© 2008 Luis Antonio Ramos - University of Florida · personnel of Plan Trifinio, Amy Diaz, Jaime...
Transcript of © 2008 Luis Antonio Ramos - University of Florida · personnel of Plan Trifinio, Amy Diaz, Jaime...
-
1
THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR: EFFECTS OF COMMUNICATION PROCESSES ON PERCEPTIONS OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT
NATURAL AREAS
By
LUIS ANTONIO RAMOS
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2008
-
2
© 2008 Luis Antonio Ramos
-
3
To the two Suns of my galaxy and the Launiverse where we graciously float
A los dos Soles de mi galaxia y el Launiverso donde amorosamente flotamos
-
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Laura Ines, Sol Andrés, Sol Antonio, Carmencita and Paco, my parents, Abue
Graciela, and José Luis for their unconditional support. I also thank my advisor Susan Jacobson,
for her prompt advice and support; my committee members Glenn Israel, Robert Buschbacher,
Tom Ankersen and Janaki Alavalapati for their constructive comments; the Compton
Foundation, the UF Program for Studies in Tropical Conservation, the UF Tropical Conservation
and Development Program and the School of Natural Resources and Environment for their
financial support. I thank the following friends and colleagues for their invaluable help in the
field: José Roberto Cabezas, Sonia Suazo, Ondina Paz, Juan Carlos Montufar and all the
personnel of Plan Trifinio, Amy Diaz, Jaime Morales, Marina Cabezas, Carlos and María del
Carmen Valle and family, Zulma de Mendoza, Carlos Lopez and Mario Barahona. Lastly, I
thank all respondents that provided their valuable time and comments during interviews.
-
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................................9
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................12
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor ........................................................................................15 MBCP’s Communication Strategy .........................................................................................19 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................25 Research of Communication Channels in Diffusion of Innovations ......................................32 Research Objectives................................................................................................................35
2 EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY OF THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR PROJECT: EFFECTS ON PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS..................................................................................36
Introduction.............................................................................................................................36 MBCP Communication Strategy.....................................................................................41 Research Objectives ........................................................................................................43
Methods ..................................................................................................................................44 Study Site.........................................................................................................................44 Survey Design and Analysis............................................................................................44 Semi-Structured Interviews .............................................................................................48
Results.....................................................................................................................................48 Public Surveys .................................................................................................................48 Knowledge of MBCP Concepts ......................................................................................50 Perceptions of MBCP Concepts ......................................................................................51 Differences between Respondents Exposed to MBCP....................................................54 Effects of Sociodemographic Traits ................................................................................55 Effects of Communication Channels...............................................................................56 Journalists Semi-Structured Interviews...........................................................................58
Discussion...............................................................................................................................63 Limitations of Study ...............................................................................................................68 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................68
-
6
3 DIFFUSON OF CONCEPTS OF THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR PROJECT AMONG KEY MEMBERS OF STAKEHOLDER GROUPS.......72
Introduction.............................................................................................................................72 The MBCP Communication Strategy..............................................................................74 Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................75 Study Hypotheses ............................................................................................................77
Methods ..................................................................................................................................78 Study Site.........................................................................................................................78 Stakeholder Analysis .......................................................................................................79
Results.....................................................................................................................................81 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ......................................................81 Knowledge of MBCP Concepts ......................................................................................83 Perceptions and Attitudes toward MBCP Concepts ........................................................84 Associations between Communication Channels, Knowledge and Opinions.................88 Reported Behaviors Favoring MBCP..............................................................................89 Document Review ...........................................................................................................90
Discussion...............................................................................................................................92 Limitations of Study ...............................................................................................................96 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................97
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................99
APPENDIX
A ENVIRONMENTAL, AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE PROGRAMS IN EL SALVADOR, GUATEMALA OR HONDURAS.........103
B KEY INFORMANTS SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS GUIDE QUESTIONS.......105
C LIST OF LAND-USER ASSOCIATIONS AND GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS APPROACHED BY THE STUDY......................................................................................107
LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................108
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................124
-
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 1-1. Sample of research on diffusion of innovation (DoI) conducted between 1992 and 2005
categorized by field and research topic..............................................................................30
2-1. Survey Items ..........................................................................................................................46
2-2. Socio-economic index used in 2006 MBCP survey ..............................................................49
2-3 Sociodemographic characteristics of 2001 and 2006 respondents .........................................50
2-4. Comparison of knowledge items between 2001 and 2006 respondents................................51
2-5. Comparison of opinion and channels of communication items between 2001 and 2006 respondents ........................................................................................................................52
2-6. Comparison of statistically significant results of survey items from respondents exposed to MBCP between 2001 and 2006 (p
-
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 1-1 Logic model for MBCP communication component .............................................................21
1-2. Logic model of MBCP’s communication strategy ................................................................23
2-1. Rate of adoption, type of adopters and stages in diffusion of innovations theory. ...............39
2-2. MBCP communication strategy.............................................................................................43
2-3. 2001 and 2006 Percentages of reported channels as local, national and MBCP sources of information. ...................................................................................................................57
2-4. Number of MBCP written press publications between years 2000 and 2007 by country.....60
2-5. MBCP information sources reported by journalists. .............................................................61
2-6. Number of mass media products that mentioned the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and its concepts, published between 2000 and 2006. ........................................................63
3-1. Reported sources of MBCP information throughout the life of the project .........................86
-
9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CCAD Central American Commission of Environment and Development [Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo]
OTS/OET Organization for Tropical Studies/Organización de Estudios Tropicales
MBC Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Initiative
MBCP Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project
WSC Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature
-
10
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR: EFFECTS OF COMMUNICATION
PROCESSES ON PERCEPTIONS OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT NATURAL AREAS
By
Luis Antonio Ramos
May 2008 Chair: Susan K. Jacobson Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology
Mesoamerica is a global biodiversity hotspot. However, socio-economic development
processes have led to fragmentation and degradation of natural areas, becoming a major threat to
Mesoamerican biodiversity. The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project (MBCP) promoted
biological corridors between protected areas to reduce the effects of fragmentation. The project
used several diffusion channels advocating the concepts of protected areas, biological corridors,
sustainable development and biodiversity-friendly land use practices. Based on the theory of
diffusion of innovations, I analyzed how different communication channels affected the diffusion
of MBCP concepts among the general public and relevant stakeholders. I conducted face-to-face
surveys of a random sample of 600 residents of Trifinio, an area of conservation priority within
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. I compared results to a similar survey conducted five
years earlier. Local awareness of MBCP decreased from 8% in 2001 to 2% by 2006 (X2=21,
p
-
11
and television (43%) and workshops (29%) (Fisher’s p
-
12
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity and development are inextricably linked, particularly in developing countries
(Seely et al. 2003). The concepts of biodiversity and sustainability have been introduced to
emergent countries' development agendas in the past couple of decades, and specifically after the
1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
However, these concepts do not appear to be adopted by enough individuals or organizations to
provoke noticeable changes in local development processes yet. Environmental degradation,
biodiversity loss, and natural habitat reduction and fragmentation are still current issues in the
developing world (Houghton et al. 1991, UNEP 2004). The notion of biological corridors to
lessen ecosystem fragmentation is also a relatively new approach in conservation biology,
beginning to appear in research journals in the early 1980s (Noss 1983, Rosenberg et al. 1997,
Bennett 2004)
Frequently, people at national, multinational or global decision-making levels design
natural resource and conservation projects from a top-down approach (Glendinning et al. 2001).
These levels generally are different from those where local changes are expected (Ramírez &
Quarry 2004, Duffy 2005). However, due to the complexity of activities to address relationships
among the different stakeholders’ levels (funding and implementing organizations and
beneficiaries), projects find difficulty conducting in-depth evaluations of local impacts (GAO
2002, Rossi et al. 2004).
