Special Section Essay

Conservation Means BehaviorP. WESLEY SCHULTZCalifornia State University, Department of Psychology, San Marcos, CA 92069, U.S.A., email wschultz@csusm.edu

Most instances of deteriorating environmental conditionsare caused by human behavior. Although there are cer-tainly instances of such environmental conditions devel-oping from natural processes, most are largely the resultof human activity. Drivers of phenomena such as climatechange, loss of species’ habitats, and ocean acidificationrarely are the result of malicious intent, but rather the con-sequence of the lifestyles of billions of humans. Accord-ingly, efforts to promote conservation must change be-havior (Ehrlich & Kennedy 2005; Schultz & Kaiser 2012).

This fundamental link between conservation and be-havior has been noted in a number of recent publications.Mascia et al. (2003) state that “Biodiversity conservation isa human endeavor: initiated by humans, designed by hu-mans, and intended to modify human behavior. . ..” Cowl-ing (2005) calls this realization “an epiphany for. . .naturalscientists.” And Balmford and Cowling (2006) note that“conservation is primarily not about biology but aboutpeople and the choices they make.” Here I would go onestep further and propose that conservation is a goal thatcan only be achieved by changing behavior.

Progress in Conservation Biology

In celebrating the 25th anniversary of Conservation Biol-ogy, it is instructive to look back and assess the progressof efforts to promote conservation. Conservation biologyas a discipline has had considerable success in identifyingthe biological processes that are being affected by humanbehavior. In this sense, the discipline is largely problemoriented and has focused primarily on cataloging threatsto the status of biological diversity, rather than on re-sponding to these threats. Although there are good rea-sons for this imbalance, a casual review of the literatureshows a heavy emphasis on science and substantially lessemphasis on practice.

On the progress side, the work of conservation biolo-gists has provided a solid scientific foundation for policyand for activist groups aiming to raise awareness amongthe general public about the need for conservation. Sur-veys of the general public around the world show a gen-erally high level of concern about environmental issues

and support for environmental protection (Leiserowitzet al. 2005). Yet despite these high levels of awareness,there have not been dramatic changes in personal ac-tions or widespread patterns of behavior (Moore 2002;Crompton 2008). Consequently, individuals in industrial-ized nations around the world continue to consume highlevels of resources and to live in unsustainable ways.

In this essay, I highlight four research findings thatillustrate the challenges of changing behavior:

(1) education does not typically result in increases inconservation behavior;

(2) human thinking is biased and promotes short-sightedresponses to environmental threats;

(3) individuals generally perceive themselves as separatefrom nature; and

(4) social norms guide behavior.

First, results of psychological studies have shown con-sistently that increasing knowledge through education,whether related to health, safety, or conservation, doesnot lead to a change in behavior (McKenzie-Mohr et al.2012). Instead, behavioral and social scientists argue thatmotivation is the driving force behind behavior change.Although there are instances in which individuals are mo-tivated but lack sufficient (or accurate) information aboutwhat behavior to change or how to change, generally in-formation or education alone will not induce a change inbehavior (Schultz 2002a; Fisher et al. 2009).

Second, human cognition is not always rational, andan individual’s beliefs and judgments are subject to ahost of cognitive and perceptual biases. Results of recentstudies show both spatial and temporal influences onindividual-level judgments about the severity of environ-mental problems. Drawing on data from 18 countries, Gif-ford et al. (2008) found a strong tendency for individualsto report that environmental problems were more severeglobally than locally—things are better here than there.Additionally, environmental problems are seen as likelyto become worse in the future–things are better now thanthey will be later. Such beliefs lead the general public torank loss of biodiversity as a lower priority than moresalient threats such as poor economic conditions,terrorism, or even traffic congestion. Indeed, individuals

1080Conservation Biology, Volume 25, No. 6, 1080–1083C©2011 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x

Schultz 1081

feel a stronger sense of personal responsibility and astronger motivation to respond to contemporary issues atthe local level, and environmental problems are generallyseen as less pressing (Uzzell 2000).

Third, there is a general tendency for individuals to seethemselves as separate from nature (Schultz 2002b). Thisbelief manifests itself across many policies, programs,and actions by individuals, communities, and countries.Researchers have found that individuals who perceivea higher degree of connectedness between themselvesand nature are more likely to engage in a range ofconservation behaviors (Schultz 2001; Mayer & Frantz2004; Gosling & Williams 2010). Efforts to promote be-liefs about connectedness through experiential activities,citizen science, and environmental education could po-tentially increase the probability of such conservationbehaviors.

