Changing Behavior and Making it Stick: The Conceptualization and Management of Conservation Behavior

Environment and Behavior (Impact Factor: 1.27). 05/1993; 25(4):485-505. DOI: 10.1177/0013916593253003
Source: OAI

ABSTRACT A sustainable planet is not possible without patterns of conserving behavior. The resource-costly life-styles that are characteristic of the current scene present a historic challenge. Never before have so many behaviors needed to change in so short a time. More challenging is that they must stay changed. For many reasons the techniques commonly used to promote conservation behavior are more reliable at modulating short-term behavior than at achieving durable change. The perceived urgency of environmental problems tends to make immediate behavior change the major focus. But of equal importance is the stability of behavior once changed. Thus one goal of conservation behavior research is to discover techniques that change individual behavior while minimizing or eliminating the need for repeated intervention. This article categerorizes behavior change techniques first by their informational or motivational nature and second by the source of the change: derived from others or gained by direct personal involvement. Evaluating selected techniques using five proposed dimensions suggests why durable behavior change has been so hard to achieve. Research implications are discussed.

Download full-text


Available from: Raymond K De Young, Dec 29, 2013
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a widely held assumption that outdoor experiences are a key precursor to pro-environmental behavior (PEB). We tested the hypothesis that wildlife recreationists are more likely than non-recreationists to voluntarily engage in different types of PEB, grouped as conservation behaviors and environmental lifestyle behaviors. Via mail and web-based surveys of rural New York residents (n = 941), we compared the self-reported PEBs of 4 types of recreationists: hunters, birdwatchers, hunter–birdwatchers (i.e., individuals who regularly engaged in both activities), and non-nature-based recreationists. We statistically controlled for group differences in socio-demographic characteristics and environmental beliefs. We found wildlife recreationists—both hunters and birdwatchers—were 4–5 times more likely than non-recreationists to engage in conservation behaviors, which included a suite of activities such as donating to support local conservation efforts, enhancing wildlife habitat on public lands, advocating for wildlife recreation, and participating in local environmental groups. Moreover, effects were additive; hunter–birdwatchers had the greatest likelihood of engaging in all types of conservation behaviors. On the other hand, engagement in environmental lifestyle behaviors such as recycling, energy conservation, and green purchasing were roughly comparable among all types of wildlife recreationists and non-recreationists. Our findings of elevated rates of conservation behaviors among hunters and birdwatchers despite different demographic attributes and environmental beliefs highlight the similar conservation potential associated with different types of wildlife recreation. Diversified strategies that include programs to encourage both hunting and birdwatching are likely to bring about long-term gains for conservation. © 2015 The Wildlife Society.
    Journal of Wildlife Management 03/2015; 79(3). DOI:10.1002/jwmg.855 · 1.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We may soon face biophysical limits to perpetual growth. Energy supplies may tighten and then begin a long slow descent while defensive expenditures rise to address problems caused by past resource consumption. The outcome may be significant changes in daily routines at the individual and community level. It is difficult to know when this scenario might begin to unfold but it clearly would constitute a new behavioral context, one that the behavioral sciences least attends to. Even if one posits a less dramatic scenario, people may still need to make many urgent and perhaps unsettling transitions. And while a robust response would be needed, it is not at all clear what should be the details of that response. Since it is likely that no single response will fix things everywhere, for all people or for all time, it would be useful to conduct many social experiments. Indeed, a culture of small experiments should be fostered which, at the individual and small group level, can be described as behavioral entrepreneurship. This may have begun, hidden in plain sight, but more social experiments are needed. To be of help, it may be useful to both package behavioral insights in a way that is practitioner-oriented and grounded in biophysical trends and to propose a few key questions that need attention. This paper begins the process of developing a biophysical psychology, incomplete as it is at this early stage.
    Frontiers in Psychology 11/2014; 5(1255). DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01255 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a great deal of research outlining interventions to increase pro-environmental behaviour, many of which are aimed at employees. However, to date the results for these have not lived up to their initial promise. Instead of offering another intervention, we propose a model which identifies psychological conditions under which these interventions are most likely to succeed. Through the integration of previously separate literatures from experimental social psychology, organisational psychology, organisational behaviour and environmental psychology, we suggest that the degree to which the intervention-related goal is efficacious and attractive, self-concordant, in conflict with other goals, and perceived to be completed will affect the level and type of behaviour change. Our model aims to provide actionable knowledge that extends our understanding of the effectiveness of workplace interventions designed to increase green organisational behaviour. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Journal of Organizational Behavior 02/2013; 34(2):211-229. DOI:10.1002/job.1837 · 3.85 Impact Factor