, Lily & Raymond-Yakoubian, Julie & Ashenfelter, Roy & Ahmasuk, Austin & Metcalf, Vera & Noongwook, George, 2015. "Building an indigenous evidence-base for tribally-led habitat conservation policies," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 116-124.
    16. Burger Ronelle & Owens Trudy & Prakash Aseem, 2018. "Global Non-Profit Chains and the Challenges of Development Aid Contracting," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, December.
    17. Zhan, Shaohua, 2015. "From Privatization to Deindustrialization: Implications of Chinese Rural Industry and the Ownership Debate Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 108-122.
    18. Suhardiman, Diana & Karki, Emma, 2019. "Spatial politics and local alliances shaping Nepal hydropower," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 525-536.
    19. Saeed, Abdul-Razak & McDermott, Constance & Boyd, Emily, 2018. "Examining equity in Ghana's national REDD+ process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 48-58.
    20. Padala Raja Shekar & Aneesh Mathew & Fahdah Falah Ben Hasher & Kaleem Mehmood & Mohamed Zhran, 2025. "Towards Sustainable Development: Ranking of Soil Erosion-Prone Areas Using Morphometric Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-28, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:15:p:8348-:d:602002. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.