Finally, humans tend to look to the behavior of oth-ers as a guide for interpreting events and for choosing acourse of action. As a consequence, we are generally re-luctant to deviate from the norm. In many situations, theprevailing norm does not favor conservation, and thereis a tendency to believe that other people are engagingin conservation behaviors at a lower rate than oneself.Along these lines, messages that lament the frequency orubiquity of undesirable behaviors serve to make conser-vation tantamount to deviance and ultimately reinforcethe prevailing norm (Cialdini 2003).

However, providing cues about the widespread sup-port for environmental protection and conservation canchange behaviors (Schultz 2010). For example, Cialdiniet al. (2006) showed that highlighting the fact that manyvisitors to a national park had taken protected items outof the park actually increased the rate of theft, whereasa posted message highlighting social disapproval of suchbehavior reduced theft rates. Similarly, research by Keizeret al. (2008) showed that posting a sign discouraging abehavior can have the opposite effect when there arecontextual cues that most people do not obey the sign.For example, consider the case of a posted sign encour-aging visitors at a national park to stay on the maintainedtrail to protect the sensitive root systems of local trees.If such a sign is posted in an area where there is clearevidence that other park visitors have not complied withthe rule (e.g., pathways through the forest), the postedsign is likely to increase the number of visitors who strayfrom the trail (cf. Keizer & Schultz 2011).

Increasing the Success of Conservation in the Next25 Years

The mission of the Society for Conservation Biology is toadvance the science and practice of conserving Earth’sbiological diversity. But as noted above, conservation bi-

ology has been more effective in advancing science thanthe practice of conservation. However, in moving for-ward there is room for optimism, and there are severalavenues through which the practice of conservation canbe advanced.

Use of Motivational Messages

Efforts to educate the public and raise awareness mustinclude a motivational element—that is, a reason for ac-tion. Social and behavioral scientists have identified anumber of potential motivations, including self-interest,social responsibility, and self-transcendent values (Stern2000). And other domains of research, including healthand medicine, provide consistent evidence that informa-tion coupled with motivation can induce change (Fisheret al. 2009).

A note of caution is warranted here about using massmedia to promote conservation. It seems clear that themedia can be a powerful ally in efforts to change behav-ior, and there are many notable examples of conserva-tion programs that have successfully used community-based social-marketing strategies to change behavior(McKenzie-Mohr et al. 2012). However, most marketingactivities are designed to attract and retain an audiencewith the goal of selling a product. Achieving conserva-tion objectives, by contrast, often involves a level of costor sacrifice to the individual, such as reducing consump-tion or abstaining from a previous behavior. Indeed, con-sumerism is often cited as one of the chief causes of manyenvironmental problems, and it seems unlikely that con-servation and sustainability can be achieved by buyingcertain products.

Results of research by behavioral scientists suggest thatmessages that focus on single, achievable, and specific ac-tions are more likely to succeed. Broad pleas to “protectthe environment” or “save the planet” are generally in-effective at changing specific behaviors (Costanzo et al.1986). In addition, presenting people with long lists ofbehaviors to adopt is likely to be overwhelming and un-likely to be effective with any except the most ardent sup-porters. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest thatpromoting positive behavior alternatives is more likelyto induce change than attempts to curtail or prevent acertain behavior.

Behavioral Prioritization

Conservation biologists often talk about place prioritiza-tion, the process of identifying areas for conservation onthe basis of a given set of objective, quantitative criteria(Sarkar et al. 2002). Although the algorithms and meth-ods for prioritization have been debated, there is gen-eral agreement that prioritizing some places over othersis useful. The same basic principle could be applied tobehavior prioritization by targeting high-priority behav-iors for change.

Conservation BiologyVolume 25, No. 6, 2011

1082 Conservation Means Behavior

Although there are a number of considerations in se-lecting behaviors to target with conservation programs,one effective approach is described in the community-based social marketing literature (McKenzie-Mohr 2011).The first consideration in this approach is the connectionbetween a behavior and a desired outcome. Take as anexample contaminants in surface waters near an urbanarea. Many different types of contaminants are present,and some are more harmful than others. Plant mattersuch as leaves and grass can reduce dissolved oxygenlevels in the water, harming fish and other species. Butthere are other contaminants of concern, including bac-teria from inadequate sewage treatment, chemicals suchas grease and oil, and nitrates and phosphates from fer-tilizers. Each of these contaminants is linked with manydifferent behaviors and many different sources, each af-fecting water quality to a different degree. In movingfrom science to practice, it is necessary to prioritizethe high-impact biological target and the high-impactbehavior.

