1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
  4. Volume 49, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 49, 2024

Changing Human Behavior to Conserve Biodiversity

Abstract

Conservation of biodiversity is above all else an exercise in human persuasion. Human behavior drives all substantive threats to biodiversity; therefore, influencing it is the only path to mitigating the current extinction crisis. We review the literature across three different axes to highlight current evidence on influencing human behavior for conservation. First, we look at behavioral interventions to mitigate different threats, from pollution and climate change to invasive species and human disturbance. Next, we examine interventions focused on different stakeholders, from voters, investors, and environmental managers to consumers, producers, and extractors. Finally, we review delivery channels, ranging from mass and social media to interventions involving changes to the physical environment or carried out in person. We highlight key gaps, including the lack of scale and robust impact evaluation of most interventions, and the need to prioritize behaviors, overcome the reproducibility crisis, and deal with inequality when designing and implementing behavior change interventions.

Keyword(s): behavioral science, communication, nudge, social marketing, social science, sustainability
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-111522-103028
2024-10-18
2024-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/49/1/annurev-environ-111522-103028.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-111522-103028&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    IUCN (Int. Union Conserv. Nat.). 2023.. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2022-2 . Gland, Switz:.: IUCN. https://www.iucnredlist.org
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    IUCN (Int. Union Conserv. Nat.). 2014.. IUCN Threats Classification Scheme, Version 3.3 . Gland, Switz.:: IUCN. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/threat-classification-scheme
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Selinske MJ, Bekessy SA, Geary WL, Faulkner R, Hames F, et al. 2022.. Projecting biodiversity benefits of conservation behavior-change programs. . Conserv. Biol. 36:(3):e13845
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Saunders CD. 2003.. The emerging field of conservation psychology. . Hum. Ecol. Rev. 10:(2):137–49
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Anderson SC, Elsen PR, Hughes BB, Tonietto RK, Bletz MC, et al. 2021.. Trends in ecology and conservation over eight decades. . Front. Ecol. Environ. 19:(5):274–82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Wallen KE, Landon AC. 2020.. Systematic map of conservation psychology. . Conserv. Biol. 34:(6):1339–52
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Nielsen KS, Marteau TM, Bauer JM, Bradbury RB, Broad S, et al. 2021.. Biodiversity conservation as a promising frontier for behavioural science. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 5:(5):550–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Amel E, Manning C, Scott B, Koger S. 2017.. Beyond the roots of human inaction: fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. . Science 356:(6335):275–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    NEPA (Natl. Environ. Policy Act). 2023.. International environmental impact assessment. . NEPA.gov. https://ceq.doe.gov/get-involved/international_impact_assessment.html
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Great. Lond. Auth. 2018.. London environment strategy. Rep. , Great. Lond. Auth., London:. https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-and-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/london-environment-strategy
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Pettorelli N, Durant SM, Du Toit JT. 2019.. Rewilding: a captivating, controversial, twenty-first-century concept to address ecological degradation in a changing world. . In Rewilding, ed. N Pettorelli, SM Durant, JT Du Toit , pp. 1–11. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 1st ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    McDermott A. 2023.. Light pollution is fixable. Can researchers and policymakers work together to dim the lights?. PNAS 120:(27):e2309539120
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Prado JA, Puszka H, Forman A, Cooke B, Fitzsimons JA. 2018.. Trends and values of “Land for Wildlife” programs for private land conservation. . Ecol. Manag. Restor. 19:(2):136–46
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Shaw A, Miller K. 2016.. Preaching to the converted? Designing wildlife gardening programs to engage the unengaged. . Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 15::21424
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    van Heezik YM, Dickinson KJM, Freeman C. 2012.. Closing the gap: communicating to change gardening practices in support of native biodiversity in urban private gardens. . Ecol. Soc. 17::34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Lange F, Hermans Z, De Koster J, Smismans R. 2022.. Promoting pro-environmental gardening practices: field experimental evidence for the effectiveness of biospheric appeals. . Urban For. Urban Green. 70::127544
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Deguines N, Princé K, Prevot A-C, Fontaine B. 2020.. Assessing the emergence of pro-biodiversity practices in citizen scientists of a backyard butterfly survey. . Sci. Total Environ. 716::136842
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Huan NH, Chien HV, Quynh PV, Tan PS, Du PV, et al. 2008.. Motivating rice farmers in the Mekong Delta to modify pest management and related practices through mass media. . Int. J. Pest Manag. 54:(4):339–46
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Heong KL, Escalada MM, Chien HV, Cuong LQ. 2014.. Restoration of rice landscape biodiversity by farmers in Vietnam through education and motivation using media. . SAPIENS 7:(2):1578
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Bhuiyan MMR, Maharjan KL. 2022.. Impact of farmer field school on crop income, agroecology, and farmer's behavior in farming: a case study on Cumilla District in Bangladesh. . Sustainability 14:(7):4190
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Liu T, Bruins RJF, Heberling MT. 2018.. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of best management practices: a review and synthesis. . Sustainability 10:(2):432
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Bragança A, Newton P, Cohn A, Assunção J, Camboim C, et al. 2022.. Extension services can promote pasture restoration: evidence from Brazil's low carbon agriculture plan. . PNAS 119:(12):e2114913119