The concept of biological connectivity between natural areas was introduced in the
agendas of conservation efforts in Mesoamerica by the Wildlife Conservation Society in the
early 1990s with the Paseo Pantera Project (Coates 2003), which evolved into the Mesoamerican
Biological Corridor initiative (MBC). The MBC is now a governmental program of Central
-
13
American nations and Mexico that attempts to protect the rich but threatened Mesoamerican
biodiversity by promoting the development of biological corridors to interconnect natural
protected areas along Mesoamerica. The MBC is an approach to reach regional sustainable
development through the conservation and linkage of natural protected areas (PCCBM 2004).
Mesoamerican governments conducted a project with the goal of establishing a long-term
regional MBC implementation program through capacity building, education and diffusion of
key conservation and development concepts. One of the main objectives of the MBC project
(MBCP) is to have an impact on local knowledge and perceptions about land use and natural
areas throughout Mesoamerica (UNDP 1999).
Trifinio is one of the MBC priority areas. The borders of Guatemala, Honduras and El
Salvador meet precisely at the heart of the area at the top of Montecristo Mastiff, which is
enclosed by one of the remaining cloud forests in Mesoamerica. Montecristo is essential to the
hydrological cycle that provides water to the lowlands dry subtropical forest during the six-
month seasonal drought. These ecosystems, and others, are used by wildlife in their seasonal
local migrations (Janzen 1983). Unguided development and local residents’ dependence on
natural resources are major threats to these unique ecosystems and to the supply of
environmental goods and services they provide to Trifinio inhabitants. These characteristics
made Trifinio a priority area for conservation and sustainable development where biological
corridors made sense. MBCP introduced biological connectivity concepts to this and 10 more
priority areas in Mesoamerica. The three countries that shared Trifinio are historically,
geographically, politically, ecologically and socio-economically more homogeneous than any
other set of Mesoamerican nations (Perez-Brignoli 1989, Coates 2003). This homogeneity
makes Trifinio an interesting site to evaluate the local impacts of a regionally planned
-
14
conservation program. The segments that form Trifinio share an even stronger socioeconomic
and ecological homogeneity than the countries they belong, yet are ruled by different
governments and are affected by different programs, in addition to MBCP.
There are numerous examples of conservation programs trying to modify people’s attitudes
and behavior toward natural resources in developing and developed countries. Several authors
have stressed the importance of creative means of communication and diffusion of key concepts
to influence perceptions, attitudes and behaviors toward conservation and sustainable
development issues (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith 1999, Jacobson 1999, Glendinning et al. 2001,
Ramírez & Quarry 2004). However, the impacts of communication efforts have seldom been
critically evaluated (Glendinning et al. 2001). Natural resources communication efforts need to
be based on research to complement any development activity; yet, communication initiatives in
support of environmental and natural resources management have mainly focused on the
dissemination and adoption of technical packages showing limited impacts (Ramírez and Quarry
2004). The theory of Diffusion of Innovations (DoI) has been used extensively in research by
many different fields to evaluate the process of changes in attitudes and behavior toward a new
idea or technology (Wolf 1994, Nutley et al. 2002, Hubbard & Hayashi 2003, Rogers 2003).
DoI has been particularly utilized to study the effects of communication on the innovation
adoption process (Lin & Burt 1975, Nilakanta & Scamell 1990, Fichman 1992, Warriner & Moul
1992, Rai 1995, Heong et al. 1998, White & Jacobs 1998, Shao 1999, Hubbard & Hayashi 2003,
Hubbard & Mulvey 2003, Godes & Mayzlin 2004). This theory has been often applied to study
the diffusion of new agricultural technology (Reece 2003, Heong et al. 1998) and
environmentally sound agricultural concepts (Warriner & Moul 1992, Coughenour 2003, Feder
& Savastano 2004, Walters et al. 2005). Nevertheless, it has been seldom used to assess the
-
15
diffusion of new approaches in conservation of biodiversity and natural areas management (Ira
2001, Jacobson et al. 2003).
The funding organization, UNDP, conducted a summative evaluation of the MBCP after
the project was finished. The evaluation focused on outputs and budget (PCCBM 2007).
However, assessment of impacts at different geopolitical levels was not conducted. This
represented an opportunity to evaluate the diffusion of conservation and sustainable development
concepts and to determine the effects of different channels of communication on knowledge,
perceptions and policies.
This dissertation evaluated the impacts of the MBCP communication strategy on the
diffusion process among the public and stakeholders. Chapter 1 offers an introduction to
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor initiative, a review of the literature about diffusion of
innovations research and my research objectives. Chapter 2 presents the evaluation of the
impacts of the MBCP communication strategy on the public’s knowledge and perceptions, and
on the publication of MBCP mass media products. Chapter 3 conveys the assessment of
MBCP’s diffusion process among members of relevant stakeholders. Finally, chapter 4
summarizes conclusions and recommendations drawn from all research results.
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor
In today’s world of political alliances and globalization, Mesoamerica is the name used to
identify the seven Central American countries (Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El
Salvador, Guatemala and Belize) and the tropical Mexican region. Myers et al. (2000)
recognized this region as one of the 25 biodiversity hotspots in the world due to its species
richness and high numbers of endemic species. Mesoamerica represents approximately 0.5% of
the planet’s territory, yet it is believed to contain 7% of the known global biodiversity (UNDP
1999, UICN 2000, Miller et al. 2001). Biogeographers recognize a large diversity of ecosystems
-
16
represented by 22 distinct “ecoregions” occurring in this small territory of 768,990 Km2, ranging
from coral reefs and lowland rainforests to pine savannas, semi-arid woodlands, grasslands, high
mountain forests, and paramo (UICN 2000, Miller et al. 2001, PCCBM 2002a, Coates 2003)
The Mesoamerican countries share many attributes facilitating recognition of the region as
an ecogeographical unit. Some of these characteristics related to biodiversity conservation are:
(1) all countries together are considered an important biodiversity rich area in the world (UNDP
1999, Myers et al. 2000) (2) deforestation and habitat fragmentation is widely spread throughout
the region (Houghton et al. 1991, Myers et al. 2000, CCAD 2003a, CCAD 2003b, Coates 2003,
Donald 2004), and (3) important remnants of natural ecosystems cross countries’ boundaries
(CCAD 1992, Garcia 1996, UNDP 1999).
There is a shared understanding among Mesoamerican politicians that Mesoamerican
countries have a better opportunity of overcoming their environmental and other problems
working as a consolidated region than as individual nations (CCAD 2003a). Historically,
Central American countries have made many attempts to organize as a consolidated nation or
region since their independence from Spain in 1821 (Perez-Brignoli 1989). A regional initiative
to conserve and use Mesoamerican biodiversity in a sustainable manner has evolved during the
past 2 decades: the MBC.
During the early 1990s, the Wildlife Conservation Society proposed the creation of an
extended biological corridor interconnecting the largest natural areas in Central America as a
way to confront regional biodiversity loss due to habitat fragmentation, recognized as a major
threat to the region (Coates 2003,). After many years of lobbying for this proposal to the Central
American and Mexican governments, they adopted this new idea under the name MBC (García
1996), as an approach to achieve sustainable development (Miller et al. 2001). It triggered the
-
17
participation of national and international organizations in mapping projects proposing routes for
national biological corridors and lobbying for the idea of a multi-nation integrating project.
Due to the international awareness toward biodiversity conservation and sustainable
development that the World Summit of 1992 brought (UNEP 2002), Mesoamerican governments
responded by creating their Government Environmental Agencies or elevating the existing ones
to a higher hierarchical decision-making level within government structures. In 1990 the Central
American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD)1 was established as one of
the first multi-governmental organizations in a regional effort to consolidate the region as a block
of countries to face globalization (Ankersen 1994). Non-government organizations (NGOs) also
bloomed in Mesoamerica during this decade.
