Economic and Social Dimensions of Environmental Behavior: Balancing Conservation and Development in Bhutan

Abstract: One of the primary approaches to environmental conservation emphasizes economic development. This conservation‐and‐development approach often ignores how development affects sociocultural characteristics that may motivate environmental behaviors (actions that actively benefit or limit one's negative impacts on the environment). Evolutionary anthropologists espouse a theoretical perspective that supports the conservation‐and‐development approach. Others believe sociocultural factors are the foundation of environmental behavior and worry that development will erode the values and norms that may shape such behavior. My research assistants and I surveyed 170 individuals from eight villages in two communities in Bhutan to explore whether economic (wealth, market integration) or social (religious behaviors, environmental values, social capital) factors are better indicators of environmental behavior. I used multilevel modeling to analyze use of fuelwood, use of agricultural chemicals, and tree planting, and to determine whether social norms were associated with these behaviors. Although economic factors were more often associated with these behaviors than social factors, local conditions and control variables were the best indicators of behaviors. Furthermore, economic factors were not always associated with positive environmental outcomes. Instead, farmers attempted to make the best economic decisions given their circumstances rather than seeking to conserve resources. Although religion was not a strong predictor of any of the behaviors I examined, I found evidence that the understanding of Buddhist philosophy is growing, which suggests that social factors may play a more prominent role as Bhutan's development progresses. My results highlight the need for conservation planners to be aware of local conditions when planning and implementing policies aimed at motivating environmental behaviors and that economic and social motivations for conservation may not be mutually exclusive.