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Tessema Y, Asafu-Adjaye J, Berresaw M, Mallawaarachchi T. 2016.. Do neighbours matter in technology adoption? The case of conservation tillage in northwest Ethiopia. . Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 11::211–25
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Ward PS, Mapemba L, Bell AR. 2021.. Smart subsidies for sustainable soils: evidence from a randomized controlled trial in southern Malawi. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 110::102556
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Perry LR, Macdonald EA, Moorhouse T, Johnson PJ, Loveridge AJ, Macdonald DW. 2022.. Social referents and normative standards affect perceptions of livestock management behaviors. . Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 27:(3):290–305
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Grimm M, Luck N. 2023.. Experimenting with a green “Green Revolution.” Evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Indonesia. . Ecol. Econ. 205::107727
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Read DJ, Wainger L. 2023.. Assessing intervention effectiveness at promoting voluntary conservation practice adoption in agrienvironments. . Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 37:(1):e14009
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Marselle MR, Turbe A, Shwartz A, Bonn A, Colléony A. 2021.. Addressing behavior in pollinator conservation policies to combat the implementation gap. . Conserv. Biol. 35:(2):610–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Hardy A, Lee S, Al-Kaisy AF. 2006.. Effectiveness of animal advisory messages on dynamic message signs as a speed reduction tool: case study in rural Montana. . Transp. Res. Rec. 1973:(1):64–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Grace MK, Smith DJ, Noss RF. 2015.. Testing alternative designs for a roadside animal detection system using a driving simulator. . Nat. Conserv. 11::61–77
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Grace MK, Smith DJ, Noss RF. 2017.. Reducing the threat of wildlife-vehicle collisions during peak tourism periods using a Roadside Animal Detection System. . Accid. Anal. Prev. 109::55–61
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Barry SC, Raskin KN, Hazell JE, Morera MC, Monaghan PF. 2020.. Evaluation of interventions focused on reducing propeller scarring by recreational boaters in Florida, USA. . Ocean Coast. Manag. 186::105089
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Fujii S, Taniguchi A. 2005.. Reducing family car-use by providing travel advice or requesting behavioral plans: an experimental analysis of travel feedback programs. . Transp. Res. D 10:(5):385–93
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Rolim C, Baptista P, Duarte G, Farias T, Shiftan Y. 2014.. Quantification of the impacts of eco-driving training and real-time feedback on urban buses driver's behaviour. . Transp. Res. Procedia 3::70–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Vagg C, Brace CJ, Hari D, Akehurst S, Poxon J, Ash L. 2013.. Development and field trial of a driver assistance system to encourage eco-driving in light commercial vehicle fleets. . IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 14:(2):796–805
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Gosnell GK, List JA, Metcalfe RD. 2020.. The impact of management practices on employee productivity: a field experiment with airline captains. . J. Political Econ. 128:(4):1195–233
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Veríssimo D, Wan AKY. 2019.. Characterizing efforts to reduce consumer demand for wildlife products. . Conserv. Biol. 33:(3):623–33
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Doughty H, Milner-Gulland EJ, Lee JSH, Oliver K, Carrasco LR, Veríssimo D. 2021.. Evaluating a large-scale online behaviour change intervention aimed at wildlife product consumers in Singapore. . PLOS ONE 16:(3):e0248144
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Baylis K, Honey-Rosés J, Börner J, Corbera E, Ezzine-de-Blas D, et al. 2016.. Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. . Conserv. Lett. 9:(1):58–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Chausson A, Gurd H, Foley J, Bhalla S, Lekilelei J, et al. 2022.. Evaluating the impact of Warrior Watch: behaviour change to promote human-lion coexistence. . Biol. Conserv. 271::109571
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Thomas-Walters L, Vieira S, Jiménez V, Monteiro D, Ferreira B, et al. 2020.. Challenges in the impact evaluation of behaviour change interventions: the case of sea turtle meat and eggs in São Tomé. . People Nat. 2:(4):913–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    McDonald G, Wilson M, Veríssimo D, Twohey R, Clemence M, et al. 2020.. Catalyzing sustainable fisheries management through behavior change interventions. . Conserv. Biol. 34:(5):1176–89
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Hu S, Liang Z, Zhou K, Veríssimo D, Lee TM, et al. 2023.. Applying a co-design approach with key stakeholders to design interventions to reduce illegal wildlife consumption. . People Nat. 5:(4):1234–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Adamczyk D, Maison D. 2021.. Ecology or health—how to successfully promote palm oil free products: a comparison between Spain and Poland. . Foods 10:(10):2380
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Kelly A, Skibins JC. 2020.. Inspiring wildlife conservation behaviors through innovations in zoo exhibit design. . Visit. Stud. 24:(1):79–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Doherty TS, Hays GC, Driscoll DA. 2021.. Human disturbance causes widespread disruption of animal movement. . Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5:(4):513–19
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Selvaag SK, Keller R, Aas Ø, Gundersen V, Singsaas FT. 2023.. On-site communication measures as a tool in outdoor recreation management: a systematic map. . Environ. Evid. 12:(1):14
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Allbrook DL, Quinn JL. 2020.. The effectiveness of regulatory signs in controlling human behaviour and Northern gannet (Morus bassanus) disturbance during breeding: an experimental test. . J. Nat. Conserv. 58::125915
