Thomas‐Walters L, McCallum J, Montgomery R, Petros C, Wan AKY, Veríssimo D. Systematic review of conservation interventions to promote voluntary behavior change.
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2023;
37:e14000. [PMID:
36073364 PMCID:
PMC10108067 DOI:
10.1111/cobi.14000]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2022] [Revised: 08/22/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
Understanding human behavior is vital to developing interventions that effectively lead to proenvironmental behavior change, whether the focus is at the individual or societal level. However, interventions in many fields have historically lacked robust forms of evaluation, which makes it hard to be confident that these conservation interventions have successfully helped protect the environment. We conducted a systematic review to assess how effective nonpecuniary and nonregulatory interventions have been in changing environmental behavior. We applied the Office of Health Assessment and Translation systematic review methodology. We started with more than 300,000 papers and reports returned by our search terms and after critical appraisal of quality identified 128 individual studies that merited inclusion in the review. We classified interventions by thematic area, type of intervention, the number of times audiences were exposed to interventions, and the length of time interventions ran. Most studies reported a positive effect (n = 96). The next most common outcome was no effect (n = 28). Few studies reported negative (n = 1) or mixed (n = 3) effects. Education, prompts, and feedback interventions resulted in positive behavior change. Combining multiple interventions was the most effective. Neither exposure duration nor frequency affected the likelihood of desired behavioral change. Comparatively few studies tested the effects of voluntary interventions on non-Western populations (n = 17) or measured actual ecological outcome behavior (n = 1). Similarly, few studies examined conservation devices (e.g., energy-efficient stoves) (n = 9) and demonstrations (e.g., modeling the desired behavior) (n = 5). There is a clear need to both improve the quality of the impact evaluation conducted and the reporting standards for intervention results.
Collapse