With this new set of government and non-government organizations, an influx of
international support for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development arose in the
region. The interest of Central American nations to work as a region caught the attention of
international funding agencies. Organizations such as World Bank (WB), Global Environmental
Facility (GEF), United Nations Development (UNDP) and Environmental (UNEP) Programs,
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF), and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), among others, have supported several
environmental and community development programs and projects at different geographical and
organizational scales: community, national and multinational government projects. Some of
these organizations have invested very large amounts of funds (Guzman et al. 2003) seeking
changes in knowledge levels, perceptions and attitudes toward environmental issues and
behavioral changes in sustainable development processes.
1 CCAD is the forum of Environmental Ministries of Central America, in which Mexico participates as a permanent observer. http://www.sgsica.org, http://www.ccad.ws/antecedentes.html
-
18
The Presidents of the Central American Republics and Mexico, at their XIX Summit in
Panama City in 1997, agreed to politically support the MBC initiative (UNDP 1999). The
Presidents defined the MBC as follows:
. . . a land-use-planning system for organizing the territory into natural areas under special management, core zones, buffer zones, multiple -use zones and areas of interconnection, organized and consolidated to provide a group of environmental goods and services to Central American and world societies, providing opportunities for social agreement to promote investment in conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, all with the end of improving the quality of life for the region’s inhabitants. (UNDP 1999)
The MBC considered the region’s biological richness an important element to achieve
sustainable development, and recognized the extended fragmentation of Mesoamerican
ecosystems as the mayor cause of the region’s biodiversity decline. Thus, MBC proposed to
connect protected areas through biological corridors by promoting conservation of non-protected
ecosystem patches, environmentally sound productive activities such as forestry, timber
production, agroforestry, best management agriculture practices, and ecotourism as a way to
conserve biodiversity and pursue sustainable development.
The MBC linked conservation and sustainable development, attracting considerable
amounts of resources (CCAD 2003a, Fuentes et al. 2003). By December 2002, the World Bank
claimed they had invested U.S. $400 million in projects directly related to the MBC, and U.S.
$1.8 billion indirectly (Guzman et al. 2003). In 1999, Mesoamerican governments obtained U.S.
$12.3 million from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and the German Technical
Cooperation Agency (GTZ) to conduct a project to establish a multi-nationally integrated
program for the consolidation of the MBC. Mesoamerican governments complemented the
investment with U.S. $4.5 million in kind (UNDP 1999) and commanded CCAD to implement
the project “Establishment of a Program for the Consolidation of the MBC”, between 2000 and
2006.
-
19
While the overall goal of the MBC initiative is to consolidate a network of biological
corridors interconnecting Mesoamerican protected areas, the project’s general objective was to
establish the bases for a long-term regional MBC program by providing information and training
to governments and other relevant stakeholders (UNDP 1999). The specific objectives of the
MBCP were (PCCBM 2004):
1. Compatibility of management policies and instruments across countries.
2. Establishment of a biodiversity information and monitoring system.
3. Development of alternative strategies for financing conservation in protected areas and biological corridors.
4. Diffusion and outreach of MBC initiative and the Project’s concepts, progress and achievements.
5. Development of national and regional institutional capacities.
MBCP’s Communication Strategy
Diffusion of key concepts was one of the main objectives of MBCP. These concepts were
the: role of natural protected areas in development; importance of biological connectivity among
natural areas to enhance environmental services; sustainable use of biodiversity; and use of
biofriendly land-use practices to develop biological corridors. These concepts were specific
elements of an umbrella notion of land use planning of a territory which main purpose would be
to provide environmental goods and services. MBCP assumed that there was little awareness of
such concepts and favorable perception toward them was low (Ramírez 2005, communication
specialist of MBCP, personal communication). A specific expected outcome of the project was
to increase public knowledge and raise consciousness of the need for interconnected natural
areas.
Since the diffusion of such concepts among a population over 30 million was beyond
available resources, MBCP selected to propagate these concepts by training a network of
-
20
information opinion leaders that would spread the information among the general public and
relevant stakeholders. MBCP also used mass media channels, such as television and radio spots
and programs, and pamphlet dissemination. Groups of organized stakeholders were addressed
directly through workshops and seminars. In 2001, the MBCP conducted a survey to establish a
knowledge and perception baseline in each country (Ramírez 2004, PCCBM 2002b). A survey
was conducted by personal interviews of 500 respondents per country, 200 in each capital city
and 300 in rural communities of at least one priority area in each country. These priority areas
were pre-established by Central American governments in the Convention on Biodiversity
Conservation and Protection of Priority Wild Areas in Central American (CCAD 1992)2.
From this survey and the MBCP objectives, a communication strategy was developed
(Ramírez 2004 unpublished, PCCBM 2002b). The project used different activities to diffuse its
main concepts and increase the understanding of MBC among the general public and specific
stakeholders groups. Since one of the objective was to develop capacities among relevant
stakeholders (UNDP 1999), some of the groups were specifically addressed, such as legislators
and government agents, land users (farmers, foresters, and cattle-ranchers), tourism industry,
non-government organizations (NGOs), environmental journalists, and local communities within
priority areas. I schematized this general communication strategy in Figure 1-1.
2 Criteria for these conservation priority areas included sharing natural ecosystems by two or more countries, ecosystems limits extended over geopolitical borders, and existence of protected areas within the ecosystems.
-
21
PROBLEM
Little awareness of ecosystem
fragmentation in Mesoamerica
and role of biodiversity in
sustainable development
ACTIVITIES1- Production of diffusion material2- Knowledge and perceptions baseline survey (2001)3- Workshops with Mesoamerican environmental mass media journalists.4- Workshops and seminars with regional and local stakeholders5- Electronic bulletin and Web page to make MBC material available on line.
OUTPUT1-Public dissemination events of MBC concepts by regional and national mass media (TV, radio, press)
2-Relevant stakeholder groups participated in workshops and seminars
OUTCOMEChanges in knowledge and perceptions toward MBC concepts by general public and stakeholders
PROBLEM
Little awareness of ecosystem
fragmentation in Mesoamerica
and role of biodiversity in
sustainable development
ACTIVITIES1- Production of diffusion material2- Knowledge and perceptions baseline survey (2001)3- Workshops with Mesoamerican environmental mass media journalists.4- Workshops and seminars with regional and local stakeholders5- Electronic bulletin and Web page to make MBC material available on line.
OUTPUT1-Public dissemination events of MBC concepts by regional and national mass media (TV, radio, press)
2-Relevant stakeholder groups participated in workshops and seminars
OUTCOMEChanges in knowledge and perceptions toward MBC concepts by general public and stakeholders
Figure 1-1 Logic model for MBCP communication component
Program evaluators suggest the construction of ‘logic’ models to depict programs’ theory
as a sequence of steps from programs’ inputs or services to expected results (Rossi et al. 2004,
GAO 2002, Israel 2001). Logic models are expressed as diagrams that show the major
components of a program in logic sequence including external factors that could affect
programs’ objectives (Israel 2001). The MBCP involved a set of diverse stakeholders that
include international funding organizations, governments, and different sectors of society from
which complex relationships and demanding expectations arose. The project rationale was
abundantly expressed in the Project Document (UNDP 1999). Objectives, activities and
outcomes were mentioned in a generalized fashion, and in a few instances with concrete
expectations.
The inputs of the communication component of the MBCP started with its coordinator who
was a communication specialist with ample experience in natural resources and environment
fields. She coordinated all MBCP communication processes such as designing communication
materials, 2001 baseline opinion survey, MBC communication strategy, and coordination of
-
22
other partners’ communication activities. These are input elements in a logic model for MBCP.
Printed materials were considered output indicators of MBCP to be used by a follow-up MBC
program (UNDP 1999). However, materials are generally considered inputs in evaluation of
programs’ impacts (GAO 2002). Other outputs were the number of workshops and informative
meetings, attendance at such events, participation of different media representatives (TV, radio
and written press), participation of representatives from different stakeholder groups and degree
of representativeness of those stakeholder leaders.