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Freeman S, Taff BD, Lawhon B, Benfield JA, Kreye M, et al. 2023.. The impact of message framing on wildlife approach during ungulate viewing experiences in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. . J. Interpret. Res. 28:(1):7–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Abrams KM, Molder AL, Nankey P, Leong K. 2023.. Encouraging respectful wildlife viewing among tourists: roles for social marketing, regulatory information, symbolic barriers, and enforcement. . Soc. Mark. Q. 29:(1):67–86
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Howard S, Buttke DE, Lovejoy TE, Clark KA, Ashby EJ, Alonso Aguirre A. 2021.. The Loop Trail “Quest”: use of a choice-based digital simulation, an interactive video, and a booklet to communicate and analyze decision-making of park visitors. . Environ. Commun. 15:(8):1025–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Shreedhar G, Mourato S. 2019.. Experimental evidence on the impact of biodiversity conservation videos on charitable donations. . Ecol. Econ. 158::180–93
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Shreedhar G, Thomas-Walters L. 2022.. Experimental evidence of the impact of framing of actors and victims in conservation narratives. . Conserv. Biol. 36:(6):e14015
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    McDonald RI, Fielding KS, Louis WR. 2014.. Conflicting social norms and community conservation compliance. . J. Nat. Conserv. 22:(3):212–16
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Kamrowski RL, Sutton SG, Tobin RC, Hamann M. 2015.. Balancing artificial light at night with turtle conservation? Coastal community engagement with light-glow reduction. . Environ. Conserv. 42:(2):171–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Shreedhar G, Mourato S. 2020.. Linking human destruction of nature to COVID-19 increases support for wildlife conservation policies. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 76:(4):963–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Shanono NJ. 2020.. Applying the concept of socio-hydrology to assess the impact of human behaviour on water management sectors: a review. . Bayero J. Eng. Technol. 15:(2):105–16
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Elshafei Y, Sivapalan M, Tonts M, Hipsey MR. 2014.. A prototype framework for models of socio-hydrology: identification of key feedback loops and parameterisation approach. . Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18:(6):2141–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    McLeod LJ, Please PM, Hine DW. 2019.. Using behaviour change strategy to improve the management of invasive species. . In Community-Based Control of Invasive Species, ed. P Martin, TR Alter, DW Hine, T Howard , pp. 162–82. Clayton South, Aust:.: CSIRO Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    McLeod LJ, Evans D, Jones B, Paterson M, Zito S. 2020.. Understanding the relationship between intention and cat containment behaviour: a case study of kitten and cat adopters from RSPCA Queensland. . Animals 10:(7):1214
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    McLeod LJ, Hine DW, Bengsen AJ, Driver AB. 2017.. Assessing the impact of different persuasive messages on the intentions and behaviour of cat owners: a randomised control trial. . Prev. Vet. Med. 146::136–42
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Nishizawa F, Kubo T, Akasaka M. 2023.. Behavioral interventions to reduce unintentional non-native plants introduction: Personal factors matter. . Biol. Conserv. 284::110139
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Chai Y, Pannell DJ, Pardey PG. 2023.. Nudging farmers to reduce water pollution from nitrogen fertilizer. . Food Policy 120::102525
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Peth D, Mußhoff O, Funke K, Hirschauer N. 2018.. Nudging farmers to comply with water protection rules—experimental evidence from Germany. . Ecol. Econ. 152::310–21
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Riley R, de Preux L, Capella P, Mejia C, Kajikawa Y, de Nazelle A. 2021.. How do we effectively communicate air pollution to change public attitudes and behaviours? A review. . Sustain. Sci. 16:(6):2027–47
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Meleady R, Abrams D, Van de Vyver J, Hopthrow T, Mahmood L, et al. 2017.. Surveillance or self-surveillance? Behavioral cues can increase the rate of drivers’ pro-environmental behavior at a long wait stop. . Environ. Behav. 49:(10):1156–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Brown TJ, Ham SH, Hughes M. 2010.. Picking up litter: an application of theory-based communication to influence tourist behaviour in protected areas. . J. Sustain. Tour. 18:(7):879–900
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Willis K, Maureaud C, Wilcox C, Hardesty BD. 2018.. How successful are waste abatement campaigns and government policies at reducing plastic waste into the marine environment?. Mar. Policy 96::243–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    He G, Pan Y, Park A, Sawada Y, Tan ES. 2023.. Reducing single-use cutlery with green nudges: evidence from China's food-delivery industry. . Science 381:(6662):eadd9884
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Moss E. 2021.. Reducing plastic pollution: campaigns that work—insights and examples to maximize the effectiveness of campaigns for sustainable plastic consumption. Rep. , Stockholm Environ. Inst., Stockholm:
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Tam K-P, Leung AK-y, Clayton S. 2021.. Research on climate change in social psychology publications: a systematic review. . Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 24:(2):117–43
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Thomas-Walters L, McCallum J, Montgomery R, Petros C, Wan AKY, Veríssimo D. 2023.. Systematic review of conservation interventions to promote voluntary behavior change. . Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 37:(1):e14000
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Nisa CF, Bélanger JJ, Schumpe BM, Faller DG. 2019.. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. . Nat. Commun. 10:(1):4545
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Cotterill S, John P, Liu H, Nomura H. 2009.. Mobilizing citizen effort to enhance environmental outcomes: a randomized controlled trial of a door-to-door recycling campaign. . J. Environ. Manag. 91:(2):403–10
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Sussman R, Gifford R. 2013.. Be the change you want to see: modeling food composting in public places. . Environ. Behav. 45:(3):323–43
