UMR Sciences pour l'Action et le Développement, Activités, Produits, Territoires, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78850, Thiverval-Grignon, France.
Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad, Santiago, Chile.
Ambio. 2020 Oct;49(10):1639-1657. doi: 10.1007/s13280-019-01298-4. Epub 2020 Feb 14.
The "human dimension" of conservation is increasingly recognised as critical for success. Most conservation research involving people is based not on explicit "theories of change", but tacit local knowledge or folk theories guiding programme design.In this study, I propose a schematization of the local socioecological knowledge and folk theories about the "human dimension" of conservation into tacit working models, comprised of individual factors and systemic factors influencing human behaviour in conservation contexts. These are called the Persuasion, Normative, Involvement and Uniformity tacit working models. I review a set of conservation interventions and programmes, in order to assess which of the implicit working models inform their design. I argue that in order to better understand how a project may arrive at different outcomes, the underlying assumptions about human behaviour and the implicit "theory of change" that went into programme design need to be made explicit. This schema does not evaluate different approaches to conservation, but it can help point out the underlying assumptions that structure interventions and that may be more or less suited to particular situations. This can allow researchers to recognise their own assumptions and test them explicitly, leading to the formulation of more reflective and explicit theories, and improving the quality of both discourse and practice in conservation.
保护的“人文维度”正日益被视为成功的关键。大多数涉及人类的保护研究不是基于明确的“变革理论”,而是基于指导项目设计的隐性本地知识或民间理论。在这项研究中,我提出了一种将关于保护的“人文维度”的隐性社会生态知识和民间理论概括为隐性工作模型的方法,这些模型由影响保护背景下人类行为的个体因素和系统因素组成。这些被称为说服、规范、参与和一致性隐性工作模型。我回顾了一系列保护干预措施和方案,以评估哪些隐性工作模型为其设计提供了信息。我认为,为了更好地理解一个项目如何产生不同的结果,需要明确项目设计中关于人类行为的潜在假设和隐含的“变革理论”。该方案不评估保护的不同方法,但它可以帮助指出干预措施的潜在假设,这些假设可能更适合或更不适合特定情况。这可以使研究人员认识到自己的假设并对其进行明确测试,从而形成更具反思性和明确性的理论,并提高保护领域的话语和实践质量。