The final sample of participants who filled out both questionnaires consisted of 58 par- ticipants (70.2 % male, mean age 49.7 years). we divided our pool of participants into three groups: one group received tailored information only, one group received tailored informa- tion plus a commitment manipulation, and one group served as a control. In the tailored information only condition (N = 18), participants were sent feedback reports by mail. Feed- back reports were tailored around the themes habitat area, habitat diversity and quality of management. Especially habitat diversity and adequate habitat management are seen as key drivers of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes (benton et al., 2003; blomqvist et al., 2006; Duelli, 1997; Manhoudt et al., 2007; weibull et al., 2003). As a source for adequate manage- ment options, we used a manual for agri-environmental management (Van Paassen, 1998), which was published by the Dutch national organization for landscape management and is a widely accepted source of advice about agri-environmental management options.
Using Tailored Information and Public Commitment 35
Using Tailored Information and Public Commitment 35
Feedback reports were tailor made for each farm, based on self reported data on habi- tat area and management. based on this information, each farm was rated on 4 aspects of agri-environmental management by a team of ecologists with expertise in this area. These aspects were: 1) total area of semi-natural habitat on the farm; 2) habitat diversity; 3) man- agement quality of semi-natural habitats on the farm; 4) the contribution of the habitats and specific measures (e.g. nesting boxes) on the farm to landscape quality and the occurrence of specific groups of organisms (e.g. farmland birds, raptors, amphibians, etc.). Partici- pants’ performance on each of these aspects was compared with the performance of oth- ers in their area. we created feedback reports in which this information was presented in a clear and understandable way. The feedback was combined with tailored advices on how to improve their score in each of the 4 aspects of nature conservation (see also De Snoo, 2006).
In the information plus commitment condition (N = 16), participants were invited to a meeting. we organized two of such meetings: One for each agricultural organization in the information plus commitment condition. So, all participants in this condition went to one meeting, together with their fellow agricultural organization members. During these meet- ings, the reports, similar to those in the information only condition, were handed out. Par- ticipants were given the opportunity to read their reports and discuss the contents among themselves. At the end of each meeting we asked participants to publicly state which of the advices given in the report they were going to follow up on. This way, a public commitment manipulation was administered. In order to enhance the manipulation, minutes of the meet- ing, including every participant’s commitments, were sent to all participants in this condi- tion. Of the 17 participants in the information plus commitment condition, 12 were able to attend the meetings. All the participants present at the meeting made a commitment. Par- ticipants who did not attend the study groups and thus received no treatment were excluded from further analysis.
The control condition (N = 24) received no treatment. A year later, in March 2007, all participants were sent the post-intervention questionnaire.
Questionnaire
All questionnaire items were measured on 5-point scales. because we were interested in the possible differences between non-subsidized and subsidized conservation, all items were consequently phrased for both types of practices. All items were measured before and after the intervention.
Self-report measures. Attitude was measured using the items “I think that subsidized/ non- subsidized nature conservation practices are: negative-positive”, “I think that subsidized/ non-subsidized nature conservation practices are: useless – useful”, and “I think that sub-
C ha pt er 3 36 36
sidized/ non-subsidized nature conservation practices are: unimportant– important” (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980). This scale yielded a sufficiently high reliability for both subsidized (α= .77) and non-subsidized practices (α= .87) in the pre-test as well as in the post-test (subsidized
α= .76, non-subsidized α= .91). The behavioral desire to perform nature conservation was measured with the item “I want to perform subsidized/non-subsidized nature conserva- tion practices”. According to the Model of Goal-Directed behavior, desires “represent the motivational state of mind wherein appraisals and reasons to act are transformed into a motivation to do so” (Perugini & bagozzi, 2001, p. 84). Therefore, they can be seen as a determinant of behavior. For the current study we were particularly interested in using this variable as it reflects an individual’s motivation to perform a given behavior irrespective of possible practical barriers. Nature conservation is characterized by plenty of practical bar- riers such as subsidies, changing regulations and income. Using this measure provided us with the opportunity to measure the effect of our intervention at the personal motivation to perform conservation.
Surface area of (semi-) natural habitat was calculated from self reported data on spe- cific semi-natural habitats present on the farm. Also, we asked participants if they were interested in expanding their current surface area of subsidized (semi-)natural habitat.
Finally, we asked participants how much time they had spent on both subsidized and non-subsidized nature conservation practices per season in the past year. we then aggre- gated these season scores to measures indicating how much time they had spent on both subsidized and non-subsidized conservation practices per year.
Ecological measures. Conservation quality was assessed by asking questions regarding the use of fertilizer and pesticides, mowing/cutting/vegetation removal regime and timing of conservation in relation to breeding and overwintering periods of fauna and seeding peri- ods of flora. These were aggregated into the following 4 categories to enable comparison between differently managed habitats (Van Dijk et al., 2009): 1) protection of the habitat from regular farm practice (e.g. actively avoiding fertilizer or pesticide misplacement); 2) war- ranting spatial and/or temporal continuity of the habitat (e.g. phased mowing or replanting trees); 3) actively influencing vegetation structure (e.g. selective cutting of trees, removal of exuberant water plant growth); 4) active nutrient reduction (e.g. haymaking). If a farmer performed one or more management options within a specific category, one point for man- agement quality was awarded. In total, a management quality score between 0 (no benefi- cial management) and 4 (high management quality) could be calculated for each habitat. Overall agri-environmental management quality was defined as the average of the manage- ment scores of all semi-natural habitats present at the farm.
Another ecological measure used was the diversity of habitats. A habitat is commonly defined as “a place where an organism or a biological population normally lives or occurs” (http://www.biology-online.org). Habitat diversity was defined as the total number of dif-
Using Tailored Information and Public Commitment 37
Using Tailored Information and Public Commitment 37
ferent habitats and was calculated from the self reported data by adding the number of habitats reported to be present on the farm.
Results
All means and standard deviations are listed in Table 3.1. we will first discuss self-report measures, after which we will turn to effects found on the ecological measures.
One important feature of the current study is that it involves a collaboration of social psy- chological and ecological scientists. Using ecological measures implies selecting a sample that is not affected by differences in soil or landscape. because of these stringent criteria, our final sample was relatively small. Since this study is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to test the effects of a social psychological intervention on nature conservation practiced by farmers, it is exploratory in nature. Therefore, we believe the need to reveal possible effects to be greater than the risk of false positive decisions (Myers, 1972; see also Hartig et al., 1991). we will thus also report effects at the p < .10 level.