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Allcott H, Rogers T. 2014.. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: experimental evidence from energy conservation. . Am. Econ. Rev. 104:(10):3003–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Loock C-M, Staake T, Thiesse F. 2013.. Motivating energy-efficient behavior with green IS: an investigation of goal setting and the role of defaults. . MIS Q. 37:(4):1313–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Nolan JM. 2021.. Social norm interventions as a tool for pro-climate change. . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42::120–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Schultz PW. 1999.. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recycling. . Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21:(1):25–36
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Schultz WP, Khazian AM, Zaleski AC. 2008.. Using normative social influence to promote conservation among hotel guests. . Soc. Influ. 3:(1):4–23
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Axon SJ. 2015.. Addressing climate change at the community level: opportunities for, and challenges to, mainstreaming sustainable development. PhD Thesis , Univ. Liverpool, Liverpool, UK:
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Reeves A, Lemon M, Cook D. 2014.. Jump-starting transition? Catalysing grassroots action on climate change. . Energy Effic. 7:(1):115–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Sustain. Hockerton. 2010.. The story so far. Doc. , Sustain. Hockerton, Hockerton, UK:. https://sustainablehockerton.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/shock-the-story-so-far.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Reisch LA, Sunstein CR, Andor MA, Doebbe FC, Meier J, Haddaway NR. 2021.. Mitigating climate change via food consumption and food waste: a systematic map of behavioral interventions. . J. Clean. Prod. 279::123717
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Jalil AJ, Tasoff J, Bustamante AV. 2023.. Low-cost climate-change informational intervention reduces meat consumption among students for 3 years. . Nat. Food 4:(3):218–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Garnett EE, Balmford A, Sandbrook C, Pilling MA, Marteau TM. 2019.. Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias. . PNAS 116:(42):20923–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Parsons ECM, Rose NA. 2018.. The Blackfish effect: corporate and policy change in the face of shifting public opinion on captive cetaceans. . Tour. Mar. Environ 13:(2–3):73–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Boissat L, Thomas-Walters L, Veríssimo D. 2021.. Nature documentaries as catalysts for change: mapping out the “Blackfish Effect. .” People Nat. 3:(6):1179–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Rikhardsson P, Holm C. 2008.. The effect of environmental information on investment allocation decisions—an experimental study. . Bus. Strategy Environ. 17:(6):382–97
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Mohd Said R, Sulaiman M, Nazli Nik Ahmad N. 2014.. Environmental information usefulness to stakeholders: empirical evidence from Malaysia. . Soc. Responsib. J. 10:(2):348–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Ardianto A, Farhanah F. 2020.. Effects of accounting information and environmental information on investor's decisions: an experimental study. . In Advances in Business, Management and Entrepreneurship, ed. R Hurriyati, B Tjahjono, I Yamamoto, A Rahayu, AG Abdullah, AA Januwijaya , pp. 505–9. London:: CRC Press
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Hartzmark SM, Sussman AB. 2019.. Do investors value sustainability? A natural experiment examining ranking and fund flows. . J. Finance 74:(6):2789–837
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Christens B. 2010.. Public relationship building in grassroots community organizing: relational intervention for individual and systems change. . J. Community Psychol. 38:(7):886–900
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Green DP, Gerber AS. 2019.. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. Washington, DC:: Brookings Inst. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Gravert C, Shreedhar G. 2022.. Effective carbon taxes need green nudges. . Nat. Clim. Change 12:(12):1073–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Cologna V, Siegrist M. 2020.. The role of trust for climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviour: a meta-analysis. . J. Environ. Psychol. 69::101428
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Harring N, Jönsson E, Matti S, Mundaca G, Jagers SC. 2023.. Cross-national analysis of attitudes towards fossil fuel subsidy removal. . Nat. Clim. Change 13:(3):244–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Goldberg RF, Vandenberg LN. 2021.. The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health. . Environ. Health 20::33
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Rosenthal S, Maibach E. 2017.. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. . Glob. Chall. 1:(2):1600008
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Setzer J, Higham C. 2022.. Global trends in climate change litigation: 2022 snapshot. Policy Rep., Grantham Res. Inst. Clim. Change Environ., London:
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Barrage L, Chyn E, Hastings J. 2020.. Advertising and environmental stewardship: evidence from the BP oil spill. . Am. Econ. J. 12:(1):33–61
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    West TAP, Wunder S, Sills EO, Börner J, Rifai SW, et al. 2023.. Action needed to make carbon offsets from tropical forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. . Science 381::873–77
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    In SY, Schumacher K. 2021.. Carbonwashing: a new type of carbon data-related ESG greenwashing. Work. Pap. , Sustain. Finance Initiat., Stanford, CA:
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Loewenstein G, Chater N. 2017.. Putting nudges in perspective. . Behav. Public Policy 1::26–53
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Hagmann D, Ho EH, Loewenstein G. 2019.. Nudging out support for a carbon tax. . Nat. Clim. Change 9:(6):484–89
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Zolyomi A. 2022.. How to make policy-makers care about “wicked problems” such as biodiversity loss?—The case of a policy campaign. . In Co-Creativity and Engaged Scholarship: Transformative Methods in Social Sustainability Research, ed. A Franklin , pp. 527–53. Cham, Switz:.: Palgrave Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Young KA, Thomas-Walters L. 2023.. What the climate movement's debate about disruption gets wrong. . Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11::25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Calel R, Dechezleprêtre A. 2016.. Environmental policy and directed technological change: evidence from the European carbon market. . Rev. Econ. Stat. 98:(1):173–91
