How does Bee friendly want to save biodiversity?

by (comments: 0

How do we save nature? It's easier than you think! At the "Science Slam Bioeconomy" at BUGA23, we delved into this polemical question. Below, you'll find a slightly altered transcript of our Science Slam, which reveals the scientific foundation of our work.

How do we save nature, bees, and biodiversity? From our perspective, this question can be answered relatively easily. And the best part? You don’t need a biological, entomological, or environmental science degree to do it. You don’t need to know about the five past mass extinctions, or how today’s anthropogenic species extinction differs from past Armageddons. You don’t need to know how seed treated with neonicotinoids affects the nerve cells of honeybees and wild bees. And you don’t need any idea why the oligolectic medick sand bee is threatened with extinction or why this has evolutionary impacts on entire ecosystems.

Because before I begin, I must confess one thing for the sake of transparency: Although I’m standing here on stage and talking about bees, biodiversity, and nature, I am neither an entomologist, environmental scientist, nor biologist. My big revelation today is: I’m not a natural scientist; I come from the social sciences.

As a cultural and political scientist, I’ve spent the last few years investigating why social movements grow, disband, or simply limp along. We’ve studied protests and social movements worldwide, and we’ve noticed that the actual injustice often has less impact on the mobilization of people than the way the injustice is communicated.

Thought experiment: What feelings do these statements trigger in you?

Let's try a little thought experiment before I really dive in. I will read two statements to you, and after that, you should become aware of the feelings these statements trigger in you. And I don't mean feelings in the sense of pseudoscientific chakra stuff, but measurable emotions like anger, sadness, joy, fear, astonishment, disgust, or hope.

The first statement is: The number of insects has dramatically decreased: More than 75 percent of the total mass of insects has disappeared from Germany. The main cause is the intensification of agriculture with its use of agrochemicals and the impoverishment of the landscape.

How do you feel when processing this information? Modest, right? Well, when I first read this sentence, I curled up in the fetal position under the shower for a few hours. After my initial affective reaction, more and more questions arose in my mind: Who will pollinate our fruit and vegetable plants if there are no more bees? What are birds, lizards, and frogs supposed to feed on if there are no more flies? And how the hell are we supposed to stop this advanced insect decline when we keep sealing more land or need agricultural areas to feed everyone? This cognitive processing was fueled by my fear, anger, and resignation.

But now, let’s move on to the second statement: By creating perennial flowering strips in agricultural fields, the biodiversity of hoverflies, bumblebees, and wild bees has recovered by up to 20 percent, compared to control fields without flowering strips.

What emotions does this statement trigger in you? Maybe a little less anger? Definitely less fear, right? And instead of resignation, there is – at least for me – a sense of hope that it’s not too late to save the bees.

Although these two statements trigger very different emotional responses in us, a closer look reveals that their content isn't so far apart. Both statements involve two actors: agriculture and insects. In both, agricultural activities influence the survival chances of insects. In both, the insect population is smaller than it should be. And both statements raise awareness about the so-called insect decline. The big difference between the two statements can be summed up in one word: hope.

In the following, I will attempt to answer the question of how we can save bees, biodiversity, and nature. While this may sound like a Goliath task for a 10-minute Science Slam, the answer to this question from a political science perspective is actually quite simple: Awareness + Empowerment = Mobilization for nature conservation. Below, we will take a closer look at these two variables and then discuss how we can implement this social science mumbo jumbo in practice.

How do we save nature: raising awareness + self-efficacy = nature conservation

As I have just said, I originally come from a cultural and political science background and have studied the political psychology of social movements ad nauseam. Although the topic is much more complex, today I will limit myself to two processes: raising awareness and strengthening self-efficacy.

Let's start with social sensitization. In this process step, people are made aware that certain grievances exist and that these grievances affect them. In the context of nature conservation, this specifically means that people should learn that biodiversity is the foundation of healthy ecosystems and that all of our lives depend on functioning ecosystems: fewer bees leads to less pollination leads to less food - for example. Raising awareness should therefore create initial points of contact with topics and challenges relating to nature conservation. The aim of awareness-raising is therefore to integrate nature and nature conservation into the everyday lives of citizens. Only those who recognize a problem can do something about it.

However, raising awareness is not enough, because awareness is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for mobilization: just because you recognize the scope of a problem does not mean that you will do something about it. Simply recognizing the problem does not automatically lead to everyone suddenly only riding cargo bikes and eating beyond-meat burgers. What is missing is our second major variable: self-efficacy. Because if you perceive a challenge as surmountable, you are more inclined to do something about it.

In psychology, self-efficacy is considered one of the most important factors influencing action motivation. Self-efficacy refers to our belief in our ability to successfully overcome challenges. Naturally, our self-efficacy is influenced by internal factors such as personality, experience, and self-awareness. However, in the context of social movements, activists play a crucial role. Recent studies show that more people join a social movement when activists communicate a high level of hope, joy, and positivity.

From a political psychology perspective, this is well explained: When activists communicate hopeful messages, it increases self-efficacy in observers. And those who feel they can still make a difference are more likely to get involved in tackling a challenge together. Unfortunately, when it comes to communicating environmental or nature conservation issues, hope is not always present. Far too often, fatalism prevails, while self-righteous experts stand with their finger raised, lecturing people instead of inspiring them.

Inspiring instead of lecturing is the motto – but how can we inspire without lecturing? Our answer: Raising awareness + strengthening self-efficacy through interactive nature conservation and hopeful communication. We want to show that nature conservation is not about lecturing, banning, or gluing oneself to the street. We advocate for a hopeful approach to nature conservation, one that we want to integrate into the everyday lives of citizens.

By creating wildflower meadows or making bee hotels in kindergartens, we can create first points of contact with nature and biodiversity. Through "CleanUps" with initiatives like the Surfrider Foundation, awareness of waste issues is raised without lecturing people with a raised finger. And by setting up self-made wild bee nesting aids in prominent places, issues like insect decline are brought to the public's attention. This way, nature conservation is positively integrated into everyday life, thus sensitizing society and strengthening self-efficacy by taking action together.

Nature conservation communication must reach all people

To summarize once again: If we want to protect nature sustainably, then - firstly - more people need to be made aware of nature conservation issues and - secondly - self-efficacy in this group needs to be strengthened. And the most important way to do this is through communication.

We need to communicate that there is a problem, but that this problem can be solved. We need to communicate that nature can recover with our help. We need to communicate that there are nature conservation measures whose successes can already be measured today. And we need to communicate that everyone can make a contribution in some way and that we have to take many small steps to achieve a big goal.

Nature conservation concerns us all. That's why we need to reach out to everyone with our communication and motivate them to take action.

Go back