Conservation behavior and effects of economic and environmental message frames

Abstract

Emphasizing the economic and environmental benefits of conservation is business-as-usual for environmental organizations seeking to influence conservation behavior, but these message frames are rarely tested. We embedded a large message framing experiment into the recruitment for a conservation agriculture program targeting farmland owners in the Mississippi River Basin. We found that framed messages do not increase enrollment in the agricultural program-the desired conservation behavior-compared to an informational message (control) and may decrease enrollment among farmland owners not already using conservation practices (i.e., cover crops).

Scientifically framed gene drive communication perceived as credible but riskier

“…Pauwels Moving forward, utilising messaging that encapsulates the humaneness of the technological advancements will be essential to foster dialogue with the humanitarian group. However, this does not mean simply amalgamating the scientific and humanitarian frames, as this approach has had limited effectiveness for environmental stewardship communications (Reddy et al, 2020).…”

“…Framing has also been suggested as a way to mitigate the emotive and polarised discussion that has occurred over contentious scientific issues such as stem cell research (Nisbet, 2005), GMO foods (Linnhoff & Martin, 2017) and climate change (Wolsko et al., 2016). In nature conservation, most engagement campaigns have relied on frames that emphasise either the environmental or economic benefits, assuming they will resonate with either underlying human economic or altruistic values, yet there is little empirical evidence to support this approach (Reddy et al., 2020).…”

“…However, framing does not lack criticism and recent research has raised concerns over the limits of framing (McCright et al., 2016). Exposure to a particular frame may not necessarily lead to the expected or desired results in terms of engagement, acceptance or support, and may instead result in unintended interpretations (Brewer, 2002) or be counterproductive among some groups (Reddy et al., 2020). Furthermore, exposure to complex scientific issues in the real‐world media environment often requires an individual to interpret multiple competing and often conflicting frames in order to form opinion (Chong & Druckman, 2007a, 2007c).…”

Rented farmland: A missing piece of the nutrient management puzzle in the Upper Mississippi River Basin?

“…For example, NRCS and the Soil Health Partnership recently published testimonials from diverse stakeholders to persuade skeptical NOLs and operators, and NRCS provides guidance for NOLs to talk with their operators (USDA NRCS 2019). Our own efforta university-NGO collaboration-used large randomized controlled trials to test different messages in a mass mailing campaign and different forms of conservation assistance (e.g., information, lease language, financial payments) targeting NOLs (Reddy et al 2020). The American Farmland Trust collaborated with the Women Food and Agriculture Network and NRCS to implement women's learning circles aimed at helping empower female NOLs to take steps toward conservation by sharing their experiences with peers and getting access to experts (Fairchild et al 2019).…”

“…First, USDA ought to reevaluate the power of attorney forms that encourage conservation programs to ignore NOLs in favor of operators. Second, USDA and its partners need to design conservation outreach materials specifically for NOLs, building on research that elucidates what messages resonate with this group (Reddy et al 2020). Targeted materials would address the very different incentives and constraints that NOLs face relative to operators.…”