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Green JF. 2021.. Does carbon pricing reduce emissions?. A review of ex-post analyses. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:(4):043004
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Hoffmann C, Thommes K. 2020.. Can digital feedback increase employee performance and energy efficiency in firms? Evidence from a field experiment. . J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 180::49–65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Wang F, Shreedhar G, Galizzi MM, Mourato S. 2022.. A take-home message: workplace food waste interventions influence household pro-environmental behaviors. . Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 15::200106
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Kristal AS, Whillans AV. 2020.. What we can learn from five naturalistic field experiments that failed to shift commuter behaviour. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 4:(2):169–76
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Gravert C, Collentine LO. 2021.. When nudges aren't enough: norms, incentives and habit formation in public transport usage. . J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 190::1–14
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    Shreedhar G, Moran C, Mills S. 2024.. Sticky brown sludge everywhere: Can sludge explain barriers to green behaviour?. Behav. Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2024.3
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    Meis-Harris J, Klemm C, Kaufman S, Curtis J, Borg K, Bragge P. 2021.. What is the role of eco-labels for a circular economy? A rapid review of the literature. . J. Clean. Prod. 306::127134
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    Grolleau G, Ibanez L, Mzoughi N, Teisl M. 2016.. Helping eco-labels to fulfil their promises. . Clim. Policy 16:(6):792–802
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    Rondoni A, Grasso S. 2021.. Consumers behaviour towards carbon footprint labels on food: a review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. . J. Clean. Prod. 301::127031
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Schwartz D, Loewenstein G, Agüero-Gaete L. 2020.. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour through green identity labelling. . Nat. Sustain. 3:(9):746–52
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.
    Poore J, Nemecek T. 2018.. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. . Science 360:(6392):987–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    Delmas MA, Lessem N. 2017.. Eco-premium or eco-penalty? Eco-labels and quality in the organic wine market. . Bus. Soc. 56:(2):318–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. 121.
    Barkemeyer R, Young CW, Chintakayala PK, Owen A. 2023.. Eco-labels, conspicuous conservation and moral licensing: an indirect behavioural rebound effect. . Ecol. Econ. 204::107649
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  122. 122.
    Brown ZS. 2018.. Voluntary programs to encourage refuges for pesticide resistance management: lessons from a quasi-experiment. . Am. J. Agric. Econ. 100:(3):844–67
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.
    Vu HT, Tran D, Goto D, Kawata K. 2020.. Does experience sharing affect farmers’ pro-environmental behavior? A randomized controlled trial in Vietnam. . World Dev. 136::105062
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.
    Davidson DJ, Rollins C, Lefsrud L, Anders S, Hamann A. 2019.. Just don't call it climate change: climate-skeptic farmer adoption of climate-mitigative practices. . Environ. Res. Lett. 14:(3):034015
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  125. 125.
    Wallander S, Ferraro P, Higgins N. 2017.. Addressing participant inattention in federal programs: a field experiment with the Conservation Reserve Program. . Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99:(4):914–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Byerly H, D'Amato AW, Hagenbuch S, Fisher B. 2019.. Social influence and forest habitat conservation: experimental evidence from Vermont's maple producers. . Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1:(9):e98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. 127.
    Veríssimo D, Schmid C, Kimario FF, Eves HE. 2018.. Measuring the impact of an entertainment-education intervention to reduce demand for bushmeat. . Anim. Conserv. 21:(4):324–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.
    DeWan A, Green K, Li X, Hayden D. 2013.. Using social marketing tools to increase fuel-efficient stove adoption for conservation of the golden snub-nosed monkey, Gansu Province, China. . Conserv. Evid. 10::32–36
     [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.
    Schulz JH, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Hall DM, Webb EB. 2021.. Until it's a regulation it's not my fight: complexities of a voluntary nonlead hunting ammunition program. . J. Environ. Manag. 277::111438
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.
    Steinmetz R, Srirattanaporn S, Mor-Tip J, Seuaturien N. 2014.. Can community outreach alleviate poaching pressure and recover wildlife in South-East Asian protected areas?. J. Appl. Ecol. 51:(6):1469–78
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    Saypanya S, Hansel T, Johnson A, Bianchessi A, Sadowsky B. 2013.. Effectiveness of a social marketing strategy, coupled with law enforcement, to conserve tigers and their prey in Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area, Lao People's Democratic Republic. . Conserv. Evid. 10::57–66
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Pullin AS, Knight TM. 2001.. Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from medicine and public health. . Conserv. Biol. 15:(1):50–54
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.
    Walsh JC, Dicks LV, Sutherland WJ. 2015.. The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions. . Conserv. Biol. 29:(1):88–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. 134.
    Toomey A. 2023.. Why facts don't change minds: insights from cognitive science for the improved communication of conservation research. . Biol. Conserv. 278::109886
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. 135.
    Moon K, Marshall N, Cocklin C. 2012.. Personal circumstances and social characteristics as determinants of landholder participation in biodiversity conservation programs. . J. Environ. Manag. 113::292–300
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  136. 136.
