Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:05:21.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using financial incentives to motivate conservation of an at-risk species on private lands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

C. PAXTON RAMSDELL ,
MICHAEL G. SORICE  and
ANGELA M. DWYER
C. PAXTON RAMSDELL
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
MICHAEL G. SORICE*
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
ANGELA M. DWYER
Affiliation:
Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA
*
*Correspondence: Michael G. Sorice Tel.: +1 5402318303 e-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Financial incentives have become a core component of private lands conservation programmes because of their ability to motivate stewardship behaviour. Concern exists about the durability of stewardship behaviours after payments end. Payments for performance may impact farmers' current and future engagement with an incentive programme to protect an at-risk ground-nesting grassland bird. Farmer motivations for participating in the programme, as well as their intention to continue the programme if the financial incentive no longer existed, were quantified. Although farmers did not report a high level of current involvement in the programme, most reported they would continue at a similar or higher level of engagement if the payments ended. These outcomes were related to their perception that their participation was driven by their internal motivation to help rather than the desire to obtain the financial reward. The perception that their behaviour was self-directed was positively influenced by the flexibility surrounding landowners’ engagement with the programme, a feeling of competence and achievement, and a feeling of connectedness to the organization implementing the programme. The success of conservation incentive programmes over the long term can be enhanced by explicitly accounting for the needs of landowners in programme design and administration.