The second consideration in behavior selection is plas-ticity, the probability that a behavior can be changed. Theplasticity of a behavior is typically expressed as a propor-tion of the population that could potentially be convincedto adopt the target behavior (Dietz et al. 2009). Plasticityinvolves two elements: the proportion of a target popula-tion that is already engaging in the behavior, and the effec-tiveness of social marketing programs in changing the be-havior. Behavioral adoption in the target population canbe measured through observations or surveys, and con-servation efforts are typically best targeted at behaviorsin which a small proportion of the population is engaged.Yet even for such behaviors, there are different probabili-ties of change that reflect structural obstacles such as con-venience, local customs or culture, or personal values.The plasticity of a behavior can be identified through pilottesting of program elements or through reviews of previ-ous programs that have targeted a similar behavior. Social-marketing programs are most effective when targeted athigh-impact behaviors that have high plasticity. Althoughsocial and behavioral scientists have considerable experi-ence with plasticity and effective strategies for behaviorchange, impact is best evaluated by natural or physicalscientists.

Cross-Disciplinary Collaborations

Given the fundamental link between conservation andhuman behavior, conservation efforts led by natural sci-entists would be well served to involve social and behav-ioral scientists. Expertise in human behavior can be foundin disciplines including but not limited to economics, po-litical science, sociology, anthropology, communication,marketing, and psychology. Much of the work in thesedisciplines utilizes the same empirical methods familiar

to biologists, including measurement and quantification,observation, correlation, and experimentation.

One notable effort to promote collaboration amongconservation social scientists and conservation biologistsis the Social Science Working Group within the Societyfor Conservation Biology (Mascia et al. 2003). Formedin 2003, the working group now consists of more than700 natural scientists, social scientists, and practitioners.The group organizes symposia and workshops, supportsshort courses, and facilitates collaboration.

A second example of collaboration among social andnatural scientists is the emergence of conservation psy-chology (Saunders 2003; Clayton & Myers 2009). Psycho-logical science has much to offer conservation science,and there is a wealth of relevant theory and researchon environmental problems dating back more than 40years. Conservation psychology draws heavily on thecontributions of environmental psychologists and facil-itates conservation efforts by fostering collaborations be-tween natural and behavioral scientists. It is both a dis-cipline and a network of practitioners and researcherswho work together to understand and promote sustain-able uses of nature (Saunders 2003). The growing in-volvement of behavioral scientists in conservation sci-ence is reflected in the recent name change of theAmerican Psychological Association Division 34 to So-ciety for Environmental, Population, and ConservationPsychology.

Conservation biologists can play a central role in pro-moting changes in human behavior. In part, lack ofwidespread change in behavior has resulted from anoveremphasis on knowledge and awareness in conser-vation efforts, social and cognitive biases that result inmisperceptions about the current and proximal sever-ity of environmental problems, reductions in connected-ness with nature brought about by technology-mediatedlifestyles, and difficulties in challenging social norms. Inadvancing the science and practice of conserving bio-logical diversity, conservation biologists would be wellserved to identify high-priority behaviors that need tochange, to look beyond simple education and awarenesscampaigns, and to partner with social and behavioralscientists.

About the Author

Wesley Schultz is professor of psychology at CaliforniaState University, San Marcos. His research interests are inapplied social psychology and in using psychological the-ories and methods to understand and solve social issues.In recent projects he has focused on science training pro-grams, science education related to climate change, andbehavioral solutions to environmental problems.

Conservation BiologyVolume 25, No. 6, 2011

Schultz 1083

Literature Cited

Balmford, A., and R. Cowling. 2006. Fusion or failure? The future ofconservation biology. Conservation Biology 20:692–695.

Cialdini, R. B. 2003. Crafting normative messages to protect the envi-ronment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 12:105–109.

Cialdini, R. B., L. J. Demaine, B. J. Sagarin, D. W. Barrett, K. Rhoads, andP. L. Winter. 2006. Managing social norms for persuasive impact.Social Influence 1:3–15.