    Niemiec RM, Willer R, Ardoin NM, Brewer FK. 2019.. Motivating landowners to recruit neighbors for private land conservation. . Conserv. Biol. 33:(4):930–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  137. 137.
    Metcalf A, Angle J, Phelan C, Muth A, Finley J. 2019.. More “bank” for the buck: microtargeting and normative appeals to increase social marketing efficiency. . Soc. Mark. Q. 25:(1):152450041881806
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  138. 138.
    Kidd LR, Bekessy SA, Garrard GE. 2019.. Evidence is key for effective biodiversity communication. . Trends Ecol. Evol. 34:(8):693–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  139. 139.
    Maibach E, Cullen H, Placky B, Witte J, Gandy J. 2022.. Improving public understanding of climate change by supporting weathercasters. . Nat. Clim. Change 12:(8):694–95
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  140. 140.
    Strauss N, Painter J, Ettinger J, Doutreix M-N, Wonneberger A, Walton P. 2022.. Reporting on the 2019 European heatwaves and climate change: journalists’ attitudes, motivations and role perceptions. . J. Pract. 16:(2–3):462–85
     [Google Scholar]
  141. 141.
    Biggs D, Holden MH, Braczkowski A, Cook CN, Milner-Gulland EJ, et al. 2017.. Breaking the deadlock on ivory. . Science 358:(6369):1378–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  142. 142.
    Thomas-Walters L, Morkel B, Kubo T, Rolfes MS, Smith RJ, Veríssimo D. 2023.. Understanding the market drivers behind the reduced demand for ivory products in Japan. . Conserv. Soc. 21:(1):1–16
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  143. 143.
    Chaves WA, Valle DR, Monroe MC, Wilkie DS, Sieving KE, Sadowsky B. 2018.. Changing wild meat consumption: an experiment in the Central Amazon, Brazil. . Conserv. Lett. 11:(2):e12391
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  144. 144.
    Jacquet JL, Pauly D. 2007.. The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. . Mar. Policy 31:(3):308–13
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  145. 145.
    Parkes G, Young JA, Walmsley SF, Abel R, Harman J, et al. 2010.. Behind the signs—a global review of fish sustainability information schemes. . Rev. Fish. Sci. 18:(4):344–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  146. 146.
    Belinga B, Chervier C, Lescuyer G. 2021.. Impact of a media campaign on consumers’ purchasing intentions of legal timber in Cameroon. . Soc. Nat. Resour. 34:(5):603–20
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  147. 147.
    Balmford A, Bradbury RB, Bauer JM, Broad S, Burgess G, et al. 2021.. Making more effective use of human behavioural science in conservation interventions. . Biol. Conserv. 261::109256
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  148. 148.
    MacDonald E. 2015.. Quantifying the impact of Wellington Zoo's persuasive communication campaign on post-visit behavior. . Zoo Biol. 34:(2):163–69
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  149. 149.
    Matteson PC. 2000.. Insect pest management in tropical Asian irrigated rice. . Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45::549–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  150. 150.
    Geiger N, Swim JK, Glenna L. 2019.. Spread the green word: a social community perspective into environmentally sustainable behavior. . Environ. Behav. 51:(5):561–89
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  151. 151.
    van Putten I, Ison S, Cvitanovic C, Hobday A, Thomas L. 2022.. Who has influence? The role of trust and communication in the conservation of flatback turtles in Western Australia. . Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 49::102080
     [Google Scholar]
  152. 152.
    McKay JE, Mangunjaya FM, Dinata Y, Harrop SR, Khalid F. 2014.. Practise what you preach: a faith-based approach to conservation in Indonesia. . Oryx 48:(1):23–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  153. 153.
    Hartberg Y, Cox M, Villamayor-Tomas S. 2016.. Supernatural monitoring and sanctioning in community-based resource management. . Relig. Brain Behav. 6:(2):95–111
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  154. 154.
    Mangunjaya FM, McKay JE. 2012.. Reviving an Islamic approach for environmental conservation in Indonesia. . Worldviews 16:(3):286–305
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  155. 155.
    Andriamalala G, Peabody S, Gardner CJ, Westerman K. 2013.. Using social marketing to foster sustainable behaviour in traditional fishing communities of southwest Madagascar. . Conserv. Evid. 10::37–41
     [Google Scholar]
  156. 156.
    Al-hassan S, Andani A, Abdul-Malik A. 2011.. The role of community radio in livelihood improvement: the case of Simli Radio. . Field Actions Sci. Rep. 5::869
     [Google Scholar]
  157. 157.
    Mpoza A, Musisi Y, Kasadha J. 2022.. Participatory campaign approaches in greening Africa: a case of 93.1 IUIU FM Go Green Tree Planting Campaign. . In Management and Leadership for a Sustainable Africa, Vol. 2: Roles, Responsibilities, and Prospects, ed. K Ogunyemi, O Atanya, V Burgal , pp. 237–62. Cham, Switz:.: Springer Int. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  158. 158.
    Vaughan PW, Encalada HRR, Torres SC, Campos B. 2013.. Impact of the “My Community” communications intervention on changing human behaviour related to surface water contamination in Loja Province, Ecuador. . Conserv. Evid. 10::53–56
     [Google Scholar]
  159. 159.
