Environment strategy: behaviour changes needed to achieve Scotland's goals for biodiversity

5 Encouraging and enabling behaviour change

This chapter explores how behavioural science can inform and support efforts to promote behaviours that benefit biodiversity. Drawing on findings from Phases 1 and 2 of the literature review, it considers key process considerations for implementing behaviour change approaches within environmental policy and examines both cross-cutting and behaviour-specific factors that influence the adoption of pro-biodiversity behaviours, using the COM-B model as an analytical framework. The chapter also synthesises key messages from the literature on policies and interventions to support pro-biodiversity behaviour change.

5.1 Process for behaviour change policy design

This section sets out a systematic approach to aid policymakers when considering policy design to enable pro-biodiversity behaviour change. The approach, set out in Figure 4, has been synthesised from behavioural literature drawing on the application of the Behaviour Change Wheel as a toolkit for behaviour change (D’Lima et al., 2020; Marselle & Golding, 2023), as well drawing on other sources advocating for impact-based behaviour change agendas (Nielsen, Cologna, et al., 2021).

Box 1: Explanation of process for behaviour change policy design

The approach set out in Figure 4 above consists of five steps:

1) Select behaviour

The first step is to select a specific target behaviour that will contribute towards the desired outcome(s). As outlined in the previous chapter, there is a wide range of behaviours by private citizens that have the potential to contribute towards Scotland’s biodiversity goals, so selection of target behaviours requires a degree of prioritisation to identify which behaviours are most important to consider. There are several criteria that should be considered in this selection process; these are set out in Table X below. For specific conservation programmes, the identification of target behaviours may be aided by an analysis of the ‘threat chain’ leading to impacts on the conservation target in its context (Balmford et al., 2021; Nielsen, Marteau, et al., 2021).

2) Behavioural mapping

This step involves identifying the contexts in which the target behaviour occurs, how frequently it happens, and which actors or groups perform the behaviour (Nielsen, Cologna, et al., 2021). The mapping of pro-biodiversity behaviours reported in Chapter 3 and Appendix C provides a high-level mapping of the various constituent behaviours within each of the eight key behaviour areas, providing a useful starting point for more detailed behavioural mapping for identified target behaviours.

3) Behavioural diagnosis

Where step 2 should achieve a broad understanding of the context of the target behaviour, the next step goes on to establish an understanding of the specific factors (drivers, barriers etc.) shaping the target behaviour. These can be analysed using the COM-B component of the Behaviour Change Wheel (see section 1.3) to ensure that a range of factors pertaining both to the individual and the system in which they act are considered, in the form of Capabilities, Opportunities and Motivations. In section 5.3 we go on to provide worked examples of COM-B factors for selected target behaviours.

4) Design intervention functions

The Behaviour Change Wheel sets out a range of ‘interventions functions’ – broad categories of methods to facilitate behaviour change. Knowledge of the COM-B factors shaping the target behaviour can help to identify which interventions functions may be most effective. The types of intervention function in the BCW are listed in Figure 1 (section 1.3) and explained in more detail in Appendix D. Appendix D also shows which intervention functions are appropriate to address each of the different types of COM-B factors.

5) Identify policy options

Once appropriate intervention strategies are designed, policymakers can then assess how these might be delivered or supported through policy, with reference to the various different types of policy options outlined in the BCW. Appendix D maps intervention functions against the policy options that can be employed to deliver them.

Regarding behavioural prioritisation and selection, only one source aimed to prioritise amongst a wide set of pro-biodiversity behaviours to identify priority behaviours for policy action. Selinske et al. (2020) used expert ratings to measure perceived impact and behavioural plasticity (see Table 11), alongside published estimates of prevalence among the population of Victoria, Australia, to develop a prioritisation index. The top five ranked behaviours were: choosing Marine Stewardship Council seafood products; responsible dog ownership behaviour; reducing beef and lamb consumption; donating to private land protection organisations; and making biodiversity friendly investments. Whilst such rankings are likely to be sensitive to context, these priorities accord broadly with insights from this project’s workshop of key stakeholders in the Scottish context (see Appendix B).