MBCP staff subsequently reformulated the project’s strategic plan twice in the project’s
life as a consequence of adaptive management exercises. These modifications were revised and
authorized by the Steering Committee and the panel of Environmental Ministers; therefore,
stakeholders related to project implementation agreed on such adjustments. The spirit and
expected outcomes of MBCP were maintained and in some cases, outputs were described in
more detail than in the original project document. The following are a compilation of the
project’s expected outcomes related to the communication component (PCCBM 2002c):
1. Increase in the level of public awareness of the value of goods and services provided by forests and protected areas. A 10% increment is expected compared to the 2001 opinion survey.
2. 200 Journalists and communicators educated on global and regional environmental issues.
3. 150 dissemination actions in mass media in the 8 countries of the region to increase the knowledge of the public, decision-makers and other involved actors.
4. A study based on IUCN’s work and other information-gathering initiatives, on the status and management capacity of protected areas in Mesoamerica edited, published and distributed.
5. An updated study on the biodiversity conservation status in Mesoamerica published and distributed.
6. A system of ecological classification for Mesoamerica prepared, published and in use.
7. A summary about the existing biodiversity in the region, with a brief version for public dissemination prepared and published.
-
23
8. A regional study to show the economic value of environmental services from the forests and protected areas prepared and published.
These outcomes mentioned quantifiable items, but are still general because they do not
take into account the distribution among the Mesoamerican countries. Although contextual
differences among countries were recognized in the planning documents reviewed, no
differentiation of expected outcomes per nation was expressed. Based on their reported inputs,
outputs, and outcomes, I conceptualized a logic model for the communication component of the
MBCP, shown in Figure 1-2. I adopted this logic model from similar ones applied to program
evaluation (GAO 2002), commonly used by United Nation agencies to plan and evaluate their
programs (UNDP 2002).
Figure 1-2. Logic model of MBCP’s communication strategy
-
24
In these models, inputs are the specific products or services produced by programs, and
outcomes are the expected results accomplished among program participants from program
intervention. Achievement of outcomes can happen at different times after program intervention;
generally, short and mid-term outcomes are related to changes among individuals, while impacts
are associated to organizational or community changes (Kellogg Foundation 2004). Impacts are
long-term expected outcomes in which programs’ results are considered essential, but not
necessarily the sole factor intervening to reach them (Rossi et al. 2004, UWA 1996).
MBCP had two main target populations. The first were audiences of MBCP workshops
and informative meetings, such as environmental journalists and representatives of stakeholders
groups. The second target population was the general public. The short-term expected outcome
was an increase in knowledge and favorable perception about MBC concepts among journalists
and stakeholder representatives.
An expected mid-term indicator of changes in journalists was the voluntary production of
MBC material for their corresponding media. Once reproduced, this material would reinforce
changes in the general public knowledge and perceptions of MBC concepts as another mid-term
outcome. A third mid-term expected outcome was the incorporation of MBC concepts in local
and national governmental policies, as well as in statutes and operational guidelines (which could
be tacit or documented) of stakeholders associations, such as adoption of farming best
management practices, agroforestry and certified forestry, among others. The long-term final
outcome is the actual formation of functional biological corridors from land use changes.
However, this was beyond the reach of MBCP activities.
In order to evaluate adequately the local impacts of the MBCP communication component,
confounding and contextual factors that could lead to similar outcomes must be identified and
-
25
considered in an impact evaluation process (Rossi et al. 2004). While it can be reasonably
assumed that the concept of biological connectivity was systematically introduced in
Mesoamerica by MBCP, the adoption of environmentally friendly land uses has been promoted
by many other programs in the region during the past 15 years to date. The area of Trifinio in
particular has had the influence of several national and multi-national programs promoting
environmental management practices in agriculture (Appendix A).
The socio-economical attributes of each MBCP priority area also may have contributed to
expected impacts and, therefore, need to be identified as well. Trifinio characteristics of
deforestation, poverty, dependence of local economy on agriculture and tourism could affect
people’s perception of land use changes to overcome socio-economic problems or their
intentions to change behavior. Economic trends and short term needs could preclude people
from changing land use in spite of recognized benefits of conservation measures, because they
take longer to be perceived. It is necessary to understand the contextual environment in an
impact evaluation process (Rossi et al. 2004).
Literature Review
International funding agencies are recognizing the need to evaluate programs’ outcomes
and impacts systematically beyond mere delivery of outputs (UNDP 2002). Evaluators and
researchers also have stressed the importance of applying scientific methods and theoretical
frameworks to program evaluation to reach reliable and trustworthy conclusions to guide
decisions about the future of programs (Rossi et al. 2004, Hubbard & Hayashi 2003, Mulvey et
al. 2003, GAO 2002, UNDP 2002).
Many conservation and sustainable development efforts are geared toward environmental
behavior changes. MBCP is one example. Albeit MBCP planners did not indicate a theoretical
framework upon which they developed the work plan, it can be inferred from the project
-
26
document (UNDP 1999) that the MBCP long-term goal was a change in land use behavior.
MBCP engaged in disseminating information through different communication channels to
increase knowledge as a way to affect perceptions toward natural areas positively. Effects on
knowledge and perceptions was expected to promote behaviors toward land uses to induce
natural areas enhancement via their biological interconnectivity. Therefore, MBCP’s theoretical
realm lies within behavior and communication theories.
Several behavioral researchers explain the process of performing a behavior by
establishing relationships among factors such as knowledge, value systems, social and cultural
norms, personal skills and capacities, perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes (Stern 2000, Rogers
2003, Petty & Priester 1994, Hines et al. 1987, Bandura 1986, Ajzen 1985, Ajzen & Fishbein
1980). These authors proposed theories stressing one or a few elements of the behavior process
as the key factors they believed could be used to explain or predict behavior. They analyzed
behavior as a result of a cognitive process in comparison to imposition or reflex-reaction.
Most of these theories relate those factors affecting behavior as a process that generally
starts with the acquisition of knowledge. Kaiser et al. (1999) noted that according to many
authors “factual knowledge is a necessary precondition for any attitude” in general, and for
environmental attitudes and ecological behaviors, in particular. Many studies have found a
positive relationship between knowledge and pro-environmental attitudes (Aipanjiguly et al.
2003). However, knowledge itself is not the only factor affecting attitudes, but rather an element
that is influenced by other factors (Kaiser et al. 1999).
In the environmental arena, the theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen 1985) -or its
predecessor, the theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980) - has been frequently used
to explain or predict environmental behavior (Aipanjiguly et al. 2003, Kaiser et al. 1999).
-
27
According to this theory, individuals’ cognitive capabilities, personal and social norms and value
systems modulate the perception of the acquired information. Perceptions lead to formation of
attitudes towards the particular issue. Attitudes influence intentions to perform behaviors.
Intentions to behave in a certain way may be conditioned by other factors such as personal skills
(or lack of them) or external conditions that favor or limit the performance of behaviors.
Therefore, intentions to perform behaviors are a useful variable to measure behavior, according
to the theory of Planned Behavior.
While many behavior theories approach behavioral changes at the individual level, the
theory of diffusion of innovations analyzes social behavioral changes. Rogers’ (1995) Diffusion
of Innovations theory analyzes the process by which individuals or groups adopt new ideas or
practices. Rogers defines diffusion as a “process by which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social system”. Since DoI combines
elements of behavior and communication theories, it becomes an ideal theoretical framework to
evaluate MBCP.
Four elements can be identified in the diffusion process: the innovation, the
communication channels, time and the social system. According to Mahajan & Peterson (1985,
p. 7),
an innovation is an idea, object, or practice that is perceived as new by members of the social system… Communication channels are the means by which the information is transmitted to or within the social system. . . . [It] includes mass media communication channels [and] interpersonal communication and face-to-face linkages between two or more members of a social system. Times relates to the rate at which the innovation is diffused or the relative speed which it is adopted. . . . The social system consists of individuals, organizations, or agencies that share a common ‘culture’ and are potential adopters of the innovation. . . . [They] can range from [individuals], organizations, governmental agencies, states or nations.
According to Rogers (1995), each of these components has a set of factors affecting them.
