Addressing behavior in pollinator conservation policies to combat the implementation gap

Abstract

Solutions for conserving biodiversity lie in changing people's behavior. Ambitious international and national conservation policies frequently fail to effectively mitigate biodiversity loss because they rarely apply behavior-change theories. We conducted a gap analysis of conservation behavior-change interventions advocated in national conservation strategies with the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW), a comprehensive framework for systematically characterizing and designing behavior-change interventions. Using pollinator conservation as a case study, we classified the conservation actions listed in national pollinator initiatives in relation to intervention functions and policy categories of the BCW. We included all national-level policy documents from the European Union available in March 2019 that focused on conservation of pollinators (n = 8). A total of 610 pollinator conservation actions were coded using in-depth directed content analysis, resulting in the identification of 787 intervention function and 766 policy category codes. Overall, these initiatives did not employ the entire breadth of behavioral interventions. Intervention functions most frequently identified were education (23%) and environmental restructuring (19%). Least frequently identified intervention functions were incentivization (3%), and restriction (2%) and coercion were completely absent (0%). Importantly, 41% of all pollinator conservation actions failed to identify whose behavior was to be changed. Building on these analyses, we suggest that reasons for the serious implementation gap in national and international conservation policies is founded in insufficient understanding of which behavioral interventions to employ for most beneficial impacts on biodiversity and how to clearly specify the intervention targets. We recommend that policy advisors engage with behavior-change theory to design effective behavior-change interventions that underpin successful conservation policies.

Socio‐psychological factors, beyond knowledge, predict people’s engagement in pollinator conservation

“…public spaces). However, this potential is not currently realised (Baldock, 2020) and approaches for increasing public uptake of pollinator conservation have largely been ignored by existing research (Hall & Martins, 2020) and government policy (Marselle et al., 2020; e.g. Defra, 2014; National Biodiversity Data Centre, 2015; Welsh Government, 2013).…”

“…The identified knowledge–action gap highlights an important point of reflection for scientists working on pollinator conservation, who have tended to focus on improving the ecological evidence base as the primary means of promoting pollinator conservation (Hall & Martins, 2020; Marselle et al., 2020). Our results show that, as with other conservation challenges, taking action does not necessarily depend on ecological knowledge alone (Hulme, 2014).…”

“…Pollinator conservation has received much societal and scientific interest in recent years, yet despite abundant ecological research on the topic and widespread appraisal for taking an interdisciplinary approach when addressing nature conservation issues (Maas et al, 2019;Mattison & Norris, 2005), social research around pollinator conservation is in its infancy (Hall & Martins, 2020). This The identified knowledge-action gap highlights an important point of reflection for scientists working on pollinator conservation, who have tended to focus on improving the ecological evidence base as the primary means of promoting pollinator conservation (Hall & Martins, 2020;Marselle et al, 2020). Our results show that, as with other conservation challenges, taking action does not necessarily depend on ecological knowledge alone (Hulme, 2014).…”

“…These anthropogenic drivers, and the implications for food security, make pollinator declines a complicated socio‐ecological issue, involving diverse stakeholders. Yet research has focused almost exclusively on the ecological causes of, and solutions to, pollinator declines (IPBES, 2016), whilst largely ignoring how to get individuals and communities to implement these solutions (Hall & Martins, 2020; Marselle et al., 2020). Although numerous pollinator conservation strategies have been developed (e.g.…”

“…Although numerous pollinator conservation strategies have been developed (e.g. in England, Ireland and Wales; Defra, 2014, Welsh Government, 2013, National Biodiversity Data Centre, 2015), and various policies have been proposed (Dicks et al., 2016) and adopted (Hall & Steiner, 2019), proposed solutions have largely been based on ecological evidence from natural scientists with limited appreciation of the social factors affecting implementation (Hulme, 2014; Maas et al., 2019; Marselle et al., 2020). As with most conservation problems, the challenge is fundamentally one of human behaviour (Schultz, 2011), so delivering impact requires an interdisciplinary approach (Hulme, 2014; Maas et al., 2019).…”