Landholder typologies illuminate pathways for social change in a deforestation hotspot

B Alexander Simmons; Kerrie A Wilson; Angela J Dean

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109777

Landholder typologies illuminate pathways for social change in a deforestation hotspot

J Environ Manage. 2020 Jan 15:254:109777. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109777. Epub 2019 Nov 14.

Authors

B Alexander Simmons¹, Kerrie A Wilson², Angela J Dean³

Affiliations

¹ School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia; School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia; Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia. Electronic address: b.simmons@uq.edu.au.
² Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
³ School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia; Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia; School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.

PMID: 31733476
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109777

Abstract

Psychosocial factors determine individual and collective behaviours, and there is growing evidence of their influence on land management behaviours. Native vegetation management encompasses biophysical, economic, political, and cultural dimensions that are immensely complex, and a more thorough understanding of the personal and cultural dimensions of deforestation activity is required. We emphasise this interdisciplinary imperative using Queensland, Australia, as an exemplar case study, where the controversial Vegetation Management Act1999 has been met with significant scrutiny over its effects on private landholders and its ability to curb deforestation behaviours. We surveyed landholders across Queensland in order to identify different landholder typologies based upon (1) their recent tree clearing behaviours and (2) their psychosocial characteristics, mapped their distribution in the landscape, and determined the unique demographic and psychosocial factors associated with typology membership. We identified a heterogeneous mosaic of landholders in the clearing landscape, composed of four clearing typologies and five psychosocial typologies. Social norms, identity, trust, and security played crucial roles in distinguishing different types of landholders. The two most contrasting clearing typologies-active and inactive clearers-were primarily located in hot- and cold-spots of deforestation, respectively; in contrast, most psychosocial typologies could be found throughout the landscape, highlighting the potential benefit of complementing generalised state-wide psychosocial targets with localised behavioural targets. We discuss how conservation policy instruments can be regionally tailored, and relevant strategies for effective communication and engagement can be developed to create behaviour change by understanding the characteristics and distribution of these types of landholders. If modified top-down efforts (e.g. strategic messages, community-based communication) can be supplemented with more bottom-up approaches (e.g. collective learning, building network support), sustainable land management in deforestation hotspots around the world may be achievable.

Keywords: Australia; Behaviour change; Environmental policy; Land clearing; Psychosocial drivers; Social norms.

MeSH terms

Australia
Conservation of Natural Resources*
Queensland
Social Change*
Surveys and Questionnaires