Table 11: Potential criteria for prioritising behaviours for policy action*

Criteria

Impact

Explanation

The potential impact, or ‘technical potential’, of behaviour change on biodiversity outcomes should be a primary consideration in prioritisation. Approaches to changing environmental behaviours in policy and research have often been critiqued for focusing on low impact behaviours (e.g. turning off lights or recycling), at the expense of higher impact behaviours (Whitmarsh et al., 2021).

Criteria

Behavioural plasticity

Explanation

Behavioural plasticity - the degree to which behaviour can be shifted through intervention - depends on the perceived difficulty or costs of the behaviour (Allen et al., 2015; Nielsen et al., 2024). It should be considered alongside impact when prioritising pro-biodiversity behaviours (Balmford et al., 2021; Nielsen, Marteau, et al., 2021; Selinske et al., 2020), though evidence to compare the plasticity of behaviours remains limited and there are often trade-offs between impact and plasticity (Balmford et al., 2021; Nielsen, Marteau, et al., 2021).

Criteria

Prevalence

Explanation

The maximum potential impact of behaviour change at the population level depends on what proportion have not already adopted the target behaviour (Koch et al., 2024). Although there may be value in prioritising low uptake behaviours, as there is considerable potential for improvement, low prevalence behaviours may be more plastic and opportunities to leverage social norms towards a tipping point may be more limited (Selinske et al., 2020).

Criteria

Potential effects on other behaviours

Explanation

Understanding how different behaviours may interconnect, and where dependencies between behaviours might lie, can help to identify which behaviour changes are more central in that they may impact (positively or negatively) on other behaviours relevant to desired outcomes (D’Lima et al., 2020).

* Further criteria may also apply when considering the prioritisation of different interventions or policy actions addressing a given behaviour e.g. policy coherence, cost-effectiveness and public acceptability.

5.2 Factors influencing adoption of pro-biodiversity behaviours

When diagnosing the factors that underpin particular behaviours (Step 3 in Figure 4 and Box 1 above), many of the Capabilities, Opportunities and Motivations at play will be highly specific to the behaviour in question. At the same time however, there are also particular drivers that have the potential to cut across all of the key behaviour areas identified. These are discussed below in section 5.2.1, before moving on to analyse the more behaviourally-specific factors at play for two of the key behaviour areas – choosing sustainable product options and wildlife gardening, using the COM-B (Capabilities, Opportunities and Motivations)^[5] component of the Behaviour Change Wheel.

5.2.1 Cross-cutting factors

Several factors that may act as drivers for or barriers to the adoption of multiple pro-biodiversity variables were highlighted in the literature. Largely these relate to the Motivation component of the COM-B model, the most prominent of these being around individual and cultural values towards nature, human-nature relationships and geographical scales.

5.2.1.1 Values

The values we ascribe to nature, as individuals and as societies, represents a major indirect socio-cultural driver of biodiversity loss, both in Scotland and internationally (IPBES, 2019; Pakeman et al., 2023). Valuing nature for its intrinsic value and its value for future generations (bequest value), rather than for just for its material or instrumental value (e.g. in terms of resources we can extract), can be a strong positive driver for conservation and biodiversity enhancement (Pakeman et al., 2023). At the individual-level this can also be linked to our own personal underlying values, which shape our worldview and act as guiding principles. Value orientations that emphasise the wellbeing of nature and of other people, which are conceptualised as of self-transcendent values of universalism and benevolence (Schwartz, 1992) or of biospheric and altruistic values (Stern, 2000), have been found to predict pro-biodiversity behaviours (Andrade et al., 2022; Fornara et al., 2020), as well as wider pro-environmental behaviours (Primc et al., 2021; Schultz et al., 2005; van der Werff et al., 2013). These high-level value orientations are thought to underpin environmental concern and attitudes, personal moral norms and identities around environmental protection which in turn motivate pro-environmental actions (Stern, 2000; van der Werff et al., 2013). At the societal level, the way we value nature and our socio-cultural values relating to environmental protection and enhancement are argued to be important leverage points for delivering transformative change for biodiversity (IPBES, 2022, 2024).

