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