Abstract
As community-based conservation is a popular method to achieve both conservation and community development goals, including education within this method would be beneficial to both communities and the conservation organizations aiming to preserve various ecosystems. While one off, traditional field trip methods have been observed to increase knowledge, they lack the effectivity to change attitudes and behaviors. Conservation organizations involved in community-based conservation education programs should develop long-term or repeat exposure opportunities in efforts to build personal connections with students and community members while simultaneously allowing students more time to comprehend the ecological information they are learning about. Additionally, overtime the student’s experiences from meaningful environmental education leads to personal connections with the environment and wildlife, ultimately shaping new attitudes and developing sustainable behaviors. By developing social capital this way, community-based conservation programs can ultimately improve the chances for communities to function effectively within the environment.
1. Introduction
As the planet’s ecosystems and wildlife come into ever growing conflict with human interests, it is essential that conservationists find ways to meaningfully connect people with their environments. Community-based conservation is an avenue to do this as conservation and developmental goals can be intertwined and achieved simultaneously working within the cultural context (Souto et al., 2014, Waylen et al., 2010). Involving local citizens through community-based conservation and providing educational programs to increase their involvement in conservation shows strong potential to develop knowledge of the situation at hand (Pádua et al., 2002). When programs are well-designed, they can often lead to changed attitudes and the reduction of negative environmental impacts through behavioral modifications (UNESCO, 1978). Additionally, with the limited financial resources conservation focused non-governmental organizations are faced with, partnering with schools and community educators to utilize the prioritized financial investment education receives can be an effective strategy in creating conservation-minded citizenry and saving on cost within their own organization (McCarthy et al., 2012). As examples of educational programming within community based conservation programs are analyzed in this paper, different program design characteristics are shown to be the primary cause to both their successes and failures.
2. Community Based Conservation Education
Often in education, knowledge development is a primary focus although this does very little to ultimately change environmental behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr, 2012). Creating awareness is a key first step but more importantly, changing attitudes and behaviors are the vital follow-up steps that make significant impacts for conservation programs. As attitudes shift the value of an animal or ecosystem, this can then lead to a behavioral change where protection or limited use becomes a priority (Feilen et al., 2017). Unfortunately, this is not always the the result of such environmental education programs.
2.1 Limitations of Traditional Field Trip Methods
A study performed by Burnett, et al. (2015) investigated the impacts on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward conservation before and after school visits to Serra Malagueta Natural Park on Santiago Island. This program provides a presentation on the history and biodiversity of the park as well as reasons for conserving it. Students then visit an exhibition room displaying information about flora and fauna of the park. A visit to a plant nursery to learn about native plant life is further provided before setting out on trails with a park guide. This program fits the model of a “field trip” where students visit a unique place short term to compliment their classroom learning while the park aims to provide conservation messaging in hopes to change attitudes and behaviors. The follow up evaluation to this environmental education program discussed by Burnett et al. (2015) showed that knowledge was significantly increased due to the visit but that attitudes were not significantly impacted and that there was no impact on behavioral changes at all.
This style of visit mirrors those that many schools take to zoos and other science organizations in the United States. These schools may have several hours in a zoo, nature preserve, conservation organization, or nature center, complemented by some educational programming provided by the organization or institution staff. Students are often at ease when learning in informal environments where different learning styles are utilized and competition is not as readily implemented into activities (Rennie, 2007). Additionally, cognitive and affective learning take place on field trips that emphasize the use of process skills (Storksdieck et al., 2007), allowing students that participate to develop positive attitudes toward the subject matter (Behrendt & Franklin, 2014; Dittrick, 2003). These field trips complement classroom learning as students engage prior knowledge (Orr, 1992) and test theoretical knowledge (Wilson, 1998). The use of constructivist education in field trips allows students to understand the world through experiences and reflect upon them (Gennaro, 1995; Orion & Hofstein, 1994) then creating the opportunity for environmental awareness and sustainable consciousness (Güler, 2013). Pre and post evaluation of programs like these field trips as well as the previous stated example in Serra Malagueta Natural Park show knowledge of conservation actions is often significantly increased, even with studies monitoring long term retained knowledge (Jensen, et al. 2017, Moss, et al. 2014). Despite knowledge increasing awareness, numerous studies show that the use of this knowledge deficit model alone is not an effective strategy in developing pro-conservation minded behaviors in citizens (Schultz, 2002). Attitudes and behaviors must be changed as well.