It is, however, important to also recognise that values other than those focused specifically around nature and the environment can motivate particular pro-environmental behaviours for different reasons (e.g. through respect for tradition and conforming to cultural norms), and even strongly held values around nature and planet may be outweighed by other values held by the individual. For this reason, it is important to consider how a range of different values might impact on specific target behaviours, as well as considering these high-level relationships between values and pro-environmental behaviours more broadly.

5.2.1.2 Relationships with nature

Relational values, which centre the relationship between people and nature, and the interactions between people that occur in and through nature (IPBES, 2022) are also important to consider in terms of motivations to engage in pro-biodiversity behaviours. These can include cultural values around sacred natural spaces, nature in folklore and storytelling, and reciprocal relationships with nature through care and stewardship (Ihemezie et al., 2021; Welden et al., 2021; Irvine, Brown et al., 2024). Several studies have explored how feelings of connection to nature at the individual level, often discussed as nature connectedness or nature relatedness, relate to pro-biodiversity behaviours. Overall, these have found positive relationships between nature-connection/nature relatedness and self-reported engagement in a wide range of pro-biodiversity behaviours (Barbett et al., 2020; Borg et al., 2024; Richardson, Passmore, et al., 2020; Sockhill et al., 2022). These findings align with wider research linking nature connectedness with the adoption of pro-environmental behaviours (Richardson, Dobson, et al., 2020).

Concern that humankind is becoming increasingly disconnected from the natural world, and that this alienation is a fundamental driver of current climate and biodiversity crises, is prevalent in the literature (Gaston & Soga, 2020; Ives et al., 2018). Studies evidence the potential to boost nature connectedness through interventions that engage individuals with nature (Sheffield et al., 2022), and there is some emerging evidence that regular direct experiences of nature are associated with greater engagement with pro-environmental behaviours in general, and pro-biodiversity behaviours more specifically (Aota & Soga, 2024; Soga & Gaston, 2024, 2023). Such studies also suggest that childhood experiences of nature, both in terms of the frequency and diversity of experiences, may be as important as more recent nature engagement as an adult for predicting adoption of pro-biodiversity behaviours (Aota & Soga, 2024; Soga & Gaston, 2024). It is important to note, however, that such studies evidencing correlations between nature contact and pro-biodiversity behaviours do not demonstrate a causal relationship between these factors.

Reconnecting people with nature is argued to be a key leverage point for systemic change to foster sustainability and recovery from the biodiversity crisis (Ives et al., 2018). Nature-based interventions, defined as ‘programmes, activities or strategies that aim to engage people in nature-based experiences with the specific goal of achieving improved health and wellbeing’, include both interventions that entail changes to the physical environment (e.g. through improving greenspace access and/or quality) and programmes that facilitate nature engagement and outdoor education (Shanahan et al., 2019, p. 2). Nature-based interventions can facilitate nature engagement and, through direct experience and learning in nature, may help foster nature connections, along with a range of benefits to physical health and wellbeing including reducing stress, increasing physical activity, improving cardiovascular health and boosting social capital (Irvine et al., 2022; Wilkie & Davinson, 2021). Environmental education programmes also contribute to a wider societal objective of reconnecting people and nature, delivering a range of direct and indirect benefits for conservation and environmental quality, enabling direct experience of nature (including important childhood experiences) (Ardoin et al., 2020). Additionally, both nature-based health interventions and outdoor education programmes support the development of Capabilities for sustained and independent nature engagement, through developing environmental literacy, confidence and skills in understanding and moving around in natural environments, and knowledge of local opportunities for recreational access to nature (Ardoin et al., 2020; Irvine, Fisher et al., 2024).

