Conservation projects commonly claim to convert local people into long-term environmental stewards and improve their well-being. Yet, evidence frequently contradicts these win-win claims. The “multiple environmentalities” framework outlines distinct approaches that projects often use to foster environmental motivation and behavior: (1) neoliberal: constructing material incentives, (2) sovereign: imposing protective laws, and (3) disciplinary: fostering norms and values. We use a mixed method approach to examine how combinations of these environmentalities shape the land use motivations and behavior of 270 families living in 15 project settings in the Peruvian Amazon. We identify four direct reasons why these projects often fail to achieve their intended outcomes, regardless of the environmentalities employed: (1) self-selection of like-minded individuals, (2) limited ability of extrinsic motivators (i.e. material incentives and protective laws) to reduce reported deforestation behaviors, (3) limited internalization of motivations for conservation, and (4) ignored broader economic drivers of deforestation. We argue that these challenges stem from the typical external design of conservation projects based on fixed and limited interpretations of human motivation. Our findings point to the importance of deliberative processes that can support local and external actors to navigate and reframe competing motivations to co-design approaches to conservation governance at local and broader scales.
AdamsWHuttonJ (2007) People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society5: 147.
2.
AdamsWMAvelingRBrockingtonD, et al.(2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science306: 1146–1149.
3.
AgrawalA (2005) Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
4.
AgrawalAChhatreA (2006) Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Development34: 149–166.
5.
Agrawal A and Redford K (2006) Poverty, Development, and Biodiversity Conservation: Shooting in the Dark? Working paper no. 26. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society.
6.
AndamKSFerraroPJPfaffA, et al.(2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105: 16089–16094.
7.
AngelsenAKaimowitzD (2001) Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation, Bogor/Wallingford: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)/CABI Publishing.
8.
AppaduraiA (2004) The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. In: RaoVWaltonM (eds) Culture and Public Action, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 59–84. .
9.
ARA-GORESAM (Autoridad Regional Ambiental de San Martín). 2017. Database on environmental initiatives across the San Martin Region, Peru. Data collected in person in 2017.
10.
ArnsteinSR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35: 216–224.
11.
BakerJBitarihoRGordon-MacleanA, et al.(2013) Linking protected area conservation with poverty alleviation in Uganda: Integrated conservation and development at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. In: SmithJB (ed) National Parks: Sustainable Development, Conservation Strategies and Environmental Impacts, Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., pp. 47–103.
12.
BanduraA (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist44: 1175–1184.
13.
BanduraA (2002) Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education31: 101–119.
14.
BartonDNBenavidesKChacon-CascanteA, et al.(2017) Payments for ecosystem services as a policy mix: Demonstrating the institutional analysis and development framework on conservation policy instruments. Environmental Policy and Governance27: 404–421.
15.
BelcherBRuíz-PérezMAchdiawanR (2005) Global patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: Implications for livelihoods and conservation. World Development33: 1435–1452.
16.
BlackmanANaranjoMA (2012) Does eco-certification have environmental benefits? Organic coffee in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics83: 58–66.
17.
BlackmanARiveraJ (2010) The Evidence Base for Environmental and Social Impacts of “Sustainable” Certification, Discussion paper. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
18.
BlomBSunderlandTMurdiyarsoD (2010) Getting REDD to work locally: Lessons learned from integrated conservation and development projects. Environmental Science & Policy13: 164–172.
BolkerBMBrooksMEClarkCJ, et al.(2009) Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution24: 127–135.
21.
BonhamCASacayonETziE (2008) Protecting imperiled “paper parks”: Potential lessons from the Sierra Chinajá, Guatemala. Biodiversity and Conservation17: 1581–1593.
22.
Borgerhoff MulderMCoppolilloP (2005) Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
BörnerJBaylisKCorberaE, et al.(2016) Emerging evidence on the effectiveness of tropical forest conservation. PLOS ONE11: e0159152.
24.
BowlerDEBuyung-AliLMHealeyJR, et al.(2012) Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment10: 29–36.
25.