2.2 Influence of Repeat Exposure and Long Term Programming
When investigating knowledge and attitudes of Rupununi children in Guyana, Mulder et al. (2009) found that repeated exposure to conservation programs was a primary factor in changing attitudes centered around wildlife. This was done by providing biodiversity oriented curriculum and training through workshops to teachers as well as having visits to zoos or visits from conservation organizations into the communities. While most of the Rupununi students showed increased knowledge and positive attitudes toward wildlife after the environmental education programming ended, their attitudes towards resource use was surprisingly tolerant of hunting, exotic pet trade, selling of timber, and mining. This finding introduces another important factor and variable, where project design must incorporate community characteristics (Brooks et al., 2012). As the Rupununi have culturally relied upon hunting for protein sustenance and indigenous communities look to control their land and traditional economies in effort to find identity and self-governance, it can be seen how negative environmental attitudes can coexist and contradict the positive environmental attitudes of the very same students (Mulder et al., 2009). Working within this community's local culture becomes vital to the success of the conservation program as breaking their societal norms and traditions can create resistance. Additionally, if their land use strategies are ecologically sustainable, there is no reason to attempt to change these attitudes. Despite these community factors, the repeat visits increased the likelihood of accepting the ecological threats in over harvesting, particularly when they became permanently represented in a community over time. This was shown through Rupununi students participating in wildlife clubs and their attitudes shifting away from hunting and visits by conservation organizations reducing student approval for slash and burn techniques (Mulder et al., 2009).
Feilen et al. (2017) found similar results with Proyecto Titi in Colombia and their CARTILLA program where 90 minute, interactive lessons were taught by conservation professionals every week for ten weeks in rural Colombian communities as well as in the four week long TITI KIDS. The CARTILLA program showed significant increase in knowledge centered around cotton-top tamarins and their conservation issues but more importantly, additional evaluation five years after program participation showed positive attitudes towards conservation still remained and behaviors were changed. Former participants reported efforts like conserving water and firewood and also a significant reduction in keeping primates as household pets. 95% of these participants also stated the long term program positively impacted their lives by educating them about the critically endangered tamarins, the forest, and how their personal behaviors impact the ecosystem (Feilen et al., 2017). TITI KIDS also saw these same results with “increased...understanding of the relationship between humans and animals,” and the “consequences of living with wild animals” through lessons teaching primary aged students the differences between domestic and wild species (Feilen et al., 2017). When discussing the relationship humans have with wildlife and the consequences of living with wildlife, attitudes were shown to have shifted from 50% anthropocentric (i.e. the wild animal would hurt someone, the animal would damage their belongings) explanations during pre-assessment down to 6.2% anthropocentric explanations during post-assessment in favor of 96.8% biocentric explanations (i.e. the wild animal would become ill, the animal would miss their family, the animal won’t have access to their natural diet) (Feilen et al., 2017).
2.3 Importance of Personal Connections to Animals and Nature
Student experience with domesticated animals was shown to significantly increase positive attitudes towards wildlife within the Proyecto Titi study (Feilen et al., 2017). Personal feelings towards companion animals are often described as feelings of love. These feelings then can be branched to other species, possibly even those very different from the companion animal itself (Kellert, 1996). This suggests personal relationships with pets translate into connections with wild animals, increasing the likelihood for behavioral modifications within conservation (Mulder et al., 2009). Kwan et al. (2017) further implicates the power direct relationships with animals have on conservation through a long-term education program in Hong Kong where students raised juvenile horseshoe crabs in secondary schools. After the year long program, student apathy towards the species fell while environmental attitudes and conservation behaviors were significantly improved. As these students developed personal attachment to the horseshoe crabs, they also noted an increased sense of responsibility and enhanced self-confidence from presenting and developing public speaking skills.