5.2.1.3 Scale, distance and place

Selinske et al. (2018), reviewing psychological dimensions of biodiversity action, highlight a number of other factors which may be important to consider across a range of behaviours. Some of these relate to the location and scale of impacts, particularly around how we respond to environmental change happening close to home versus more distant impacts. When it comes to more distant impacts, this spatial distance can also create a sense of ‘psychological distance’, where objects of actions occurring at a remove from us (whether distant in space or time, or due to cultural differences) are perceived in more abstract terms than those things that are closer to our direct experience (Selinske et al., 2018; Trope & Liberman, 2010). Biodiversity threats like deforestation in the tropics, like global climate change, may therefore feel more distant and abstract than biodiversity challenges closer to home, and therefore harder to engage with. At the same time, there can also be a tendency towards ‘environmental hyperopia’, where individuals perceive environmental problems as more serious the further away they occur, and at the same time perceive themselves to be less able to act to ameliorate them (Uzzell, 2000). When it comes to action to benefit local-level biodiversity, individuals’ relationship with place, in terms of emotional ties to places (place attachment) and the extent to which place forms part of their identity (place identity) are also likely play an important role in motivations to act (Brügger et al., 2015; McLeod et al., 2024).

5.2.1.4 Additional cross-cutting factors

Other cross-cutting psychological factors relate to the relationship between different pro-biodiversity behaviours in people’s minds. A number of sources mentioned the possibility of positive spillover effects between pro-biodiversity behaviours (Esfandiar et al., 2022a; Selinske et al., 2018, 2020). Positive behavioural spillover occurs when engaging in one type of pro-environmental behaviour increases the likelihood of engaging in others (Nilsson et al., 2017). The evidence for spillover of pro-environmental behaviours is, however, rather mixed, and indicates that an increase in environmental self-identity as a result of engaging in the initial behaviour(s) is required for positive spillover between behaviours to happen (Geiger et al., 2021; Nilsson et al., 2017). Negative spillovers are also mentioned; these are where engaging in one type of behaviour reduces the likelihood of engaging in another, and include ‘moral licensing’ effects, where individuals justify engaging in an environmentally damaging behaviour by engaging in another behaviour seen to be virtuous (but not necessarily equally as impactful) (Nilsson et al., 2017; Selinske et al., 2018), although again the evidence for this occurring is mixed (Geiger et al., 2021).

5.2.2 Behaviour-specific factors

The psychological factors discussed above help to explain some of the motivational factors that have the potential to shape the eight key pro-biodiversity behaviour areas identified in the previous chapter. At the same time, there are additional, behaviourally-specific motivational factors that must be considered to fully understand the motivations of private citizens to engage in these behaviours. Drawing on a range of behavioural theories, these can include beliefs about and attitudes towards specific behaviours, including beliefs about what the consequences/impacts of those behaviours are and about whose responsibility is it to address specific environmental challenges. We must also consider of how different values, identities and goals motivate action for reasons other than those concerning the environment, as well as the role of habit and emotions which contribute to more automatic, less reflective, motivational processes. Furthermore, whilst the COM-B framework posits that Motivation is a necessary component for behaviour change to occur, motivation alone is insufficient, as individuals must also have Capability and Opportunity to act, and these capability and opportunity factors are usually highly specific to the behaviour in question.

Here we focus on two selected behaviour areas, determined in discussion with the project steering group, to illustrate the use of the COM-B as a lens for diagnosing the factors influencing particular pro-biodiversity behaviours. The behaviour areas selected are choosing sustainable product options and wildlife gardening. This selection was guided by a desire to represent behaviours relating to global biodiversity impacts as well as local impacts (profiling one consumption-related and one stewardship behaviour), behaviours that were relevant for a wide segment of the population and where we might expect a reasonably high level of behavioural plasticity, and that would cohere with existing policy directions as well as avoid duplication with other current programmes of work within the Scottish Government and NatureScot. Choosing sustainable product options was also the behavioural area most widely supported for prioritisation by stakeholders (see Appendix B). An overview of the main COM-B factors identified for choosing sustainable product options is provided in Table 12, with Table 13 showing the factors identified for wildlife gardening.