    Omondi NO. 2022.. The role of community radio programs in addressing urban environmental challenges in informal settlements, a case study of Nyalenda Informal Settlement in Kisumu City, Kenya. Thesis , Maseno Univ., Kisumu, Kenya:
     [Google Scholar]
  160. 160.
    Thomas-Walters L, McNulty C, Veríssimo D. 2020.. A scoping review into the impact of animal imagery on pro-environmental outcomes. . Ambio 49:(6):1135–45
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  161. 161.
    Fukano Y, Tanaka Y, Soga M. 2020.. Zoos and animated animals increase public interest in and support for threatened animals. . Sci. Total Environ. 704::135352
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  162. 162.
    Acerbi A, Burns J, Cabuk U, Kryczka J, Trapp B, et al. 2023.. Sentiment analysis of the Twitter response to Netflix's Our Planet documentary. . Conserv. Biol. 37:(4):e14060
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  163. 163.
    Fernández-Bellon D, Kane A. 2020.. Natural history films raise species awareness—a big data approach. . Conserv. Lett. 13:(1):e12678
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  164. 164.
    Veríssimo D, Anderson S, Tlusty M. 2020.. Did the movie Finding Dory increase demand for blue tang fish?. Ambio 49:(4):903–11
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  165. 165.
    Silk MJ, Crowley SL, Woodhead AJ, Nuno A. 2018.. Considering connections between Hollywood and biodiversity conservation. . Conserv. Biol. 32:(3):597–606
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  166. 166.
    Megias DA, Anderson SC, Smith RJ, Veríssimo D. 2017.. Investigating the impact of media on demand for wildlife: a case study of Harry Potter and the UK trade in owls. . PLOS ONE 12:(10):e0182368
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  167. 167.
    Howlett K, Lee H-Y, Jaffé A, Lewis M, Turner EC. 2023.. Wildlife documentaries present a diverse, but biased, portrayal of the natural world. . People Nat. 5:(2):633–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  168. 168.
    Green KM, Crawford BA, Williamson KA, DeWan AA. 2019.. A meta-analysis of social marketing campaigns to improve global conservation outcomes. . Soc. Mark. Q. 25:(1):69–87
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  169. 169.
    Salazar G, Monroe MC, Ennes M, Jones JA, Veríssimo D. 2022.. Testing the influence of visual framing on engagement and pro-environmental action. . Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4:(10):e12812
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  170. 170.
    Salazar G, Neves J, Alves V, Silva B, Veríssimo D. 2021.. Picturing donations: Do images influence conservation fundraising?. PLOS ONE 16:(6):e0251882
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  171. 171.
    Luo Y, Douglas J, Pahl S, Zhao J. 2022.. Reducing plastic waste by visualizing marine consequences. . Environ. Behav. 54:(4):809–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  172. 172.
    Abrams KM, Leong K, Melena S, Teel T. 2020.. Encouraging safe wildlife viewing in national parks: effects of a communication campaign on visitors’ behavior. . Environ. Commun. 14:(2):255–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  173. 173.
    Sattler DN, Berg H, Grattan SR, Nelson A, Poppe M, et al. 2020.. Preventing wildlife crime with a focus on orangutans: applying social influence techniques to public education efforts. . Psychol. Mark. 37:(12):1790–96
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  174. 174.
    Celis-Diez JL, Díaz-Forestier J, Márquez-García M, Lazzarino S, Rozzi R, Armesto JJ. 2016.. Biodiversity knowledge loss in children's books and textbooks. . Front. Ecol. Environ. 14:(8):408–10
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  175. 175.
    Hooykaas MJD, Holierhoek MG, Westerveld JS, Schilthuizen M, Smeets I. 2022.. Animal biodiversity and specificity in children's picture books. . Public Underst. Sci. 31:(5):671–88
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  176. 176.
    Hathaway RS, Bryant A-EM, Draheim MM, Vinod P, Limaye S, Athreya V. 2017.. From fear to understanding: changes in media representations of leopard incidences after media awareness workshops in Mumbai, India. . J. Urban Ecol. 3:(1):jux009
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  177. 177.
    Bergman JN, Buxton RT, Lin H-Y, Lenda M, Attinello K, et al. 2022.. Evaluating the benefits and risks of social media for wildlife conservation. . FACETS 7::360–97
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  178. 178.
    Griffin LL, Nolan G, Haigh A, Condon H, O'Hagan E, et al. 2023.. How can we tackle interruptions to human-wildlife feeding management? Adding media campaigns to the wildlife manager's toolbox. . People Nat. 5:(4):1299–315
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  179. 179.
    Kubo T, Yokoo H-F, Veríssimo D. 2023.. Conservation fundraising: evidence from social media and traditional mail field experiments. . Conserv. Lett. 16:(1):e12931
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  180. 180.
    Harrington LA, Elwin A, D'Cruze N. 2023.. Elephant “selfies”: evaluating the effectiveness of Instagram's warning of the potential negative impacts of photo opportunities with wild animals. . PLOS ONE 18:(4):e0283858
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  181. 181.
    Shreedhar G. 2021.. Evaluating the impact of storytelling in Facebook advertisements on wildlife conservation engagement: lessons and challenges. . Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3:(11):e534
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  182. 182.
