Conservation Means Behavior

Most instances of deteriorating environmental conditions are caused by human behavior. Although there are certainly instances of such environmental conditions developing from natural processes, most are largely the result of human activity. Drivers of phenomena such as climate change, loss of species’ habitats, and ocean acidification rarely are the result of malicious intent, but rather the consequence of the lifestyles of billions of humans. Accordingly, efforts to promote conservation must change behavior (Ehrlich Schultz Crompton 2008). Consequently, individuals in industrialized nations around the world continue to consume high levels of resources and to live in unsustainable ways. In this essay, I highlight four research findings that illustrate the challenges of changing behavior: education does not typically result in increases in conservation behavior; human thinking is biased and promotes short-sighted responses to environmental threats; individuals generally perceive themselves as separate from nature; and social norms guide behavior. First, results of psychological studies have shown consistently that increasing knowledge through education, whether related to health, safety, or conservation, does not lead to a change in behavior (McKenzie-Mohr et al. 2012). Instead, behavioral and social scientists argue that motivation is the driving force behind behavior change. Although there are instances in which individuals are motivated but lack sufficient (or accurate) information about what behavior to change or how to change, generally information or education alone will not induce a change in behavior (Schultz 2002a; Fisher et al. 2009). Second, human cognition is not always rational, and an individual’s beliefs and judgments are subject to a host of cognitive and perceptual biases. Results of recent studies show both spatial and temporal influences on individual-level judgments about the severity of environmental problems. Drawing on data from 18 countries, Gifford et al. (2008) found a strong tendency for individuals to report that environmental problems were more severe globally than locally—things are better here than there. Additionally, environmental problems are seen as likely to become worse in the future–things are better now than they will be later. Such beliefs lead the general public to rank loss of biodiversity as a lower priority than more salient threats such as poor economic conditions, terrorism, or even traffic congestion. Indeed, individuals feel a stronger sense of personal responsibility and a stronger motivation to respond to contemporary issues at the local level, and environmental problems are generally seen as less pressing (Uzzell 2000). Third, there is a general tendency for individuals to see themselves as separate from nature (Schultz 2002b). This belief manifests itself across many policies, programs, and actions by individuals, communities, and countries. Researchers have found that individuals who perceive a higher degree of connectedness between themselves and nature are more likely to engage in a range of conservation behaviors (Schultz 2001; Mayer Gosling Clayton & Myers 2009). Psychological science has much to offer conservation science, and there is a wealth of relevant theory and research on environmental problems dating back more than 40 years. Conservation psychology draws heavily on the contributions of environmental psychologists and facilitates conservation efforts by fostering collaborations between natural and behavioral scientists. It is both a discipline and a network of practitioners and researchers who work together to understand and promote sustainable uses of nature (Saunders 2003). The growing involvement of behavioral scientists in conservation science is reflected in the recent name change of the American Psychological Association Division 34 to Society for Environmental, Population, and Conservation Psychology. Conservation biologists can play a central role in promoting changes in human behavior. In part, lack of widespread change in behavior has resulted from an overemphasis on knowledge and awareness in conservation efforts, social and cognitive biases that result in misperceptions about the current and proximal severity of environmental problems, reductions in connectedness with nature brought about by technology-mediated lifestyles, and difficulties in challenging social norms. In advancing the science and practice of conserving biological diversity, conservation biologists would be well served to identify high-priority behaviors that need to change, to look beyond simple education and awareness campaigns, and to partner with social and behavioral scientists. Wesley Schultz is professor of psychology at California State University, San Marcos. His research interests are in applied social psychology and in using psychological theories and methods to understand and solve social issues. In recent projects he has focused on science training programs, science education related to climate change, and behavioral solutions to environmental problems.