Keywords

at-risk speciesdirect paymentsendangered species actgovernanceincentivesintrinsic motivationmultifunctional landscapesprivate landsself-directed motivationstewardshipvoluntary conservation agreements
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 34 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allred, S.B. & Ross-Davis, A. (2010) The drop-off and pick-up method: an approach to reduce nonresponse bias in natural resource surveys. Small-Scale Forestry 10: 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baard, P.P., Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2004) Intrinsic need satisfaction: a motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34: 2045–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992) The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly 55 (2): 178–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberg, S. & Möser, G. (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental psychology 27 (1): 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, L. & Doole, G. J. (2013) Drivers of landholder participation in tender programs for Australian biodiversity conservation. Environmental Science and Policy 33: 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, S. (2008) Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine the moral sentiments: evidence from economic experiments. Science 320 (5883): 1605–1609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bly, B. L., Snyder, L. & VerCauteren, T. (2008) Migration chronology, nesting ecology, and breeding distribution of mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) in Nebraska. Nebraska Bird Review 76: 120–128.Google Scholar
Clements, T., John, A., Nielsen, K., An, D., Tan, S. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010) Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecological Economics 69 (6): 1283–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R. & Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A. (2001) Countryside biogeography: use of human-dominated habitats by the avifauna of southern Costa Rica. Ecological Applications 11 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeCaro, D. & Stokes, M. (2008) Social-psychological principles of community-based conservation and conservancy motivation: attaining goals within an autonomy-supportive environment. Conservation Biology 22 (6): 1443–1451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R. M. (1999) A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125: 627–668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derissen, S. & Quaas, M. F. (2013) Combining performance-based and action-based payments to provide environmental goods under uncertainty. Ecological Economics 85: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D. A. (2009) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Donlan, C. J., Gartner, T., Male, T. & Li, Y. (2013) Species Conservation Incentives. Environmental Policy and Law 43 (3): 162–174.Google Scholar
Dreitz, V. J. & Knopf, F. L. (2007) Mountain plovers and the politics of research on private lands. Bioscience 57 (8): 681–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, W. O., Leeming, F. C., Cobern, M. K., Porter, B. E. & Jackson, J. M. (1993) Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment research since 1980. Environment and Behavior 25 (5): 275–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraro, P. J. & Miranda, J. J. (2014) Panel data designs and estimators as alternatives for randomized controlled trials in the evaluation of social programs. Working Paper [www document]. URL http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcec/docs/Ferraro%20and%20Miranda%20Panel%20Data%20Rep%20POST Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York, NY, USA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S. & Jegen, R. (2001) Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys 15 (5): 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyfogle, E. T. (2011) Taking property seriously. In: Property Rights and Sustainability: The Evolution of Property Rights to Meet Ecological Challenges, ed. Grinlinton, D. & Taylor, P., pp. 1–407. Danvers, MA, USA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Gould, R. W. (2011) Withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the mountain plover as threatened. Federal Register 76 (92): 27756–27799.Google Scholar
Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Balmford, A.. (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307 (5709): 550–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hair, J. F. Jr, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009) Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Hayes, T. M. (2012) Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes. Environmental Conservation 39 (2): 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyman, J. & Ariely, D. (2004) Effort for payment. Psychological Science 15 (11): 787–793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirji, K. F. (2006) Exact Analysis of Discrete Data. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
IUCN (2011) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
Kaetzel, B. R., Hodges, D. G., Houston, D. & Fly, J.M. (2009) Predicting the probability of landowner participation in conservation assistance programs: a case study of the Northern Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 33 (1): 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. S., Scott, D. & Crompton, J. L. (1997) An exploration of the relationships among social psychological involvement, behavioral involvement, commitment, and future intentions in the context of birdwatching. Journal of Leisure Research 29 (3): 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knopf, F.L. & Wunder, M.B. (2006) Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus). In: The Birds of North America Online, ed. Poole, A.. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA [www document]. URL http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langpap, C. (2004) Conservation incentives programs for endangered species: an analysis of landowner participation. Land Economics 80 (3): 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langpap, C. (2006) Conservation of endangered species: can incentives work for private landowners? Ecological Economics 57 (4): 558–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lock, R. & VerCauteren, T. (2008) Mountain plover nest conservation in cultivated fields. Summary Report 2006–2008. Technical Report # PPR–CDOW–MOUP08–02. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
Maestre, F. T., Quero, J. L., Gotelli, N. J., Escudero, A., Ochoa, V., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., García-Gómez, M. et al. (2012) Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality in global drylands. Science 335 (6065): 214–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCleery, R. A., Ditton, R. B., Sell, J. & Lopez, R. R. (2006) Understanding and improving attitudinal research in wildlife sciences. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34 (2): 237–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., Corbera, E., Ezzine de Blas, D., Farley, J. & Froger, G. (2013) Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters 6 (4): 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N. & May, P. H. (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69 (6): 1202–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, S. (2004) Only 30: a portrait of the endangered species act as a young law. Bioscience 54 (4): 288–294.Google Scholar
O'Riordan, T. & Stoll-Kleemann, S., eds (2002) Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osbaldiston, R. & Sheldon, K. M. (2003) Promoting internalized motivation for environmentally responsible behavior: a prospective study of environmental goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (4): 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K. & Beaton, A. M. (1998) Why are you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (mtes) 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (5): 437–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. L. & Gardner, D. G. (2004) Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: a review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management 30 (5): 591–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimmer, D. W. & Deblinger, R. D. (1990) Use of predator exclosures to protect piping plover nests. Journal of Field Ornithology 61: 217–223.Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55 (1): 68–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandel, M. J. (2012) What Money Can't Buy. New York, NY, USA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Sanford, M. P. (2006) Extirpating the agriculture versus conservation dichotomy. Conservation Biology 20 (1): 253–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauer, J. R., Link, W. A., Fallon, J. E., Pardieck, K. L. & Ziolkowski, D. J. Jr (2013) The North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966–2011: summary analysis and species accounts. North American Fauna 79: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, R., Stoner, K. Steinaure, G., Panella, M. & Humpert, M. (2011) The Nebraska Natural Legacy Project: State Wildlife Action Plan. Second edition. Lincoln, NE, USA: The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.Google Scholar
Siebert, R., Toogood, M. & Knierim, A. (2006) Factors affecting European farmers' participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis 46: 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackford, J. S., Leslie, D. M. Jr & Harden, W.D. (1999) Range-wide use of cultivated fields by mountain plovers during the breeding season. Journal of Field Ornithology 70 (1): 114–120.Google Scholar
Sheldon, K. M., Nichols, C. P. & Kasser, T. (2011) Americans recommend smaller ecological footprints when reminded of intrinsic American values of self-expression, family, and generosity. Ecopsychology 3 (2): 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, A.B. & Lockwood, J. L. (2010) How increasing levels of private land enrollment in conservation agreements affect the population viability of grassland. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 2343–2357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorice, M. & Donlan, C. J. (2015) A human-centered framework for innovation in conservation incentive programs. Ambio (in press). doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0650-z CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorice, M. G., Oh, C., Gartner, T., Snieckus, M., Johnson, R. & Donlan, C. J. (2013) Increasing participation in incentive programs for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Applications 23 (5): 1146–1155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorice, M. G., Haider, W., Conner, J. R. & Ditton, R. B. (2011) Incentive structure of and private landowner participation in an endangered species conservation program. Conservation Biology 25 (3): 587–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, J., Amacher, G. S. & Chapman, S. (2005) Forest banking and forest landowners forgoing management rights for guaranteed financial returns. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, B. (2006) Foundations of Behavioral Statistics. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
US Department of Agriculture (2012) USDA and Interior announce wildlife conservation efforts to support local economies and preserve farm and ranch traditions. USDA press release, 8 March 2012 [www document]. URL http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/03/0088.xml Google Scholar
Vickery, P. D. & Herkert, J. R. (2001) Recent advances in grassland bird research: where do we go from here? The Auk 118 (1): 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villacorta, M., Koestner, R. & Lakes, N. (2003) Further validation of the motivation toward the environment scale. Environment and Behavior 35 (4): 486–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, C. L. & Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2008) Does community-based collaborative resource management increase social capital? Society and Natural Resources 21 (4): 324–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. P., Murray, S. & Rohweder, M. (2000) Grassland Ecosystems Washington, DC, USA: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Woolcock, M. (2001) The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2 (10): 11–17.Google Scholar
Zavaleta, E. S., Pasari, J. R., Hulvey, K. B. & Tilman, G. D. (2010) Sustaining multiple ecosystem functions in grassland communities requires higher biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107 (4): 1443–1446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Ramsdell supplementary material S1

Ramsdell supplementary material

Download Ramsdell supplementary material S1(File)
File 21.4 KB