Systematic map of conservation psychology

Abstract

Conservation science and practice commonly draw on the theories and methods of social psychology to explain human cognitions, emotions, and behaviors germane to biodiversity conservation. Here, we present a systematic map of the cross-disciplinary conservation science literature that draws on social psychology concepts and methods in their application broadly described as conservation psychology. Established protocols were used to systematically collect and collate peer-reviewed research published in an explicit selection of journals. Our purpose was to catalog the extant literature, elucidate trends and gaps, and critically reflect on the state of the field and its research practices aiming to influence conservation outcomes. Results show an upward trend in the number of publications per year and per decade between 1974-2016. A diversity of theoretical and methodological approaches was revealed. However, findings also revealed that the extant literature disproportionately focuses on specific concepts (attitudes and beliefs) and locations (North America and Europe), and contexts (terrestrial, rural). Data indicated that studies also tend to be descriptive, quantitative, and atheoretical in nature. From these results, we offer a critical assessment of the literature and provide recommendations for future applied conservation psychology research intended to inform science, practice, and policy.

Introduction: New directions in conservation psychology at a critical time

“…2020). Wallen and Landon (2020) found a majority (58%) of conservation social science studies have been descriptive and a rare few (2%) have been experimental. Descriptive studies typically lack causal inference, which can limit the robustness of conclusions.…”

“…2020). Just how central values are to understanding human behavior in conservation contexts is highlighted by Wallen and Landon's (2020) systematic map of conservation psychology, which shows values are the second‐most studied concept. Winkler‐Schor et al.…”

“…Beliefs and thought processes are not observed directly and must, therefore, be derived by asking people about them or assessing and interpreting their responses to stimuli. Researchers most often ask about people's attitudes (Wallen & Landon 2020 [this issue]), which represent positive or negative evaluations of an object, place, person, group of people, or event (Eagly & Chaiken 1993). Responses to stimuli can be conceptualized in other ways as well, including support of or opposition to conservation actions and trust in individuals, organizations, or governing authorities.…”

“…For example, the review process resulted in quantitative studies, primarily surveys, being overrepresented when qualitative, mixed‐methods, replication, and meta‐analysis studies are equally important. Likewise, contributed papers represent research conducted on 3 continents, yet greater representation of the Global South is needed (Wallen & Landon 2020).…”

Determining the role of eudaimonic values in conservation behavior

“…Over the past 20 years, the social science discipline of conservation psychology has gained traction in research and influence on environmental policies (Clayton & Meyers 2015;Selinske et al 2018); however, there are still gaps in knowledge of how the psychosocial factors that influence human behavior should be conceptualized and measured (Kenter et al 2019). There is also a disproportionate focus in previous research on the role of attitudes for predicting behavior (Nilsson et al 2019;Wallen & Landon 2020), rather than more fundamental factors such as human values, defined as guiding principles in life that transcend situations (Schwartz 1994;Manfredo et al 2017). As the motivational basis for human decision-making (Dietsch et al 2016), values diversify knowledge of predictors of behavior (van Riper et al 2019) and provide insight on psychologically stable factors that are unlikely to change over a lifetime; thus, they have the potential to support the long-term success of conservation initiatives (Ives & Fischer 2017).…”