This personal connection can also be developed through storybooks like those created by the Ako Project in Madagascar. This project created a series of stories centered around various lemur species, showing their life and the anthropogenic challenges they face through the perspective of a lemur. Half of this program’s participants reported increased understanding of the species and of the importance of wildlife (Dolins et al., 2009). Proyecto Titi in Colombia also used this strategy showing life through the perspective of a cotton-top tamarin to primary aged students. The student’s shift from anthropocentric to biocentric understanding showed great power that storytelling can provide in creating emotional connections to nature (Feilen et al., 2017; Schultz, 2000).
Citizen science programs have also shown an ability to develop personal connections to various issues. By including the citizens as stakeholders, these participants become more scientifically literate, develop increased public knowledge, and show increased concern for human impact and government effectiveness around environmenmental issues (Conrad & Hilchey, 2010). The public accessibility to programs like these has in turn democratized the environment, increasing community trust, harmony, and cooperation (Sultana & Abeyasekera, 2008).
Mulder et al. (2009) also provides additional insight into this personal connection with animals and nature. Non-threatening species that were fairly common to see such as the cock of the rock, macaw, and toucan received at least 90% of Rupununi student approval for protection while dangerous or hard to see species like jaguars, tarantulas, and bullet ants received far less approval for protection. Through this perceived danger, the students were less likely to care about the “dangerous” species. These fears can grow into irrational extremes and possibly lead to the persecution of species or the destruction of habitats (Kellert, 1996). Developing personal connections through storytelling and lessons could change these perceptions much to the same way they had for lemurs and tamarins. For example, the Belize Zoo has taken up efforts like this to aid in the preservation of Belize’s diverse wildlife through conservation outreach programs into schools, sharing animal personalities, utilizing scholarship programs to bring rural students to the zoo to see animals up close, broadcasting radio programs, and also creating children’s books such as Hoodwink the Owl to connect children to native wildlife (Coc et al., 1980).
3. Discussion and Conclusion
Environmental education programs within all community based conservation programs aim to increase knowledge but only the programs that change behaviors will have a direct and positive impact on the species and ecosystems they aim to protect (Feilen et al., 2017). When looking into environmental education programs, mixed results are often shown. Knowledge and attitudinal changes are the most commonly evaluated factors while behavioral changes are the least commonly evaluated (Munro et al., 2008). This can likely be due to the long term analysis needed to understand behavioral changes. Despite challenges of attrition in long term follow up evaluations, these valuable studies have the ability to collect important data to better understand how programming impacted behaviors as well as knowledge and attitudes over the course of months, years, or even decades. Community-based conservation programs over the twelve years of age have been found to be significantly more synergistic than younger programs (Brooks, 2017). This is likely due in part to both formative and long term evaluations. This is further supported by Norris & Jacobson, (1998) where both follow up and formative evaluations used in monitoring programs maximized successes within environmental education programs. While follow up evaluations show long term impact and determine behavioral change effectivity, formative evaluation analyzes the currently existing pedagogy within the program. This allows opportunities to make near immediate adjustments to improve possibly faltering or failing techniques and lessons that may be doing little to grow knowledge or change attitudes and behaviors.
The impact that personal connections make for individuals can be powerful if utilized properly with environmental programs. The Ako Project (Dolins et al., 2009) and Proyecto Titi (Feilen et al., 2017) both show that by storytelling through the perspective of threatened species effectively creates personal connections by touching upon student emotions which result in attitudinal shifts. Additionally, direct interactions with animals have a powerful influence in creating personal connections with wildlife. When these interactions are done so programmatically as discussed in Kwan et al. (2017), students given the responsibility for horseshoe crabs, or nearly any animal for that matter, can translate into stewardship attitudes and behaviors. Whenever it is possible to include the raising, caring, and/or studying of a non-human animal in a humane manner, the opportunity should be taken to increase knowledge, change attitudes, and improve behaviors. Additional opportunities to foster connections can further be explored in currently existing citizen science programs or reaching out to develop partnerships between schools and environmental organizations in effort to compliment curriculum standards and empower youth with sustainable decision making abilities.
