Search

Nature‐based tourism has a unique opportunity, and arguably responsibility, to promote widespread action on climate change. However, research suggests an aversion to providing information that might appear divisive or 'ruin' peoples day, particularly in places that are vulnerable to degradation.We explore how exposure to climate change information in vulnerable nature settings influences indicators of (i) the visitor experience and (ii) climate change engagement. Using a quasi‐experimental approach, we provided climate information on tourist boats operating on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia and compared visitor experiences with a control condition where climate information was not provided. Visitor surveys (n = 656) assessed perceptions and experiences.Overall, visitors on trips where climate information was provided were more likely to report that the reef experience exceeded their expectations and did not report any reduction in subjective trip satisfaction.However, we detected minimal effects of climate information on indicators of climate engagement (threat awareness, action awareness, or information seeking), suggesting room for improvement in interpretation approach and design. Indeed, visitors reported high levels of acceptability for incorporating more information about climate change, particularly about actions.Synthesis and applications: These results suggest that providing climate information does not undermine visitor experiences and while further research is required to determine the most effective approach for influencing climate change engagement, an appetite for more information exists. It is possible that what tourism operators are fearful of, may be an opportunity to improve outcomes aligned with both industry and environmental objectives. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recovery planning is considered an important policy instrument for the management of threatened species. While recovery planning has led to improvements in the conservation status of some species, the degree of success can vary substantially across different contexts and is dependent on multiple factors. Institutional and organizational factors such as insufficient funding, weak policies, underspecified goals, and lack of knowledge impact the success of recovery planning. But recovery planning can be fall short in achieving desired outcomes even in the absence of these constraints. Recovery planning is also highly reliant on collaboration efforts between local agencies, community organizations, and research institutions—yet studies examining the diversity of factors influencing the success of recovery planning are rare. To address this gap, we take a multilevel perspective that situates recovery planning inside nested layers of institutional, organizational, team, and action‐level processes. We apply this framework and utilize in‐depth interviews and thematic analysis to analyze barriers and enablers in the recovery of two threatened Australian species. Our analysis reveals how team‐level processes interact with their organizational and institutional contexts to influence outcomes. Key findings emphasize the indispensable role of committed individuals, collaboration, and strategic utilization of specialist knowledge in fostering effective teamwork. Furthermore, our findings also emphasize the critical importance of a shared purpose within the team and the need for equilibrium between personal agendas and team objectives. We highlight the need for more studies to deliver a nuanced understanding of how team‐level processes drive successful recovery planning, even when institutional factors, such as appropriate funding and knowledge, are present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communities have a strong role in protecting biodiversity. In addition to participation in restoration, a range of actions in the public or private sphere may support biodiversity. Despite this, there is a lack of clarity about what actions should be prioritized for behavior change campaigns. We developed and applied a method to prioritize community actions for biodiversity conservation that incorporates an expert‐based assessment of impact and a community‐informed measure of the likelihood of uptake. In stage 1, experts (n = 143) completed a survey that quantified the relative impact of actions based on best–worst scaling of perceived impact. In stage 2, surveyed community members (n = 3200) ranked the likelihood of adopting actions based on the ease or difficulty of performing each action, and the opportunity for change based on the proportion of respondents not yet engaging in each behavior. Experts gave the following actions the highest ranking for impact: voting for the environment (first), participating in restoration in ecological priority areas (second), and purchasing and protecting remnant bushland (third). When considering the disciplinary background and institutional background of experts, voting and participating in restoration activities remained in the upper ranked options. However, there was some divergence between these groups. For example, reducing beef consumption was ranked third by university‐based experts but ranked 28th by experts based in state government. Overall, community members ranked the following behaviors as most likely to be adopted: following quarantine laws (first), reducing plastic use (second), and managing pets (third). Top likelihood ranking of actions was minimally affected by community characteristics (nature relatedness, gender, location). Integrating these findings, the action ranked most favorably for impact, likelihood, and opportunity was participating in restoration. Choosing actions for behavior change campaigns requires consideration of the entire social–ecological system—from social factors that enable or constrain adoption to the ecological impact of actions across relevant social and ecological contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]