5.3 Interventions and policy options to support behaviour change

5.3.1 Overarching messages on designing policy and interventions

Much of the discussion touching on interventions in the literature on the behavioural dimensions of biodiversity conservation centres on education and persuasion functions of behaviour change intervention. For example, some of the literature focused specifically on applying behavioural approaches in conservation seems to largely conflate behaviour change intervention with social marketing approaches, which utilise insights from marketing to target and deliver messages to persuade individuals to change their behaviour (see e.g. Nielsen, Marteau, et al., 2021; Veríssimo, 2013). In much of the literature the focus is entirely on voluntary action, with education and aware-raising activities emphasised, along with some discussion of incentivisation and ‘nudging’ approaches which seek to alter the presentation of options available to individuals to increase the likelihood of selecting the desirable ones (Doley & Barman, 2023; Hall & Martins, 2020; Thomas-Walters et al., 2023; Veríssimo et al., 2024; Walton et al., 2022). This may, to some extent, reflect disciplinary perspectives, including a comparative lack of social science insight in some of the more ecologically-framed literature. It also speaks to a somewhat restricted view of what constitutes behaviour change intervention, focusing on what are often described as ‘downstream’ approaches, which focus on engaging the individual in an attempt to shift behaviour (see e.g. Verplanken & Wood, 2006). There is, however, increasing recognition of the need to consider the behaviour of individuals with reference to the wider systems in which they act, which includes the broader structural conditions, and economic, social and political contexts that are the focus of more ‘upstream’ intervention approaches. The Behaviour Change Wheel offers a useful lens to view the wide range of downstream and upstream approaches that can be employed to enable behaviour change, and how these interventions map onto the barriers and drivers of behaviours that they aim to target. Approaches relying only on education, persuasion and incentivisation of behaviour change implicitly prioritise the motivation and psychological capability (in the form of knowledge and awareness) components of the COM-B but fail to address opportunity. In many cases this can mean that they try to increase motivation without making it any easier for individuals to engage in the target behaviour. The more difficult or costly the behaviour is to adopt, the higher the required level of motivation to overcome the barriers to uptake is (Kaiser, 2021), often resulting in ineffective interventions.

Table 12: COM-B factors influencing sustainable product choices

Motivations

Price sensitivity - Consumers who prioritise lower prices are less likely to buy ecolabelled products like certified sustainable fish, or less intensively produced meat and dairy (Giacomarra et al., 2021; Stampa et al., 2020). Price is commonly reported as the greatest barrier to purchasing ecolabelled products (Grymshi et al., 2022).

Perceived quality – foods produced more sustainably are often perceived as higher quality, and this can result in higher willingness-to-pay (Stampa et al., 2020).

Health benefits – related to the above, perceived health benefits of sustainable product options can be an important driver of demand e.g. for organic produce, grass-fed beef (Stampa et al., 2020).

Environmental concerns – concern about the environmental impacts of food and non-food products can motivate purchasing (Stampa et al., 2020).

Animal welfare – concerns about animal welfare can motivate purchasing of less-intensively produced meat products (Stampa et al., 2020).

Habit – habits around shopping and cooking, including who is responsible for these within households, can impact on purchasing of sustainable food products (Stampa et al., 2020).

Capabilities

Knowledge of impact of product options – consumers lack information about the real environmental impacts of different products and their production systems. This includes a lack of information on farm-level environmental impacts stemming from specific farm management practices (Spiro et al., 2024). Increasing awareness of the benefits of organic and agro-ecological farming methods, and of sustainable fisheries, can help drive demand (Giacomarra et al., 2021; Randall et al., 2019). Corporate ‘greenwashing’ can mislead consumers (Giacomarra et al., 2021).

Awareness/recognition of and trust in ecolabels and certifications – ecolabels can provide simple information to guide choices, but knowledge and trust of ecolabel logos and certification bodies are necessary. At the same time, navigating a wide range of certification schemes, can lead to confusion (Giacomarra et al., 2021; Grymshi et al., 2022; Parkes et al., 2010). Some ecolabels may suffer from low recognition (Ostfeld et al., 2019).

Opportunities

Food environment – Drives to produce lower costs foods - ‘the cheap food paradigm’ - has resulted in high impact, intensively produced foods being easily available and affordable, and aggressively marketed (Benton et al., 2021). Organic and other ecolabelled products may not be easily available (Grymshi et al., 2022; Randall et al., 2019). Retailers and food services regulating their own supply chains can ensure availability of sustainable options (and limit access to unsustainable options) (MSC, 2024).

