Why do people donate to conservation? Insights from a ‘real world’ campaign

Abstract

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play a key role in biodiversity conservation. The majority of these organisations rely on public donations to fund their activities, and therefore fundraising success is a determinant of conservation outcomes. In spite of this integral relationship, the key principals for fundraising success in conservation are still guided by expert opinion and anecdotal evidence, with very few quantitative studies in the literature. Here we assessed the behaviour of monetary donors across twenty-five different species-focused conservation campaigns organised by an NGO conservation and environmental society. The Australian Geographic Society (AGS) carried out fundraising campaigns over a five and half year period using an identical methodology in thirty-four of its country-wide network of outlet shops. AGS owns and operates these shops that sell toys and games related to science and nature. We tested how the following factors influenced monetary donations from members of the public:1) campaign duration, 2) appeal and familiarity of species, 3) species geographic distribution relative to the fundraising location, 4) level of income and education of potential donors, 5) age and gender profile of potential donors. Contrary to past research, we found most of these factors did not significantly influence the amount of donations made to each campaign by members of the public. Larger animals did elicit a significantly higher amount donated per transaction than smaller animals, as did shops located in poorer neighbourhoods. Our study findings contrast with past research that has focused largely on hypothetical donations data collected via surveys, and demonstrates the complexity and case-specific nature of relationships between donor characteristics and spending patterns. The study highlights the value of assessing real-world fundraising campaigns, and illustrates how collaboration between academia and NGOs could be used to better tailor fundraising campaigns to maximise donations from individual citizens.

A scoping review into the impact of animal imagery on pro-environmental outcomes

“…a stonefly) (Thomas-Walters and Raihani 2017; Veríssimo et al 2017). However, it is worth noting that contrary to this evidence, in an analysis of an offline large-scale fundraising campaign no effect of appeal or familiarity of species was found on monetary donations (Veríssimo et al 2018). These differences in results may be due to differences in methods, limiting comparability.…”

“…Much of the research and discussion in this area so far has centred on the efficacy of different narratives and contextual effects. This has included work on framing of messages, messenger effects, and emotionalisation, integrating research from fields such as human wildlife conflict, science communication, and environmental education (Larson 2005;Draheim et al 2011;Flemming et al 2018;Veríssimo et al 2018). However, despite the adage ''a picture is worth a 1000 words'', there has been less investigation into the potential impacts of visual representations of wildlife.…”

“…anthropomorphism) (Barua et al 2012;Prokop and Fančovičová 2013;Breuer et al 2015). As an example of anthropomorphism, greater body mass and bigger and forward-facing eyes have been found to guide preferences (Tisdell and Wilson 2006;Martín-López et al 2007;Knegterin et al 2010;Veríssimo et al 2018). Similarly, a human preference for baby schema may influence judgement of bird silhouettes also, with short necks and big eyes being the most appealing traits (Lišková and Frynta 2013).…”

“…Given that environmental concern is a strong positive predictor of nature show consumption (Holbert et al 2003), it could simply be the case that those who are already willing to change their behaviour are more likely to be watching nature programmes. To investigate any causal relationships a robust impact evaluation study design would be required, as comparing the values and behaviours of those who watch wildlife media with those who do not is an invalid approach (Veríssimo et al 2018). One alternative would be to explore behaviour in a lab game or on outcomes that are easily measured such as 'nature connectedness' or donations to conservation immediately following exposure (Arendt and Matthes 2016;Barbas et al 2009;Zelenski et al 2015).…”

The effect of knowledge, species aesthetic appeal, familiarity and conservation need on willingness to donate

“…However, there is mixed evidence about the association between ‘patriotic’ values or ethnocentrism and donation behaviour. More specifically, some authors have found donors to prefer local conservation causes (Dallimer et al ., ; Cárdenas & Lew, ), whereas others have found no evidence (Veríssimo et al ., ).…”