The perception of something as an innovation depends on: its relative advantage when
-
28
compared to other known ways of solving the same problem; compatibility with existing sets of
needs and values among potential adopters; complexity of the perceived difficulty to understand
its use; trialability or the degree to which the new idea can be tried out; and observability or how
easy the new concept can be seen by others. The communication channels are affected by the
basic elements of communication: message, diffusion source, communication mechanism or
diffusion agent and receiver. The communication channel is the mechanism of interaction
between individuals transmitting the diffusion of the innovation and those adopting or rejecting
it. Two important concepts relating to the communication channels are the degree of similarity
among source and receptor individuals (homophily) or dissimilarity (heterophily), referring to
the communication principle that the transfer of ideas occurs most frequently among socially and
physically proximate individuals.
The decision process of adopting or rejecting the new concept is affected by time as a
factor of diffusion. Rogers (1995) recognized several steps to conceptualize this process:
knowledge of the innovation, attitudes toward the innovation, decision to adopt it,
implementation of adoption (behavior performance), and confirmation or continuity of new
behavior. These steps have a chronological sequence that has been summarized by many authors
into three stages of the diffusion process, (1) knowledge/awareness, (2) perception/attitude and
(3) adoption/implementation (Hubbard & Hayashi 2003, Shao 1999, Rai 1995, Nilakanta &
Scamell 1990, Lin & Burt 1975). Another factor of time is the categories of adopters in terms of
earliness or lateness in the adoption process. The rate of adoption is the relative increment in
adopting an innovation by members of a social system or community. The social system
participates in the diffusion process by its set of values and norms, role of their opinion leaders
-
29
and change agents affecting the innovation decision process by means of being an optional,
collective or authoritarian process.
DoI has been applied extensively in many professional fields to evaluate the process of
changes in attitudes and behavior toward the adoption of new ideas, products or technology
(Meyer 2004, Nutley et al. 2002, Rogers 2003, Wolf 1994, Mahajan & Peterson 1985). Several
authors mention that thousands of studies in numerous disciplines have used DoI as their
theoretical framework (Meyer 2004, Nutley et al. 2002, Mahajan & Peterson 1985). Such
studies have focused on different aspects of DoI mentioned before, but very few of them have
approached the communication venue (Lehman-Wilzig and Cohen-Avigdor 2004, Li 2004, Rai
1995, Lin & Burt 1975). Researchers from the fields of biology conservation (Jacobson et al.
2003), computer science (Rai 1995) and sociology (Lin & Burt 1975) have stressed the
importance of communication channels in diffusion processes. However, it seems there is little
research studying effects of communication channels in diffusion of biodiversity conservation
ideas.
I conducted a search of DoI papers from 1992 to 2005, randomly selecting 50 publications
out of 390 from a literature search using the Web of Science® electronic browser. I used a list of
randomly generated numbers from 1 to 390 (the total of DoI citations found by the electronic
search). Of the 50 randomly selected publications, I only included 41 publications in my
analysis; those I had access to the abstract or complete document. I classified studies by
professional field and by DoI topic used in research. From the search, I identified the following
DoI topics: rate or stages of diffusion of technology or concepts, social norms, dissemination
instruments such as channels, agents of change and opinion leaders, social networks and
innovation’s attributes. Table 1-1 presents the results of this analysis.
-
30
Results show that most of the research using DoI in the past decade has been conducted in
the Business (24%), Health (22%) and Computer Science (22%) fields. Most studies focused on
the rate or stage of diffusion (63%), as mentioned by Nutley et al. (2002), Rogers (1995) and
Wolf (1994). Other DoI factors appeared evenly distributed among publications in the past 14
years. This empirical and brief analysis is congruent with researcher’s findings stating that
mainly Education, Health (Nutley et al. 2002), Business and Information Science have used DoI
theory during the last decade. It seems that the field of conservation biology has not applied DoI
as abundantly as other fields, nor has the focus been on communication channels.
Table 1-1. Sample of research on diffusion of innovation (DoI) conducted between 1992 and 2005 categorized by field and research topic
Topic Field
Rate of diffusion
Social Norms
Channels/change agent/opinion leaders
Social Networks
Innovation Attributes Total
Business/Marketing 3, 28, 36, 39 12 4 41 5,33, 38 10
Health 6, 14, 20, 22, 23, 24, 35 31 25 9
Computer/Information Science
10, 17, 26, 27, 29, 34, 37 30, 40 9
Social Sciences 16 21 2 Economics 15 9 2 Communication 2, 8 2 Environmental Science 11 18 2
Natural Science/Resources 19 1 2
Policy/Public Admin. 7 32 2 Agriculture 13 1
Total 26 3 4 4 4 41 Key to citations in Table 1-1: 1. Walters et al. 2005; 2. Lehman-Wilzig and Cohen-Avigdor 2004; 3. Gharavi and Cheng 2004; 4. Godes and Mayzlin 2004; 5. Beise 2004; 6. Burke and Benachemi 2004; 7. Frederickson et al. 2004; 8. Li 2004; 9. Uhlaner 2003; 10. Hardgrave et al. 2003; 11. Velayudhan 2003; 12. Loch et al., 2003; 13. Reece and Sumberg 2003; 14. Schiaffino et al. 2003; 15. Crocco 2003; 16. Hubbard and Mulvey 2003; 17. Brousseau 2003; 18. Vollink et al. 2002; 19. Ira 2001; 20. Steenhuis et al. 2001; 21. Harrisson; et al. 2001; 22. Perleth et al. 1999; 23. Bartholomew et al. 2000; 24. Pelletier-Fleury et al. 1999; 25. Kincaid 2000; 26. Vaughan and Schwartz 1999; 27. Dos Santos and Peffers 1998; 28. Jiménez-Martínez and Polo-Redondo 1998; 29. Kortelainen 1997; 30. Holland 1997; 31. Valente et al. 1997; 32. Golub and Johnson 1996; 33. Matutes et al. 1996; 34. Ruppel and Harrington 1995; 35. Parcel et al.1995; 36. Kapur 1995; 37. Wynekoop and Finan 1994; 38. Wang 1994; 39. Filippini 1993; 40. Yavas et al. 1992; 41. Callon et al. 1992.
Beyond this analysis, DoI theory also has been often used to study the diffusion of new
agricultural technology (Reece 2003, Heong et al. 1998), as well as environmentally sound
-
31
agricultural technology (Walters et al. 2005, Feder and Savastano 2004, Coughenour 2003).
Nevertheless, it has been seldom used to assess the diffusion of new approaches in conservation
of biodiversity and natural areas management (Jacobson et al. 2003, Ira 2001).
Literature reviews demonstrate that DoI is a reliable theoretical framework to study
perceptions, attitudes and behavior. DoI has been applied as well as a theoretical framework for
program impacts evaluations (Rogers & Scott 1997, Hubbard & Hayashi 2003). Biodiversity
and land uses are concepts not unique to the MBC, but their relation to the notion of biological
interconnectivity among natural areas is. The idea of biological corridors was first introduced in
Mesoamerica by the WCS Paseo Pantera Project in 1990 (Coates 2003), but it was the MBCP
who systematically diffused the concept of building biological corridors through biodiversity–
friendly land uses. In a way, MBCP’s concepts promote forestry and agriculture best
management practices with the specific objective of allowing wild species to move from one
natural area to another. This land-use approach, together with the multi-level/multi-nation
organization, is an innovative idea to advance toward conservation and sustainable development
issues in Mesoamerica. According to the MBC initiative, the relative advantages of adopting
these practices are the enhancement of environmental services and some economical benefits
from the interconnection of natural areas and sustainable use of natural resources, respectively
(UNDP 1999). Trifinio authorities recognize the dependence of a significant proportion of the
population on natural resources (Lopez et al 2004) supporting the notion that MBCP concepts are
compatible with local needs. I am assuming that MBCP participants perceived the
implementation of biological corridors and project’s concepts as an innovative conservation idea,
as well as the relative advantages of adopting them. The MBCP therefore represents an
-
32
opportunity to evaluate the effects of communication channels in knowledge increase and
perceptions of a conservation innovation among communities.
