In the world of conservation and especially rewilding, there’s a consistent type of response we often encounter: resistance to change. This resistance manifests in various forms, from scepticism to outright denial about the need for and / or benefits of conservation efforts. One particularly illuminating example occurred recently during a visit by a leading company of land agents to our wonderful Highlands Estate, Invergeldie. Most of the visitors were inquisitive and curious about the new world of natural capital, making the most out of the opportunity to challenge me about the why, what and how of our work. However, one individual stood out with his concerns about the impact of ticks. He advocated for maintaining sheep on the land to attract ticks and managing the ticks with chemicals in order to protect wildlife, despite recognising the fact this wildlife will only return if we remove the sheep!
This encounter provides a window into the psychology behind such resistance, highlighting a fear of change and a deep-seated attachment and enjoyment of the status quo, even when it’s clear that the current situation is leading to environmental degradation, the destruction of precious ecosystems and the collapse of our climate.
The Comfort of the Familiar
At the heart of resistance to conservation efforts lies a comfort with the familiar. People are often deeply attached to the landscapes they know and enjoy (emotionally and economically). This attachment can make the prospect of change, even positive change, seem threatening. His proposed solution—keeping sheep and using chemicals — was rooted in a desire to maintain a known control method, which isn’t working despite the wider (and hugely significant) environmental costs
This attachment to the familiar is a powerful force. It’s not just about resisting new ideas but about clinging to what is known. Change requires a leap into the unknown, which can be uncomfortable and scary – sadly few recognise that we must leap, but if we do so willingly we get to choose in which direction. As an aside, this is the first time I’ve really thought about how appropriate the term leap year is….
Fear of the Future
This fear is often presented as a fear of the future. People worry about what they might lose, rather than what they might gain. In the case of conservation, this fear often manifests as a concern about losing the landscapes and lifestyles they cherish. However, this perspective often overlooks the fact that without change, the very things they value are at risk of being lost to more extreme environmental collapse. This fear is exacerbated by a cognitive bias known as “status quo bias,” where people prefer things to stay the same rather than change, even if that status quo is bad. It’s a form of risk aversion that prioritises immediate comfort over long-term benefits – it’s also an abject lie akin to the people who would rather fail in the consistent or socially acceptable way rather than “dare” to be different.
The Invisibility of Environmental Change
Another psychological barrier is the invisibility of many environmental changes. The degradation caused by overgrazing sheep or chemical treatments might be gradual and less immediately visible than the presence of ticks. The benefits of rewilding, such as increased biodiversity, improved soil health, and carbon sequestration, are often slow to manifest and can be hard to directly attribute to specific actions. This invisibility can make it difficult for people to appreciate the necessity of change. It requires a leap of faith and a willingness to trust in processes that don’t yield instant results.
The Need for Control
One of the wonderful visitors (and there were many) advocated for the restoration of natural processes. They described how by removing significant grazing pressure, an incredible range of natural insect predators for ticks would return finding a balance that we have upset through the introduction of sheep and deer. Sadly, this suggestion was immediately rebuffed by the all-too-common opinion that the only way is the way we currently do it (which isn’t working!)
This perhaps highlights so many people’s psychological need for control – which is one of the biggest causes of destructive land exploitation, masquerading as land management.
The concerned gentlemen (about ticks) felt more in control by using sheep and chemicals than by allowing natural processes to take over, even when the observed outcome demonstrated that the solution doesn’t work. This need for control is a natural human tendency, particularly when dealing with something as unpredictable as nature – I do hope one day we recognise we’re not in control of nature. We’re part of nature, just rarely a supportive or respectful part(ner).
In the realm of conservation, this means that people often prefer solutions that offer immediate, tangible control, even if they are not the best for people or the environment in the long run.
Addressing Resistance
Understanding these psychological barriers is crucial for addressing resistance to conservation efforts. And Hhre are a few strategies I try but have often failed to deliver / embrace.
Listening: Sometimes people just want to be heard, and allowing them to talk – and yes sometimes yell – rarely makes things worse as long as you can maintain your composure and happiness in the process.
Personal Connection: Finding ways to connect conservation efforts to individuals’ personal experiences and values can make the need for change more relatable and less abstract.
Education and Awareness: Highlighting the long-term benefits of conservation and making the invisible visible through data, storytelling, and direct engagement can help people understand the importance of change.
Incremental Change: Gradual changes can be less threatening and allow people to adjust over time. Introducing small, manageable steps can build trust and demonstrate benefits incrementally.
Addressing Fears Directly: Acknowledging and addressing specific fears, such as the concern about ticks, with evidence-based solutions can help alleviate anxieties and build support for broader changes.
Ultimately, it’s about framing conservations not as a threat to the familiar but as an exciting and necessary change to preserve what we value most in the face of a changing world. The psychological hurdles are significant, but with empathy, education, and engagement, they can be overcome, paving the way for a more sustainable future – I hope!
Rich Stockdale
Founder & CEO