Norris & Jacobson, (1998) found a striking observation that shows programs with long term engagement with communities for three years or more have twice the likelihood for success than those operating less than three years. While program length correlates with the success of a program according to the analysis of educational programming by Feilen et al. (2017), Kwan et al. (2016), Norris & Jacobson, (1998), and Wolins et al. (1992), it is not clear if duration or the opportunity for multiple assessments is the cause of this relationship (Munro et al., 2008, Stake, 2011). Regardless of the cause, either favors the need for long term program partnerships. These could come from classroom/school partnerships with conservation organizations, local zoos, nature centers, parks, and so on, where teachers and students have repeat exposure to learning from conservation science professionals in meaningful ways. Effectively designed partnerships that allow collaborative efforts between environmental professionals, teachers and students over time can develop successful joint efforts in conservation (Mattei et al., 2015). This mutually beneficial relationship can even help scientists garner long-term data on their topics of interest while educating and empowering citizens through meaningful work to resolve issues within their communities (Brewer, 2002). By increasing and improving citizen knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in regards to the environment, educational programs have an opportunity to develop a social capital and ultimately improve the chances for their community to function effectively within the environment.
Literature Cited
Behrendt, M., & Franklin, T., (2014). A Review of Research on Field Trips and Their Value in Education. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9, 235-245.
Brewer, C. (2002). Outreach and Partnership Programs for Conservation Education Where Endangered Species Conservation and Research Occur. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 4-6. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01613.x
Brooks, J. S. (2017). Design Features and Project Age Contribute to Joint Success in Social, Ecological, and Economic Outcomes of Community-Based Conservation Projects. Conservation Letters, 10(1), 23-32.
Brooks, J. S., Waylen, K. A., & Mulder, B. G. (2012). How National Context, Project Design, and Local Community Characteristics Influence Success in Community-Based Conservation Projects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(52), 21265-21270.
Burnett, E., Sills, E., Peterson, M. N., & Deperno, C. (2015). Impacts of the Conservation Education Program in Serra Malagueta Natural Park, Cape Verde. Environmental Education Research, 22(4), 538-550. doi:10.1080/13504622.2015.1015497
Coc, R., Marsh, L., & Platt, E. (1980). The Belize Zoo: Grassroots Efforts in Education and Outreach. In R. B. Primrack et. al. (Eds.), Timber, tourists, and temples: Conservation and development in the Maya forest of Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico, 389-394. Washington, D.C.: Island Press
Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2010). A Review of Citizen Science and Community-Based Environmental Monitoring: Issues and Opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176(1-4), 273-291. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5
Dittrick, D. (2003). The Value of Place-Based Education. Department of Environmental Science. Barnard College, Broadway New York, USA.
Dolins, F. L., Jolly, A., Rasamimanana, H., Ratsimbazafy, J., Feistner, A. T., & Ravoavy, F. (2009). Conservation Education in Madagascar: Three Case Studies in the Biologically Diverse Island-Continent. American Journal of Primatology, 72(5), 391-406. doi:10.1002/ajp.20779
Gennaro, D. D. (1981). The Effectiveness of Using Pre-Visit Instructional Materials on Learning for a Museum Field Trip Experience. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 18, 771-781.
Güler, D. M. P., & Afacan, Ö. (2013). The Impact of Field Trips on Attitudes and Behaviors Related to Sustainable Environmental Education. World Applied Science Journal, 23(8), 1100-1105.