Research of Communication Channels in Diffusion of Innovations
Studies from business management (Godes & Mayzlin 2004, Shao 1999, White & Jacobs
1998, Rai 1995, Fichman 1992, Nilakanta & Scamell 1990), health (Hubbard & Hayashi 2003,
Hubbard & Mulvey 2003), agriculture (Heong et al. 1998, Warriner & Moul 1992) and sociology
(Lin & Burt 1975) based on DoI establish a relationship between communication channels and
the diffusion and adoption process. These papers studied correlations between characteristics of
communication channels and adopters attributes. Communication channel characteristics
included amount of media coverage, quantity, variety, types and effectiveness of channels.
Adopters could be individuals, such as professionals of specific fields, or organizations such as
business firms or stakeholders groups, such as small farmers or low-income communities.
Adopters’ attributes relate to demographics, complexity of the social or organizational structure
and the communication network within that structure.
DoI communication channels research also considers the effect of channels in relation to
the stages of the diffusion process, which can be divided into knowledge/awareness,
perception/attitude and adoption/implementation (Hubbard & Hayashi 2003, Shao 1999, Rai
1995, Nilakanta & Scamell 1990, Lin & Burt 1975). The first stage relates to the acquisition of
knowledge to become aware of the innovation and its attributes. The second stage is the
formation of perceptions and attitudes that lead to the adoption or rejection of the innovation.
The final stage is actual adoption, but depending on the type of innovation, it is followed by its
continued implementation. This division of the final stage relates to the notion that some
innovations are imposed at the organization –or society- level by hierarchical decision makers,
but it requires the continued implementation of actual adopters (Rai 1995, Fichman 1992) such
-
33
as employers or citizens. An example of this is the implementation of laws and policies. Even
though laws and policies can be imposed, they require a grade of social acceptance –thus,
willingness to adopt– from the society in which laws are enforced.
Studies on DoI communication channels most frequently focus on either end of the stages
of the diffusion process. Channels are correlated to knowledge transfer (Heong et al. 1998,
White & Jacobs 1998, Rai 1995,) or to levels of adoption (Shao 1998, Fichman 1992, Warriner
& Moul 1992, Lin & Burt 1975). Some studies explore both relationships (Godes & Mayzlin
2004, Nilakanta & Scamell 1990), and a few explore perceptions toward innovations (Hubbard
& Mulvey 2003, Heong et al. 1998).
The description of communication channels varied among these studies depending on
adopters’ attributes and organizational context. However, they all recognized mass media as a
channel of ample distribution among society and it included television, radio, newspapers and
periodical publications (journals and magazines) and pamphlet distribution. Pamphlets were
considered part of ‘local media’ together with posters (Lin & Burt 1975) and billboards or a
category in itself (Heong et al. 1998). Workshops and seminars were also frequently mentioned
(Heong et al. 1998, White & Jacobs 1998, Rai 1995, Nilakanta & Scamell 1990). Other channels
evaluated in DoI research were personal communication or word of mouth (Godes & Mayzlin
2004), which seems to play a particular role in the diffusion of agriculture conservation
technology (Warriner & Moul 1992), and Internet (White & Jacobs 1998). Channels of
communications are dependent variables in these studies, with the exception of Lin & Burt’s
(1975). They analyzed covariant correlations among several variables –channels, demographic
attributes and social networks- without establishing causation. Demographic variables do not
seem to have a significant relationship with channels beyond access.
-
34
Some frequent findings have been:
• Mass media channels showed a stronger correlation with knowledge transfer and awareness stage than other channels (Rogers 2003, Heong et al. 1998, Lin & Burt 1975), but no effect on adoption (Lin & Burt 1975).
• Channels more closely related to potential adopters (homophilic) such as workshops, seminars and opinion leaders are slower in raising awareness but correlate better with adoption of innovations (Hubbard et al. 2003, Lin & Burt 1975).
• Interpersonal communication showed positive correlation with adoption (Hubbard et al. 2003, Warriner & Moul 1992), but it is a slow mechanism for diffusion (Hubbard et al. 2003). In contrast, Lin & Burt (1975) found no correlation between interpersonal communication and adoption.
• Perceptions and attitudes correlate with the levels of skills and perceived capacity to perform a behavior (Hubbard et al. 2003) and with cost-benefits perceived if a practice is adopted (Heong et al. 1998).
It is easier to measure the adoption of an objective innovation. DoI literature recognizes
that an innovation can be an objective element such as physical instruments or specific practices,
i.e., new technologies, computer hardware or software, etc., as well as a more subjective set of
concepts or ideas, such as health guidelines or a set of best management practices in agriculture
(Nutley et al. 2002, Rogers 2003, Rogers & Scott 1997). The innovation in most of the research
on DoI and communication channels is the former type. The difficulty with studying a
‘conceptual innovation’ is in defining the ‘object’ to be adopted, for measurement purposes.
How many best management practices and what percentage of the target population are needed
to consider them adopted and expect an impact? This is the case of MBCP where the innovation
is the concept of biological connectivity and the practice to be adopted would be the use of plants
–preferably native trees- that would allow wildlife to move from one natural area to another. This
MBCP evaluation concentrated on the stages of knowledge/awareness and perception/attitudes.
-
35
Research Objectives
The objectives of my study were to:
1. Measure changes in knowledge of MBC key concepts at a local level between 2001 and 2006.
2. Assess local perceptions of MBCP concepts.
3. Assess the effect of communication channels used in the MBCP’s diffusion process on changes in local public knowledge and perceptions.
4. Assess the effectiveness of workshops for journalists on mass media coverage.
5. Assess the diffusion process of MBCP concepts among leaders of relevant national and local stakeholders
6. Provide guidance to other conservation and development programs about diffusion of new ideas.
-
36
CHAPTER 2 EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY OF THE MESOAMERICAN
BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR PROJECT: EFFECTS ON PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS
Introduction
International funding agencies recognize the need to evaluate programs’ outcomes and
impacts systematically beyond mere delivery of outputs (UNDP 2002). Evaluators and
researchers also have stressed the importance of applying scientific methods and theoretical
frameworks to program evaluation to reach reliable and trustworthy conclusions to guide
decisions about the future of programs (UNDP 2002, GAO 2002, Mulvey et al. 2003, Hubbard &
Hayashi 2003, Rossi et al. 2004). Latin American governments have generally allocated limited
funds to biodiversity conservation protection and management (Hopkins 1995, Bates & Rudel
2000), relying mainly on international funds. Therefore, assessing outcomes is particularly
pertinent to biodiversity conservation projects in developing nations to guide optimal use of
limited resources.
Mesoamerica is a region that has attracted large sums of international funds for
environmental issues (Guzman et al. 2003). The region is considered a biodiversity hotspot due
to its abundance of endemic species, diversity of ecosystems and high threat levels because of
unsustainable development processes (Myers et al. 2000). Mesoamerica represents
approximately 0.5% (800,000 km2) of the planet’s territory, yet it is believed to contain 7% of
the known global biodiversity with a large diversity of ecosystems represented by 22 distinct
‘ecoregions’ (UNDP 1999, UICN 2000, Miller et al. 2001, PCCBM 2002a, Coates 2003).
In 1990, the Wildlife Conservation Society proposed the creation of an extended biological
corridor interconnecting the largest natural areas in Central America as a way to confront
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('detail','ss%257E%257EAR%2520%252522Rudel%25252c%2520Thomas%2520K%252E%252522%257C%257Csl%257E%257Erl','');�
-
37
regional biodiversity loss due to habitat fragmentation, recognized as a major threat (Coates
2003). After many years of lobbying for this proposal, the Central American and Mexican
governments adopted this idea (García 1996) as an approach to achieve sustainable development
(Miller et al. 2001). The Global Environmental Facility and the German Technical Cooperation
Agency, complemented by Mesoamerican Governments, allocated US$16 million in 1999 to
fund the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project (MPCP).