Clayton, S., and G. Myers 2009. Conservation psychology: understand-ing and promoting human care for nature. Wiley-Blackwell, Hobo-ken, New Jersey.

Costanzo, M., D. Archer, E. Aronson, and T. Pettigrew. 1986. Energyconservation behavior: the difficult path from information to action.American Psychologist 41:521–528.

Cowling, R. 2005. Maintaining the research-implementation continuumin conservation. Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter 12:19.

Crompton, T. 2008. Weathercocks and signposts: the environmentmovement at a crossroads. World Wildlife Fund, Godalming, UnitedKingdom. Available from wwf.org.uk/strategiesforchange (accessedMay 2011).

Dietz, T., G. Gardner, J. Gilligan, P. Stern, and M. Vandenbergh.2009. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge torapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Proceedings of the Na-tional Academy of Sciences 106:18452–18456. Available fromhttp://behavioralwedge.msu.edu/documents/behavioral_wedge_paper.pdf (accessed May 2011).

Ehrlich, P., and D. Kennedy. 2005. Millennium assessment of humanbehavior. Science 309:562–563.

Fisher, J. D., W. A. Fisher, and P. Shuper. 2009. The information-motivation-behavioral skills model of HIV preventive behavior.Pages 21–65 in R. DeClemente, R. Crosby, and M. Kegler, editors.Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research. Wiley& Sons, San Francisco.

Gifford, R, et al. 2008. Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism inenvironmental assessments: an 18-nation study. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology 29:1–12.

Gosling, E., and K. Williams. 2010. Connectedness to nature, placeattachment and conservation behaviour: Testing connectednesstheory among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology30:298–304.

Keizer, K., and P. W. Schultz. 2011. The role of social norms in un-derstanding and changing pro-environmental behaviour. In press inL. Steg, A. van den Berg, and J. de Groot, editors. Environmentalpsychology. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts.

Keizer, K., S. Lindenberg, and L. Steg. 2008. The spreading of disorder.Science 322:1681–1685.

Leiserowitz, A., R. Kates, and T. Parris. 2005. Do global attitudes andbehaviors support sustainable development? Environment 47:22–38.

Mascia, M., J. P. Brosius, T. A. Dobson, B. Forbes, L. Horowitz, M.McKean, and N. Turner. 2003. Conservation and the social sciences.Conservation Biology 17:649–650.

Mayer, S., and C. Frantz. 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: ameasure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journalof Environmental Psychology 24:503–515.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2011. Fostering sustainable behavior. 3rd edition.New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., N. Lee, P. W. Schultz, and P. Kotler. 2012. Socialmarketing to protect the environment: what works. Sage, ThousandOaks, California.

Moore, D. W. 2002. Public leans toward conservation approach toenvironmental policy. Gallup Poll Monthly (March) 438:35–38.

Sarkar, S., A. Aggarwal, J. Garson, C. Margules, and J. Zeidler. 2002.Place prioritization for biodiversity content. Journal of Biosciences27:339–346.

Saunders, C. 2003. The emerging field of conservation psychology.Human Ecology Review 10:137–149.

Schultz, P. W. 2001. Assessing the structure of environmental concern:concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Envi-ronmental Psychology 21:1–13.

Schultz, P. W. 2002a. Knowledge, education, and household recycling:examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. Pages67–82 in T. Dietz and P. Stern, editors. New tools for environmentalprotection. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Schultz, P. W. 2002b. Inclusion with nature: understanding the psychol-ogy of human-nature interactions. Pages 61–78 in P. Schmuck andP. W. Schultz, editors. The psychology of sustainable development.Kluwer, New York.

Schultz, P. W. 2010. Making energy conservation the norm. Pages17-1–17-12 in K. Ehrhardt-Martinez and J. Laitner, editors. People-centered initiatives for increasing energy savings. American Coun-cil for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C. Avail-able from http://www.aceee.org/people-centered-energy-savings(accessed May 2011).

Schultz, P. W., and F. G. Kaiser. 2012. Promoting proenvironmentalbehavior. In press in S. Clayton, editor. Handbook of environmen-tal and conservation psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford,United Kingdom.

Stern, P. C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally signifi-cant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56:407–424.

Uzzell, D. L. 2000. The psycho-spatial dimension of global environ-mental problems. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20:307–318.

Conservation BiologyVolume 25, No. 6, 2011