Systematic map of conservation psychology.

Conservation science and practice commonly draw on the theories and methods of social psychology to explain human cognition, emotion, and behavior germane to biodiversity conservation. We created a systematic map of the cross-disciplinary conservation science literature, which 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 multidisciplinary conservation journals. We sought to catalog the literature, elucidate trends and gaps, and critically reflect on the state of conservation psychology and its research practices that aim to influence conservation outcomes. The volume of publications per year and per decade increased from 1974 to 2016. Although a diversity of research designs and methods was applied, studies disproportionately focused on specific concepts (attitudes and beliefs), locations (North America and Europe), and contexts (terrestrial, rural). Studies also tended to be descriptive, quantitative, and atheoretical in nature. Our findings demonstrate that although conservation psychology has generally become more visible and prominent, it has done so within a limited space and suggest that disciplinary research principles and reporting standards must be more universally adopted by traditional and multidisciplinary conservation journals to raise the floor of empirical research.

Mapeo Sistemático de la Psicología de la Conservación Resumen Con frecuencia, la ciencia y la práctica de la conservación parten de las teorías y los métodos de la psicología social para explicar las facultades cognitivas, las emociones y el comportamiento humano relacionado con la conservación de la biodiversidad. Creamos un mapa sistemático de la literatura sobre las ciencias interdisciplinarias de la conservación, cuya aplicación está basada en los conceptos y métodos de la psicología social y el cual está caracterizado en términos generales como psicología de la conservación. Usamos protocolos establecidos para recolectar y cotejar investigaciones revisadas por pares publicadas en una selección explícita de revistas científicas multidisciplinarias sobre conservación. Buscamos catalogar la literatura, esclarecer tendencias y vacíos y reflexionar de manera importante sobre el estado de la psicología de la conservación y sus prácticas de investigación que se enfocan en influir sobre los resultados de conservación. El volumen de publicaciones por año y por década incrementó desde 1974 hasta 2016. Aunque se aplicaron diversos métodos y diseños de investigación, los estudios estuvieron enfocados desproporcionadamente en conceptos específicos (actitudes y creencias), localidades (América del Norte y Europa) y contextos (terrestre, rural). Los estudios también tendieron a ser descriptivos, cuantitativos y de naturaleza carente de teoría. Nuestros hallazgos demuestran que, aunque la psicología de la conservación se ha vuelto más visible y prominente de manera general, lo ha hecho dentro de un espacio limitado que sugiere que los principios de investigación disciplinaria y los estándares de reporte deben ser adoptados más universalmente por las revistas científicas de conservación tradicionales y multidisciplinarias para incrementar el nivel de la investigación empírica.

Normative Influences on Farmers' Intentions to Practice Conservation Without Compensation.

Non-source nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous) from agriculture have created a massive hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. This zone contains no oxygen and is devoid of life. US Department of Agriculture programs provide direct payments to farmers to encourage adoption of practices that reduce nutrient pollution. Paying farmers to change behavior, however, is expensive. Personal and social norms may serve to reduce these payment costs by motivating farmers to take action without external reward. This study explored relationships between three normative concepts (awareness of consequences (AC), ascription of responsibility (AR), subjective norms (SN)) and Illinois farmers' intention to continue participation in conservation without financial compensation. Data were obtained from a mailed questionnaire. Only farmers who were currently being paid to participate in a conservation program were included in the analysis (n = 551). Using norm activation theory and the theory of reasoned action, we hypothesized that SN would be positively related to AC, AR, and conservation intentions without compensation. We also predicted that AC would be positively related to AR, and that AC and AR would be positively related to conservation intentions. All hypotheses were supported. Both personal norms (AC, AR) and social norms (subjective norms) were related to intentions to continue conservation without pay. Behavioral interventions that activate norms may help facilitate conservation without payments. As applied in this study, activating personal and social norms may serve to reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture that is flowing into the Gulf of Mexico and resulting in the hypoxic zone.

Assessing Illinois Residents' Support for Natural Recolonization of Apex Predators.

Understanding sources of difference in public attitudes toward wildlife is critical for the design of effective policy instruments. In this article we explored the role of wildlife value orientations and stakeholder group membership (general public versus agricultural producers) in shaping residents support for the natural recolonization of apex predators (black bear, cougar, gray wolf), in Illinois, USA. Results demonstrate differences in attitudes toward recolonization as a function of residents' basic beliefs about the human-wildlife relationship and stakeholder group membership. Results revealed varying degrees of opposition and/or antipathy toward recolonization of apex predators across wildlife values types and stakeholder groups. Individuals that were identified to hold utilitarian beliefs about wildlife (traditionalist orientation) and agricultural producers were found to exhibit the most negative attitudes toward natural recolonization, compared to individuals that believe wildlife have intrinsic rights (mutualist orientation) or members of the general public. Individuals' attitudes toward the recolonization of black bears were found to differ according to their wildlife value orientations, stakeholder group membership, and the combination of the two factors.