Many conservation and sustainable development projects expect to influence human
behavior to address their conservation goals. While many behavior theories approach behavioral
changes at the individual level, the theory of diffusion of innovations (DoI) explains social
behavioral changes. Diffusion of innovation theory analyzes the process by which people adopt
new ideas or practices, defining diffusion as a “process in which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (Rogers 2003 p. 5).
There are five main elements in DoI: (1) the characteristic of the innovation, (2) the
communication channels used to diffuse the new concepts, (3) the time it takes members of
society to adopt the innovation and factors affecting the adoption process through time, (4) the
characteristics of members of the social system that will facilitate adopting new concepts sooner
or later in the process, and (5) the communication structure of the social systems that will
facilitate or impede the diffusion of new ideas. This study focuses on the effects of
communication channels on adoption processes.
An innovation can be objective, for instance a new electronic device or the use of Internet
(Singer 1998), or subjective such as new ideas or concepts like safe sex practices (Bertrand 2004,
Valente & Fosados 2006) or new conservation approaches (Jacobson et al. 2003) such as
enhancing biological connectivity among protected areas. Communication channels provide a
-
38
delivery mechanism of quantity and quality of information about an innovation. Different
communication channels are expected to be more effective at different stages of the diffusion
process. A simplification of the time scale of DoI’s adoption process starts at the knowledge-
awareness stage, followed by perception-attitude, ending with adoption-implementation (Lin &
Burt 1975, Nilakanta & Scamell 1990, Rai 1995, Hubbard & Hayashi 2003). Mass media
channels are expected to be an adequate mechanism to deliver information to increase public
awareness of the innovation, while interpersonal communication is expected to facilitate the
formation of favorable perceptions and positive attitudes about the innovative idea among
potential adopters.
DoI classifies individuals according to the time they take to go through the diffusion-
adoption process into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and non-adopters
(Rogers 2003). Individuals’ promptness to adopt an innovation tends to follow a normal
distribution. The first two types of individuals could adopt the new ideas directly from the initial
exposure to the information, while the others might need to hear the opinion from previous
adopters to form perceptions and attitudes toward the innovation. Whereas innovators, those
who take little time to adopt innovations, may be considered to take too much risk to be followed
by many, early adopters play an important role in diffusing the new ideas because they serve as
the role to follow. As time passes, more members of the social system are expected to advance
through the diffusion stages adopting the new concepts, portraying an S-shaped curve in an
adoption rate graph (Figure 2-1).
-
39
Figure 2-1. Rate of adoption, type of adopters and stages in diffusion of innovations theory.
a) Rate of adoption of innovations through time (S-shaped curve). b) Categorization and distribution of types of adopters (normal distribution curve). c) Diffusion stages through time and most influential channel. Adopters types can go through the different diffusion stages at different pace. Adapted from Rogers (2003)
The communication structure of a social system can be complex and its description is
beyond the focus of this study. However, the communication structure of the social system
affects the perception and preferences of communication channels depending on the trust and
reliability members of the social system place on the channels.
-
40
DoI has been used in behavior research for many years (Rogers 1962, 2003) to study the
effects of communication channels on the innovation adoption process in different fields (Lin &
Burt 1975, Nilakanta & Scamell 1990, Fichman 1992, Rai 1995, White & Jacobs 1998, Heong et
al. 1998, Shao 1999, Hubbard & Mulvey 2003, Godes & Mayzlin 2004). It frequently has been
applied to study the diffusion of innovative, environmentally sound agricultural concepts
(Warriner & Moul 1992, Coughenour 2003, Feder & Savastano 2004, Walters et al. 2005). DoI
has been applied also as a theoretical framework in evaluation of programs’ impacts (Rogers &
Scott 1997, Hubbard & Hayashi 2003). Nevertheless, it has seldom been used to assess the
diffusion of new approaches in conservation of biodiversity and management of natural areas
(Ira 2001, Jacobson et al. 2003).
One objective of MBCP was to diffuse the concept and practice of biological connectivity
of protected areas by use of sustainable land use practices (UNDP 1999). MBCP promoted
sustainable forestry and agricultural best management practices with the specific objective of
creating corridors to allow wild species to move from one natural area to another. This land-use
approach was an innovative idea to advance conservation and sustainable development in
Mesoamerica. The relative advantages of adopting these practices were the enhancement of
environmental services from the interconnection of natural areas and some economic benefits
from ecotourism and sustainable land use practices (UNDP 1999).
One of the main components of the Project was the diffusion of the following key
concepts: protected areas’ contribution to development, biological connectivity among natural
areas to enhance environmental services, sustainable development, and the use of biofriendly
land-use practices as biological connectors. During the life of the Project, between 2000 and
-
41
2006, MBCP used a variety of communication channels to increase knowledge about and support
for those concepts at local, national and multi-national levels.
MBCP Communication Strategy
MBCP intended to reach two audiences, the general public of Mesoamerican societies, and
specific stakeholders relevant to the implementation of biological corridors. To optimize the use
of project resources, MBCP disseminated the project’s concepts by addressing journalists that
were expected to produce mass media products to reach the public, and key members of relevant
stakeholders groups that were expected to spread the information among their peers.
Addressing the general public started with support from World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
which produced several mass media products that were distributed to television and radio
stations during 2000, as part of the MBCP launch campaign. These products included six
jingles, six 30-seconds narrative spots for TV and radio, and two documentaries (10 and 3
minutes). Television channels in each Mesoamerican country had WWF audio-visual products
on the air for a few months. MBCP conducted a public survey in 2001 to assess the effects of
the launch campaign and to design the follow-up communication strategy (PCCBM 2002b).
Between 2001 and 2004, MBCP conducted 10 international workshops specifically directed to
journalists and communication officers of environmental ministries from all Mesoamerican
countries, and several national workshops with local journalists. A network was established
connecting journalists that participated in these workshops, communication officers of each
country’s environmental ministry, WWF, and other stakeholders involved in the MBCP’s
communication process. The Project expected that this network would promote sustained
production of MBCP mass media products.
Stakeholders groups were addressed throughout the project’s life by different MBCP
meetings such as congresses, workshops, short courses, seminars, and direct contact with project
-
42
personnel (PCCBM 2007). These meetings were held at regional, national and local levels.
MBCP produced a series of technical and informative documents published in different formats,
including posters, pamphlets, brochures, books and compact disks. Some countries produced
additional national MBCP products. Printed material was distributed at MBCP meetings or sent
directly to key stakeholder members. Pamphlets were made available to the public at some
meetings open to the public. Many documents were available through the Internet
(www.ccad.ws/PCCBM/pccbm.html). An electronic bulletin was distributed via electronic mail
to more than 1,000 relevant Mesoamerican stakeholders from 2000 to 2004 (J. Mejia 2005,
MBCP communications office, personal communication).
The expected outcomes of MBCP’s communication strategy were a 10% increase in
knowledge of and support for MBCP’s concepts, and ample MBCP dissemination in the mass
media (UNDP 1999). The MBCP communication strategy can be assessed through the lens of a
DoI framework that used mass media and interpersonal channels to inform the public,
reinforcing the diffusion process by addressing key members of stakeholder groups. Figure 2-2
shows a diagram I elaborated schematizing the MBCP communication strategy to disseminate
the MBCP concepts. Using DoI as a theoretical framework, I evaluated the impact of the MBCP
public communication strategy on the key concepts that the Project promoted.
http://www.ccad.ws/PCCBM/pccbm.html�
-
43
Figure 2-2. MBCP communication strategy
Solid lines represent main flow of information conducted by MBCP and its expected effects; dotted lines portray secondary, partial or indirect flows. Note that stakeholders’ representatives and journalists play a role as communication channels and target audiences.
Research Objectives
To effectively achieve biological connectivity, land use changes must happen at the local
level. This study evaluated whether MBCP reached the public of specific conservation sites.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the communication outcomes achieved by the MBCP
public communication strategy after five years of program operation at the local level, and to
assess the efficacy of different communication channels by comparing results from a 2001
survey to my 2006 survey. The study assessed whether:
• Local public knowledge about MBCP concepts increased at least 10% from 2001 to 2006 among the study site population.