BrasharesJSGoldenCDWeinbaumKZ, et al.(2011) Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108: 13931–13936.
26.
BrockingtonD (2003) Injustice and conservation – Is “local support” necessary for sustainable protected areas?. Policy Matters12: 22–30. .
27.
BrockingtonDIgoeJ (2006) Eviction for conservation: A global overview. Conservation and Society4: 424.
28.
BrooksJS (2016) Design features and project age contribute to joint success in social, ecological, and economic outcomes of community-based conservation projects. Conservation Letters10: 23–32.
29.
Bulte E, Conteh B, Kontoleon A, et al. (2016) The impact of earned and windfall cash transfers on livelihoods and conservation in Sierra Leone. 3ie Impact Evaluation Report 46. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
30.
BüscherBde BeerE (2011) The contemporary paradox of long-term planning for social-ecological change and its effects on the discourse-practice divide: Evidence from Southern Africa. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management54: 301–318.
31.
BüscherBFletcherR (2015) Accumulation by conservation. New Political Economy20: 273–298.
32.
BüscherB, Fletcher R, Brockington D, et al.(2017) Half-Earth or whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications. Oryx51: 407–410.
33.
BüscherBSullivanSNevesK, et al.(2012) Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capitalism Nature Socialism23: 4–30.
34.
CalkinsPThantPP (2011) Sustainable agro-forestry in Myanmar: From intentions to behavior. Environment, Development and Sustainability13: 439–461.
35.
CepekM (2011) Foucault in the forest: Questioning environmentality in Amazonia. American Ethnologist38: 501–515.
36.
ChhatreAAgrawalA (2009) Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106: 17667–17670.
37.
CloughYFaustHTscharntkeT (2009) Cacao boom and bust: Sustainability of agroforests and opportunities for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Letters2: 197–205.
38.
CorberaEBrownKAdgerWN (2007) The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change38: 587–613.
39.
Cortes-VazquezJRuiz-BallesterosE (2018) Practising nature: A phenomenological rethinking of environmentality in natural protected areas in Ecuador and Spain. Conservation and Society16: 232–242.
40.
CrookCClappRA (2002) The paradox of market-oriented conservation: Lessons from the tropical forests. In: JonesETMcLainRJWeigandJ (eds) Nontimber Forest Products in the United States, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, pp. 163–179.
41.
CurranLMTriggSN, McDonald AK, et al.(2004) Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science303: 1000–1003.
42.
DeciELRyanRM (1980) The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In: BerkowitzL (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, pp. 39–80.
43.
DeciELRyanRM (2002) Handbook of Self-determination Research, Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
44.
DeciELRyanM (2012) Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In: Ryan RM (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 85–107. .
Douglas M (1978) Cultural bias. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Available at: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/9867936 (accessed 2 November 2017).
47.
DRASAM (Direcciǽn Regional de Agricultura San Martín). 2013. Database on agricultural areas and yields throughout the San Martin Region, Peru. Data collected in person in 2014.
48.
DresslerWBüscherBSchoonM, et al.(2010) From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmental Conservation37: 5–15.
49.
EllisEAPorter-BollandL (2008) Is community-based forest management more effective than protected areas?: A comparison of land use/land cover change in two neighboring study areas of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management256: 1971–1983.
50.
EwersRMRodriguesASL (2008) Estimates of reserve effectiveness are confounded by leakage. Trends in Ecology & Evolution23: 113–116.
51.
FairheadJLeachMScoonesI (2012) Green grabbing: A new appropriation of nature?. The Journal of Peasant Studies39: 237–261.
52.
FarleyJCostanzaR (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological Economics69: 2060–2068.
53.
Farmar-BowersQLaneR (2009) Understanding farmers' strategic decision-making processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy. Journal of Environmental Management90: 1135–1144.
54.
FEMA-Moyobamba (Fiscalía Especializada en Materia Ambiental). 2013. Database on incarceration related to environmental infractions in the San Martin Region, Peru. Data collected in person in 2015.
55.
FerraroPJHanauerMMMitevaDA, et al.(2013) More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: Evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand. Environmental Research Letters8: 025011.