Jensen, E. A., Moss, A., & Gusset, M. (2017). Quantifying Long-Term Impact of Zoo and Aquarium Visits on Biodiversity-Related Learning Outcomes. Zoo Biology, 36(4), 294-297. doi:10.1002/zoo.21372
Kellert, S. R., (1996). Biological Diversity and Human Society. The Value of Life, 9-34. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Kwan, B. K., Cheung, J. H., Law, A. C., Cheung, S., & Shin, P. K. (2017). Conservation Education Program for Threatened Asian Horseshoe Crabs: A Step Towards Reducing Community Apathy to Environmental Conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation, 35, 53-65. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2016.12.002
Mattei, J. H., Botton, M. L., Beekey, M. A., & Colón, C. P. (2015). Horseshoe Crab Research in Urban Estuaries: Challenges and Opportunities. Changing Global Perspectives on Horseshoe Crab Biology, Conservation and Management, 537-555. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19542-1_31
Mccarthy, D. P., Donald, P. F., Scharlemann, J. P., Buchanan, G. M., Balmford, A., Green, J. M., & Butchart, S. H. (2012). Financial Costs of Meeting Global Biodiversity Conservation Targets: Current Spending and Unmet Needs. Science, 338(6109), 946-949. doi:10.1126/science.1229803
Moss, A., Jensen, E., & Gusset, M. (2014). Evaluating the Contribution of Zoos and Aquariums to Aichi Biodiversity Target 1. Conservation Biology, 29(2), 537-544. doi:10.1111/cobi.12383
Mulder, M. B., Schacht, R., Caro, T., Schacht, J., & Caro, B. (2009). Knowledge and Attitudes of Children of the Rupununi: Implications for Conservation in Guyana. Biological Conservation, 142(4), 879-887. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.021
Munro, J. K., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Hughes, M. (2008). Environmental Interpretation Evaluation in Natural Areas. Journal of Ecotourism, 7(1), 1-14. doi:10.2167/joe137.0
Norris, K. S., & Jacobson, S. K. (1998). Content Analysis of Tropical Conservation Education Programs: Elements of Success. The Journal of Environmental Education,30(1), 38-44. doi:10.1080/00958969809601862.
Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence Learning During a Scientific Field Trip in a Natural Environment. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1097-1119. doi:
Orr, D. W., (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. Albany: SUNY Press.
Pádua, S., Dietz, L., Souza, M., Santos, G., Kleiman, D., & Rylands, A. (2002). In Situ Conservation Education and the Lion tamarins. Lion Tamarins: Biology and Conservation, 315-335.
Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning Outside of School. In S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Knowledge, Information, and Household Recycling: Examining the Knowledge-Deficit Model of Behavior Change. New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures, 67-82.
Schultz, P. W. (2000). New Environmental Theories: Empathizing With Nature: The Effects of Perspective Taking on Concern for Environmental Issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 391-406. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00174
Souto, T., Deichmann, J. L., Nuñez, C., & Alonzo, A. (2014). Classifying Conservation Targets Based on the Origin of Motivation: Implications Over the Success of Community-Based Conservation Projects. Biodiversity Conservation, 23, 1331-1337.
Stake, R. E. (2011). Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive Evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7(15), 180-201.
Storksdieck, M., Robbins, D., & Kreisman, S. (2007). Results from the Quality Field Trip Study: Assessing the LEAD Program in Cleveland, Ohio. Cleveland, OH: University Circle Inc.
Sultana, P., & Abeyasekera, S. (2008). Effectiveness of Participatory Planning for Community Management of Fisheries in Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(1), 201-213. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.027
UNESCO. (1978). Declaration of the Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education. Environmental Conservation, 5(01), 63. doi:10.1017/s0376892900005294
Waylen, K. A., Fischer, A., McGowan, P. J. K., Thirgood, S. J., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). Effects of Local Cultural Context on the Success of Community-Based Conservation Interventions. Conservation Biology, 24(4), 1119-1129.
Wilson, B. G., (1998). Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design. New Jersey: Educational Technology Pub.
Wolins, I. S., Jensen, N., & Ulzheimer, R. (1992). Children’s Memories of Museum Field Trips: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Museum Education, 17(2), 17-27.
Adam J. Dewey, Miami University - Global Field Program, M.A. Biology - Nov. 20, 2019