Financial resources – the cost of more sustainable product options such as organic produce and other products with environmental certification can mean they are less affordable for some households (Randall et al., 2019).

Time pressure – purchasing decisions are made in the context of busy daily routines and this can mean defaulting to the ‘usual’ products when shopping (Duckworth et al., 2022).

Table 13: COM-B factors influencing wildlife gardening

Motivations

Seeing wildlife – desire to experience wildlife up close and the accompanying experiences of wellbeing can drive motivations for wildlife gardening (Goddard et al., 2013; Reynolds et al., 2017). For those with children/grandchildren, experiences are valued for their role in educating children about nature. Seeing wildlife in the garden can also provide positive feedback that wildlife gardening practices are ‘working’, motivating uptake (Goddard et al., 2013).

Caring for wildlife – feeling a personal moral obligation to care for nature can contribute to the adoption of wildlife-friendly gardening (Goddard et al., 2013), however studies suggest that environmental values are overall a poor predictor of gardening behaviours particularly for behaviours requiring more effort (García-Antúnez et al., 2023; Goddard et al., 2013).

Personal aesthetic preferences – preferences for formal, manicured gardens can deter adoption of wildlife-friendly practices (Delahay et al., 2023). Conflicting preferences within households can also act as a barrier (García-Antúnez et al., 2023).

Pleasure from gardening – Enjoying gardening as a hobby is a motivator, whilst desiring a low maintenance garden can be a barrier (Larson et al 2022).

Gardening habits – habitual gardening behaviours may be resistant to change (García-Antúnez et al., 2023).

Capabilities

Knowledge about gardening and wildlife-friendly options – wildlife gardening behaviours can require knowledge of which options can best support wildlife. Lack of information is a commonly reported barrier (García-Antúnez et al., 2023; Goddard et al., 2013).

Knowledge about biodiversity threats and impacts – knowledge about threatened species or taxa can underpin motivations to take action to protect them (Goddard et al., 2013). Scepticism about the impact of gardening activities can limit engagement (García-Antúnez et al., 2023).

Opportunities

Garden space – having access to a garden/outdoor space determines opportunity to engage, although those without a garden may still have access to a community garden or allotment. Lack of space can be a major perceived barrier to wildlife gardening, with small spaces are less able to accommodate many wildlife-friendly features (García-Antúnez et al., 2023).

Control over garden space – tenants may have less opportunity to make changes to the garden of their home, or less keen to allocate resources for the garden if in a short-term tenancy (García-Antúnez et al., 2023). Households that share a communal garden may also have less agency over its management (García-Antúnez et al., 2023).

Social influence – social norms favouring neat, manicured gardens, leading to worries about neighbours’ perceptions, are a major barrier to less intensive management practices, particular in front gardens (Gaston et al., 2005; Goddard et al., 2013). Social norms can, however, also reinforce common behaviours e.g. bird feeding (Goddard et al., 2013; Reynolds et al., 2017), and social networks of friends, family and neighbours are an important source of advice and influence (Goddard et al., 2013)

Time – lack of time for gardening can limit engagement (García-Antúnez et al., 2023)

Financial resources – household finances may limit wildlife gardening behaviours that require financial investment (García-Antúnez et al., 2023).