56.
FisherJ (2012) No pay, no care? A case study exploring motivations for participation in payments for ecosystem services in Uganda. Oryx46: 45–54.
57.
FletcherR (2010) Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate. Conservation and Society8: 171.
HallerTAcciaioliGRistS (2016) Constitutionality: Conditions for crafting local ownership of institution-building processes. Society & Natural Resources29: 68–87.
66.
HallerTBelskyJMRistS (2018) The constitutionality approach: Conditions, opportunities, and challenges for bottom-up institution building. Human Ecology46: 1–2.
67.
HuttonJAdamsWMMurombedziJC (2005) Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum for Development Studies2: 341–370.
68.
IlcanSPhillipsL (2010) Developmentalities and calculative practices: The millennium development goals. Antipode42: 844–874.
69.
InglehartRWelzelC (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70.
IsonRLCollinsKBWallisPJ (2015) Institutionalising social learning: Towards systemic and adaptive governance. Environmental Science & Policy53: 105–117.
71.
KallisGGómez-BaggethunEZografosC (2013) To value or not to value? That is not the question. Ecological Economics94: 97–105.
72.
KarsentyAAubertSBrimontL, et al.(2017) The economic and legal sides of additionality in payments for environmental services. Environmental Policy and Governance27: 422–435.
73.
Kilbane GockelCGrayLC (2009) Integrating conservation and development in the Peruvian Amazon. Ecology and Society14: 11.
74.
KustersKAchdiawanRBelcherB, et al.(2006) Balancing development and conservation? An assessment of livelihood and environmental outcomes of nontimber forest product trade in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Ecology and Society11: 20.
75.
la Mesa REDD+ San Martín (2013) Estrategia REDD + en la región San Martín: Parte I: Diagnóstico para la Implementación del Mecanismo REDD + JNR: Working paper. Peru: La Mesa REDD+ San Martín.
76.
LeleSWilshusenPBrockingtonD, et al.(2010) Beyond exclusion: Alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in the developing tropics. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability2: 94–100.
77.
LiTM (1999) Compromising power: Development, culture, and rule in Indonesia. Cultural Anthropology14: 295–322.
78.
LiTM (2007) The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
79.
Lie JHS (2004) Discursive development order and local informal practices: A development project in Northern Ethiopia. Available at: https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/16548 (accessed 16 April 2018).
80.
LybbertTJAboudrareAChaloudD, et al.(2011) Booming markets for Moroccan argan oil appear to benefit some rural households while threatening the endemic Argan forest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108: 13963–13968.
81.
McAfeeK (1999) Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green development. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space17: 133–154.
82.
McShaneTO, Hirsch PD, Trung TC, et al.(2011) Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation144: 966–972.
83.
MadhusudanMD (2005) The global village: Linkages between international coffee markets and grazing by livestock in a south Indian wildlife reserve. Conservation Biology19: 411–420.
84.
Martinez-Vasquez J (2013) Fiscal Decentralization in Peru: A Perspective on Recent Developments and Future Challenges. Working Paper 13–24. Atlanta: International Center for Public Policy, Georgia State University.
85.
MaslowAH (1954) Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper.
86.
MatulisBSMoyerJR (2017) Beyond inclusive conservation: The value of pluralism, the need for agonism, and the case for social instrumentalism. Conservation Letters10: 279–287.
87.
MINAM (2009) Mapa de Deforestación de la Amazonía Peruana 2000, Lima: Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM).
88.
MitevaDAPattanayakSKFerraroPJ (2012) Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: What works and what doesn't?. Oxford Review of Economic Policy28: 69–92.
89.
MosseD (2005) Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice, London: Pluto Press.
90.
MuradianR (2013) Payments for ecosystem services as incentives for collective action. Society & Natural Resources26: 1155–1169.
91.
MuradianR, Arsel M, Pellegrini L, et al.(2013) Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters6: 274–279.
92.
Nakamura K (2017) Mapping the Funding Landscape for Biodiversity Conservation in Peru. Master's Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA.
93.