• Local perceptions were more supportive of protected areas and biological corridors in 2006.
• Local perceptions changed from utilitarian use of protected areas to more conservationist perceptions.
-
44
• The degree of change in local public knowledge and perception about MBC were related to reported exposure to different communication channels.
• Journalists’ workshops were an effective mechanism to deliver information to the public.
• MBCP's concepts diffused among the local public according to DoI's expected stages of the adoption process.
Methods
Study Site
The MBCP considered 11 multinational sub-regions cited in the Central American
Biodiversity Treaty (CCAD 1992) as priority areas where most project activities were focused.
One of these areas was Trifinio, a 7,584 km2 tri-national region shared by Guatemala, Honduras
and El Salvador, with a population above 670,000, a literacy rate of 47%, and 87% living in
poverty (Lopez et al. 2004). The need for natural resources for subsistence places an enormous
pressure on the region’s diverse natural ecosystems, making inhabitants more vulnerable to the
impoverished agricultural soils, extreme climatic events and biodiversity loss. Originally,
Trifinio’s forest cover was 80%; now only 18% remains (OAS 1994). Present ecosystems
include cloud forest, tropical pine forest, and dry and humid subtropical forests, all rich in
biodiversity and threatened throughout Mesoamerica (CCAD 2003, Houghton et al. 1991, Janzen
1983). Trifinio communities surround the tri-national protected area of Montecristo cloud forest,
a proposed UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. The borders of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador
meet at the top of Montecristo Massif.
Survey Design and Analysis
During 2001, MBCP conducted a 55-item survey instrument by personal interviews among
many cities throughout Mesoamerica (PCCBM 2004). Participants were chosen from a
systematic stratified random sample, adjusted for equal representation of gender and age (four
categories between 18 and 65 years old), within each city. The original questionnaire was
-
45
designed by MBCP in conjunction with BIMSA, the surveying firm that did the 2001 MBCP
survey. All questions, except demographic items, were open-ended or had a yes-no response
option. Survey items addressed knowledge and perceptions related to the Project, protected
areas, general environmental issues and sustainable development. I used data from 21 items
from 620 questionnaires from Trifinio communities surveyed in 2001, 200 from El Salvador, 120
from Honduras and 300 from Guatemala for comparison with 2006 data. I only used the
questions from the 2001 survey that address the MBCP’s concepts (7 knowledge, 11 opinion,
and 3 communication questions) to compare changes in knowledge and perceptions between
surveyed years.
In April of 2006, I used the services of Herrarte-Marketing polling company to repeat the
2001 MBCP survey to a random sample of the population of most of the same communities
within the Trifinio region, using the same sampling frame used by the MBCP. Trifinio
communities surveyed were Copan and Ocotepeque in Honduras, Metapán and Chalatenango in
El Salvador, and Esquipulas and Chiquimula in Guatemala. A total of 600 surveys were
conducted, 100 per community. The Guatemalan Trifinio communities were not surveyed in
2001. Data from other Guatemalan communities outside Trifinio with similar socioeconomic
attributes were used for comparisons. The entire 2001 questionnaire was repeated verbatim to
eliminate effects of wording changes and the effect of previous questions on the response of
subsequent ones (Peterson 2000, Groves et al. 2004). I obtained the original raw data from
BIMSA and recoded responses for comparison with the 2006 data. I constructed a knowledge
index with a 0-9 scale from three items addressing knowledge of protected areas, MBCP and
sustainable development, each element weighted 3 points. Seventeen survey items used in this
study were open-ended. The polling companies that conducted the surveys produced large lists
-
46
of coded responses and codes for three questions differ between companies. Responses were re-
coded, potentially increasing sources of error by the added layers of interpretation of responses.
Table 2-1 displays a list with English translations of the public survey items used in this study
with identification of index items. All surveys were conducted in Spanish.
I used a repeated cross-sectional design, which uses repeated surveys asking the same
questions to a new sample in each measurement period (Firebaugh 1997), because data were
obtained at two points in time from different random samples of respondents within the same
cities.
Table 2-1. Survey Items Typea
1. Have you heard about natural protected areas and national parks? Kw 2. Name the first three natural protected areas that come to your mind right now? Kwb 3. What is the importance of natural protected areas? Op 4. Have you heard about the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor? Kw 5. What do you believe the MBC is? (Those who answered NO to item 4) Kwb 6. In your opinion, what is the MBC? (Those who answered YES to item 4) Kwb 7. Have you heard about sustainable development? Kw 8. What do you understand by sustainable development? Kwb 9. Which is the greatest natural and environmental wealth your country has? Op 10. Do you think protected areas have an importance for the economic development of the country? Op 11. Why [do you think protected areas have an importance for the economic development of the country]? Op 12. Do you think natural resources provide economic benefits to the country? Op 13. Why [do you think natural resources provide economic benefits to the country]? Op 14. Which is the most important natural resource in your community? Op 15. Why [is that the most important natural resource in your community]? Op 16. What is the function of the MBC, what is it good for? Op 17. What benefits can the MBC bring to you and your family? Op 18. If there was a project part of the MBC in your community, city or county, would you like to participate in this initiative? Op
19. From which sources did you hear about the MBC? So 20. How do you find out about what is happening in your community? So 21. From which media source do you find out about what is happening in your country? So a Abbreviations: Kw: Knowledge; Op: Opinion; So: Source b Items included in 9-points knowledge index
One limitation of the design of this study was the presence of at least 20 projects
addressing agricultural and forestry best management practices, environmental management and
sustainable development, independent from MBCP that occurred in Trifinio during the same
period MBCP was active (Appendix A). Although these projects did not address biological
-
47
connectivity, they could confound the results related to the other MBCP concepts (Rossi et al.
2004). The survey design could not detect whether gains in knowledge and favorable
perceptions of MBCP’s concepts were related to other projects. Another limitation of the
repeated survey design is the questionable ability of respondents to recall past events (Meyer
2004). More reliable designs such as quasi-experiments and panel studies (Meyer 2004, Rossi et
al. 2004) were not applicable to this study. A quasi-experimental design was not possible
because there was no control survey conducted among a random sample before MBCP started.
A panel study was not reliable due to potential attrition bias from the long time between
measurement periods (Hill 2004). Nevertheless, panel studies with high attrition rates, thus
approaching the repeated cross-sectional design, have showed significant representativeness of
the measured sections (Fitzgerald et al. 1998).
Data were analyzed with SPSS 15.0 (2006) and SAS 9.1 (2003). I used descriptive
statistics to determine frequencies and proportions. To analyze changes between 2001 and 2006
responses, I used Pearson’s chi-square to compare proportions of categorical variables and
Fisher’s exact test when cells in contingency tables had five or less expected counts (Agresti &
Finley1997). I used t-tests to compare means of continuous variables and Mann-Whitney U-tests
to compare groups with small sample sizes and non-normal distribution. I used the Eta measure
of association to correlate interval and nominal variables (Siegel 1956), and absolute differences
when comparing values between years expressed in percentages. Standard α levels of 0.05 were
considered statistically significant (Bernard 2002, Mahajan & Peterson 1985). All quantitative
results reported in the study are statistically significant, unless otherwise stated.
-
48
Semi-Structured Interviews
I conducted semi-structured interviews with 33 journalists from El Salvador, Guatemala
and Honduras. I obtained respondents’ names from MBCP lists of participants in journalist
workshops and from Trifinio local media. My goal was to interview at least 10 journalists from
each country, but I attempted to contact every journalist on the lists. I interviewed all journalists
I was able to contact, and all agreed to participate. I used a 25-item discussion guide (Appendix
B) that addressed journalists’ knowledge and opinions about the Project, its concepts,
communication process, and MBC mass media material produced by respondents and other
journalists. MBCP knowledge among