In the literature reviewed, discussion of upstream interventions appears most frequently in relation to the consumption-related behaviours of eating less meat and choosing sustainable product options, reflecting the substantial role of global systems of food and goods production and consumption in shaping individual agency around these high-impact behaviours. Whilst it has been noted that nature conservation policy has shifted away from regulatory approaches over time (Borg et al., 2024), this is an area where regulation and restrictions on supply chains and particularly on public procurement feature strongly in the debate (see Box 2 below for more in relation to sustainable product choices). In relation to meat consumption specifically, there is considerable interest in the potential for commodity taxes levelled on certain meat products, however such interventions are contentious – there is much debate over whether it is appropriate for government to intervene to shape supply and demand of meat (Godfray et al., 2018; Rivington et al., 2024). Blanket taxes on specific commodities also fail to account for variation in the biodiversity costs of different products according to the systems and practices used in their production and could disproportionately penalise producers that are operating under higher environmental standards and delivering ecosystem services as part of agri-environmental schemes alongside food production. Upstream interventions targeting global trade and supply chains may, on the other hand, have more potential to create win-wins in terms of reducing demand for forest-risk meat products and supporting sustainable production in the UK (see Box 2). At the same time, there is also a role for downstream interventions focusing on reducing meat consumption. Evidence suggests that the most effective interventions are those that: a) inform about the negative effects of meat consumption, particularly adopting dual-framings around health and environmental impacts; b) seek to engage the emotions, including triggering feelings of empathy towards animals; c) increase capabilities around preparing vegetarian meals; and d) increase the visibility and variety of vegetarian dishes (e.g. on restaurant menus, ‘meat free’ days in workplaces/schools etc.) (Kwasny et al., 2022). Policy pathways should consider not only how to influence voluntary behaviour change, including downstream behaviour change approaches as part of wider public engagement which can potentially help to increase public support for policy. Some sources suggest that voluntary uptake of pro-environmental behaviours can spillover into greater support for environmental policy interventions (Sparkman et al., 2021; Thøgersen et al., 2024). Additionally, whilst there are valid concerns that emphasising voluntary behaviour change could shift focus away from the systems that enable and incentivise environmentally damaging behaviours, recent evidence suggests that promoting behaviour change does not reduce public support for more systemic interventions (Sparkman et al., 2021; Thøgersen et al., 2024).

Box 2: Interventions to support sustainable product choices

Upstream interventions

Rivington et al. (2024) discuss a wide range of policy levers or interventions to address the environmental footprint of Scotland’s consumption of food, goods and services, covering infrastructural, information, economic and financial, regulatory and other levers. The review highlighted the importance of supply chain interventions and global trade governance which impact on the availability of environmentally unsustainable products (Opportunity) and their pricing (Opportunity, Motivation), suggesting that many of the key leverage points relate more to production and trade than shifting consumer demand. Interventions to improve the sustainability of supply chains include mandatory due diligence obligations for businesses, border adjustment taxes levied upon imported goods produced to lower environmental standards to reflect their real environmental costs, sustainable commodity import guarantees to incentivise more sustainable imports, and mandatory public procurement requirements to ensure the sustainability of the supply chains of public bodies. These interventions align primarily to the BCW’s fiscal and regulation policy options. Whilst there is much attention on the sustainability of imported products, this is also an area where the Scottish Government may have limited agency to intervene due to many powers around trade remaining reserved to the UK Government. Another potential area of intervention regards the provision of agricultural subsidies for farmers to support biodiversity and deliver ecosystem services, shifting towards more sustainable and regenerative production systems (Stampa et al., 2020). The current development of Scotland’s long-term agricultural policy to replace the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy offers considerable opportunities in this regard, and the recent Agricultural Reform Route Map signals a direction of travel towards increased targeting of subsidies to support environmental objectives including nature restoration.

Downstream interventions

The downstream interventions discussed in the literature focus mainly around ecolabelling and certification. Whilst these interventions have the potential to increase knowledge and awareness around the impacts of different product choices (Capability) and appeal to environmental values (Motivation), evidence suggests that on their own ecolabels may not be a very effective intervention to shift consumer demand. Whilst reviews of such interventions have found a positive effect of ecolabels on preferences, these studies often use experimental methods within controlled hypothetical choice scenarios, whereas the evidence of the effectiveness of ecolabels in real-world purchasing situations is much more limited (Duckworth et al., 2022; Nakaishi & Chapman, 2024; Potter et al., 2021). The impact of such schemes could be improved through increasing consumer awareness, greater clarity of ecolabels and harmonisation of certification schemes, ensuring producer compliance to build consumer trust, representing social as well as environmental outcomes, and tying certifications to other intervention approaches to regulate supply chains (Giacomarra et al., 2021; Nakaishi & Chapman, 2024; Ostfeld et al., 2019; Tiboni-Oschilewski et al., 2024).