OatesJF (1995) The dangers of conservation by rural development – A case-study from the forests of Nigeria. Oryx29: 115–122.
94.
OstromENagendraH (2006) Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences103: 19224–19231.
95.
PagiolaS (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics65: 712–724.
96.
PershaLAgrawalAChhatreA (2011) Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science331: 1606–1608.
97.
PokornyBJohnsonJMedinaG, et al.(2012) Market-based conservation of the Amazonian forests: Revisiting win–win expectations. Geoforum43: 387–401.
98.
R Development Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed 15 August 2016).
99.
RedfordKH (1991) The ecologically noble savage. Cultural Survival Quarterly15: 412–422.
100.
RibotJCPelusoNL (2003) A theory of access. Rural Sociology68: 153–181.
101.
RodeJGómez-BaggethunEKrauseT (2015) Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics117: 270–282.
102.
RoeD (2008) The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty debate: A review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx42: 491–503.
103.
Roe D, Fancourt M and Sandbrook C (2015) Biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction: What’s the connection? A systematic mapping of the evidence. IIED Research Report, London.
104.
Roe D, Hutton J, Elliott J, et al. (2003) In pursuit of pro-poor conservation – Changing narratives… or more? Policy Matters 12: 87–91.
105.
Rosa H, Kandel S and Dimas L (2003) Compensation for Environmental Services and Rural Communities. Lessons from the Americas and Key Issues for Strengthening Community Strategies. San Salvador: Programa Salvadoreno de Investigacion Sobre Desarrollo y Medio (PRISMA).
106.
RudelTK, Schneider L, Uriarte M, et al.(2009) Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106: 20675–20680.
107.
SamiiCPalerLChavisL, et al.(2014) Effects of decentralized forest management (DFM) on deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 10: 1–2.
108.
Schwartz S (2012) An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/11 (accessed 21 April 2017).
109.
Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna MP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, pp.1–65.
110.
SenA (1985) Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy82: 169.
111.
SimsKRE (2010) Conservation and development: Evidence from Thai protected areas. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management60: 94–114.
112.
SommervilleMJonesJPGRahajaharisonM, et al.(2010a) The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecological Economics69: 1262–1271.
113.
SommervilleMMilner-GullandEJRahajaharisonM, et al.(2010b) Impact of a community-based payment for environmental services intervention on forest use in Menabe, Madagascar. Conservation Biology24: 1488–1498.
114.
SternPCDietzTKalofL (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior25: 322–348.
115.
StronzaA (2009) The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism6: 210–221.
116.
SunderlandTEhringhausCCampbellB (2008) Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-offs?. Environmental Conservation34: 276–279.
117.
SvarstadHBenjaminsenTA (2017) Nothing succeeds like success narratives: A case of conservation and development in the time of REDD. Journal of Eastern African Studies11: 482–505.
118.
TilmanDBalzerCHillJ, et al.(2011) Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108: 20260–20264.
119.
ToleL (2010) Reforms from the ground up: A review of community-based forest management in tropical developing countries. Environmental Management45: 1312–1331.
120.
UNODC (2011) The Alternative Development Model in San Martín: A Case Study on Local Economic Development. Vienna: Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito (UNODC).
121.
ValladaresCBoelensR (2019) Mining for Mother Earth. Governmentalities, sacred waters and nature's rights in Ecuador. Geoforum100: 68–79.
122.
WaylenKAFischerAMcGowanPJK, et al.(2010) Effect of local cultural context on the success of community-based conservation interventions. Conservation Biology24: 1119–1129.
123.
WestPIgoeJBrockingtonD (2006) Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology35: 251–277.
WunderS (2013) When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conservation Letters6: 230–237.
126.
WybornC (2015) Co-productive governance: A relational framework for adaptive governance. Global Environmental Change30: 56–67.
127.
YoudelisM (2013) The competitive (dis)advantages of ecotourism in Northern Thailand. Geoforum50: 161–171.
128.
Zinngrebe Y (2016) Incorporating biodiversity conservation in Peruvian development: A history with different episodes. DARE Discussion Papers 1606. Göttingen: Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