    Doughty H, Wright J, Veríssimo D, Lee JSH, Oliver K, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2020.. Strategic advertising of online news articles as an intervention to influence wildlife product consumers. . Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2:(10):e272
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  183. 183.
    USAID. 2022.. USAID reducing demand for wildlife: a meta-analysis of USAID Wildlife Asia Social and Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) campaigns. Rep. , USAID, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  184. 184.
    Dunn ME, Shah G, Veríssimo D. 2021.. Stepping into the Wildeverse: evaluating the impact of augmented reality mobile gaming on pro-conservation behaviours. . People Nat. 3:(6):1205–17
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  185. 185.
    Sandbrook C, Adams WM, Monteferri B. 2015.. Digital games and biodiversity conservation. . Conserv. Lett. 8:(2):118–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  186. 186.
    Fletcher R. 2017.. Gaming conservation: Nature 2.0 confronts nature-deficit disorder. . Geoforum 79::153–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  187. 187.
    We Are Social, Meltwater. 2023.. Digital 2023: global overview report. Rep. , We Are Social, London:. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-global-overview-report
    [Google Scholar]
  188. 188.
    Thomas-Walters L, Veríssimo D. 2022.. Cross-cultural mobile game evaluation shows improvement in environmental learning, but not behavior. . Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4:(9):e12784
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  189. 189.
    Dorward LJ, Mittermeier JC, Sandbrook C, Spooner F. 2017.. Pokémon Go: benefits, costs, and lessons for the conservation movement. . Conserv. Lett. 10:(1):160–65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  190. 190.
    Rangel DF, Lima JS, Da Silva EFN, de Aquino Ferreira K, Costa LL. 2022.. Pokémon as a playful and didactic tool for teaching about ecological interactions. . J. Biol. Educ. 58:(1):119–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  191. 191.
    Ardoin NM, Bowers AW, Gaillard E. 2020.. Environmental education outcomes for conservation: a systematic review. . Biol. Conserv. 241::108224
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  192. 192.
    Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. 2002.. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environ. Educ. Res. 8:(3):239–60
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  193. 193.
    van 't Veld K. 2020.. Eco-labels: modeling the consumer side. . Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12::187–207
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  194. 194.
    Majer JM, Henscher HA, Reuber P, Fischer-Kreer D, Fischer D. 2022.. The effects of visual sustainability labels on consumer perception and behavior: a systematic review of the empirical literature. . Sustain. Prod. Consum. 33::1–14
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  195. 195.
    Salzman J, Bennett G, Carroll N, Goldstein A, Jenkins M. 2018.. The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. . Nat. Sustain. 1:(3):136–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  196. 196.
    Rode J, Gómez-Baggethun E, Krause T. 2015.. Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. . Ecol. Econ. 117::270–82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  197. 197.
    Langpap C, Kerkvliet J, Shogren JF. 2017.. The economics of the U.S. Endangered Species Act: a review of recent developments. . Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 12:(1):6991
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  198. 198.
    Madrian BC. 2014.. Applying insights from behavioral economics to policy design. . Annu. Rev. Econ. 6::663–88
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  199. 199.
    Steg L. 2016.. Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41::277–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  200. 200.
    Jachimowicz JM, Duncan S, Weber EU, Johnson EJ. 2019.. When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects. . Behav. Public Policy 3:(2):159–86
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  201. 201.
    de Vries FP, Hanley N. 2016.. Incentive-based policy design for pollution control and biodiversity conservation: a review. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 63:(4):687–702
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  202. 202.
    Marteau TM, Fletcher PC, Hollands GJ, Munafò MR. 2020.. Changing behavior by changing environments. . In The Handbook of Behavior Change, ed. K Hamilton, LD Cameron, MS Hagger, N Hankonen, T Lintunen , pp. 193–207. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  203. 203.
    Theotokis A, Manganari E. 2015.. The impact of choice architecture on sustainable consumer behavior: the role of guilt. . J. Bus. Ethics 131:(2):423–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  204. 204.
    Young W, Davis M, McNeill IM, Malhotra B, Russell S, et al. 2015.. Changing behaviour: successful environmental programmes in the workplace. . Bus. Strategy Environ. 24:(8):689–703
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  205. 205.
    Holland RW, Aarts H, Langendam D. 2006.. Breaking and creating habits on the working floor: a field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42:(6):776–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  206. 206.
    Cairns S, Newson C, Davis A. 2010.. Understanding successful workplace travel initiatives in the UK. . Transp. Res. A 44:(7):473–94
     [Google Scholar]
  207. 207.
    Selinske MJ, Garrard GE, Gregg EA, Kusmanoff AM, Kidd LR, et al. 2020.. Identifying and prioritizing human behaviors that benefit biodiversity. . Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2:(9):e249
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  208. 208.
    Chancel L. 2022.. Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. . Nat. Sustain. 5:(11):931–38
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  209. 209.
    Open Sci. Collab. 2015.. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. . Science 349:(6251):aac4716
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  210. 210.
    Harris CR, Coburn N, Rohrer D, Pashler H. 2013.. Two failures to replicate high-performance-goal priming effects. . PLOS ONE 8:(8):e72467
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  211. 211.
    Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, et al. 2017.. A manifesto for reproducible science. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 1::0021
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-111522-103028
Loading
Changing Human Behavior to Conserve Biodiversity
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 49, 419 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-111522-103028
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-111522-103028
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-111522-103028
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error