Box 3: Interventions to support wildlife gardening

Upstream interventions

Upstream interventions are not commonly discussed in the literature on wildlife gardening; however some examples were mentioned. These related primarily to the regulation of products used in gardens. Several sources discuss the potential to ban the sale of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, with some citing France as an example of a country where use of synthetic pesticides in gardens has been heavily restricted (Cameron, 2023; Moxon et al., 2025). Bans on the sale of peat in growing media were also discussed as a primary intervention to restrict peat use through supply chains (Koseoglu et al., n.d.). Prohibitions on the installation of artificial grass over a certain area threshold are also suggested (Cameron, 2023). Such policies address Opportunity factors, through regulatory policy options. There are also mentions of the potential to use the planning system to improve coordination of garden management at the city scale, considering gardens as part of urban green infrastructure networks (Goddard et al., 2010).

Downstream interventions

A recent paper by Moxon et al. (2025) reviews interventions to support the rewilding of urban gardens, drawing on the BCW framework. In relation to wildlife gardening specifically, they note that interventions discussed in the literature centre around education, training and enablement, delivered predominantly through communication and market approaches. To raise awareness of wildlife gardening practices, specific interventions might include both national-level and community or city-level campaigns, with sources emphasising the importance of partnership and collaboration across public, private and third sector organisations in their delivery (Moxon et al., 2025). Place-based approaches in particular offer considerable potential to maximise biodiversity impacts by coordinating action to improve habitat networks across neighbourhoods and the wider landscape and responding to local biodiversity challenges and priorities (Goddard et al., 2010). Such approaches could involve a role for local authorities, neighbourhood associations and other community-led collaborative initiatives in engaging householders, encouraging and enabling wildlife-friendly gardening practices and spreading positive social norms locally (Goddard et al., 2010, 2013; Larson et al., 2022).

Recommendations for information-based strategies include providing information about native and pollinator friendly plants including through labelling of plants in garden centres (Anderson et al., 2020). Whilst such labelling is reported to be effective, some sources question the accuracy of widely available lists of pollinator friendly species (Anderson et al., 2020). Information giving approaches suggested range from one-way communication campaigns including through publications, media, websites, mailouts etc., to more interactive web-based garden planning tools, open gardens and demonstrations, council or neighbourhood meetings (Moxon et al., 2025). Other examples of available interventions include training and enablement through direct experience, including volunteering in community gardens, on-site assessments and tailored advice for householders on making their garden more nature-friendly (Goddard et al., 2013). Wildlife gardening awards or certification schemes provide advice and recognise wildlife gardening achievements in a visible way e.g. through earning a plaque to display in your garden. Not only are such schemes viewed positively be gardeners, they can also help to harness the power of social norms and modelling of nature-friendly gardening practices (Goddard et al., 2013). These visible signs can also act as ‘cues to care’ (Nassauer, 1995) to signal to neighbours that management practices are intentional. Training and supporting local wildlife champions can also help provide positive models of wildlife gardening practices (Goddard et al., 2013).

Other recommended interventions include financial incentives for householders e.g. council tax discounts for those with greener gardens, or tax incentives or grants for installing wildlife friendly features like ponds or compost heaps (Cameron, 2023; Goddard et al., 2010; Moxon et al., 2025). It should be noted that, while the literature review highlighted recommendations for many different types of interventions, these were often discussed in passing or given as examples of potential interventions with limited evidence given on the effectiveness of different interventions.

Finally, another important consideration raised around interventions to support pro-biodiversity behaviour change relates to the geographical scale of interventions, and particularly the potential for community-level and place-based, or even landscape-scale interventions, to support stewardship and responsible outdoor recreation behaviours. Community-level interventions have the potential to capitalise on social networks and individual and collective relationships with place, to galvanise action through, for example, spreading positive social norms around wildlife gardening behaviours (see Box 3), and local partnership working to deliver community engagement, stewardship opportunities, and nature connections through schools and community organisations, as in the case of Local Biodiversity Partnerships, and Scottish Wildlife Trusts’ Living Landscapes Initiatives (Colley et al., 2023; Crowley et al., 2020). Such community-level interventions have the potential to create positive feedback loops by helping to reinforce nature connectedness and place attachment, as well as creating conditions for local-level social and advocacy behaviours, as well as impacting on the original target behaviours.