Biodiversity conservation needs both carrots and sticks
We asked over 4,000 Australians what they think about protecting Australia's nature and biodiversity. The answer? Carrots AND sticks.
Biodiversity refers to the variety of life on earth - including plants, animals and other living things. Humans rely on biodiversity for food, clean air and water, and resources such as building materials, medicines, and clothing. Yet, in the last few decades more and more plant and animal species have been disappearing from the planet, creating a “biodiversity crisis”. This crisis is one of the most severe threats humanity will face in the coming years.
Biodiversity loss stems from human activities - including the products we make and buy, and the way we use land and other natural resources. This means the solution to the crisis is also within our grasp - by changing the actions we take as individuals and corporations, and through the policies governments put in place. To better protect and enhance nature, we need to understand how to encourage people and industries to adopt behaviours that conserve biodiversity, including supporting stronger government policies that protect and enhance nature.
To address this need, we asked over 4,000 Australians in late 2022 what they think about nature and biodiversity, and what they’re currently doing to better protect Australia’s natural environment.
What we found
We found that the vast majority - over 90% - of Australians do not oppose the government introducing a range of conservation-related policies. This included a mixture of ‘carrots and sticks’- i.e. policies related to markets, consumption, and regulation (e.g. ‘Develop“ eco-labels” that allow consumers to make informed choices about products’); biodiversity restoration (e.g. ‘Restore nature in cities and towns’); and penalties (e.g. ‘Introduce tougher fines and stronger laws to stop illegal tree clearing and forest / habitat destruction’).
Most Australians (70%-88%) also engage in “private-sphere” conservation behaviours, including everyday / lifestyle activities such as being a 'sustainable consumer' or just spending time in nature. However, fewer people (36%-57%) engage in “public-sphere” conservation behaviours, such as getting involved in protecting nature (e.g. volunteering), or making big decisions that support nature (e.g. voting for a political candidate based on their nature-related policies).
We also tested the relationships between policy support / conservation behaviours (private-and public-sphere) and;
- concern about biodiversity (e.g. pollution, species extinction),
- awareness of biodiversity-related issues, and
- connection to nature.
We found that there was a relationship between concern and all outcomes, but the strongest relationship was with the more passive policy support.
What does this mean?
Governments already have the social licence to do more to protect nature. Our research suggests that the introduction of stronger conservation policies is unlikely to be opposed by most constituents. And we know from previous research that the vast majority of people want more action to protect nature. So how might governments do this?
There are a number of approaches in the behavioural science toolkit that governments could leverage to implement stronger conservation policies. For example, the status quo bias tells us that humans generally prefer things as they are and typically make choices (or avoid making choices) so the current situation doesn’t change. Examples of where default options (i.e. setting the status quo) have been used to influence conservation outcomes include ethical investing and saving paper. If governments were to set strong conservation policies as the default option - such as requiring businesses to report their impacts on nature or cat owners to keep their cat contained to their property - it’s unlikely that most Australians will oppose such policies.
Another useful tool governments could leverage is social norms. Humans are social creatures and we’re very much influenced by other people, even if we think we’re not. Social psychologists refer to descriptive norms (what most people do) and injunctive norms (what most people approve or disapprove of). We know that the vast majority of Australians want more action to protect nature - this is an injunctive social norm. When communicating why strong new conservation policies are being implemented, governments could emphasise that these policies are what most people want, which is likely to further increase support.
Our research also showed that people who are concerned about biodiversity are more likely to support policies to protect the natural environment. Thus, increasing concern about the biodiversity crisis would likely increase support for strong conservation policies even further. How a message is framed can influence how it is interpreted, and strategies such as emotion-based messaging and using influential messengers may help to increase concern. Fostering empowerment and inspiration may also be useful, although such approaches may be more effective for some than for others, thus it’s important to tailor messages to suit specific audiences and contexts.
The take-home messages
The Australian community supports protecting and enhancing Australia’s biodiversity.
Governments already have the social licence to implement stronger conservation policies that better protect Australia’s natural environment, and increasing concern for biodiversity is likely to increase policy support even further. The behavioural sciences offer many tools that governments can leverage to better protect nature.
Biodiversity conservation needs both carrots and sticks.
By Kim Borg and Melissa Hatty
Related posts
