Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T00:53:09.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Motivations for committed nature conservation action in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2017

JEROEN F. ADMIRAAL ,
RIYAN J.G. VAN DEN BORN ,
ALMUT BERINGER ,
FLAVIA BONAIUTO ,
LAVINIA CICERO ,
JUHA HIEDANPÄÄ ,
PAUL KNIGHTS ,
LUUK W.J. KNIPPENBERG ,
ERICA MOLINARIO  and
CORNELIS J.M. MUSTERS
...Show all authors
JEROEN F. ADMIRAAL*
Affiliation:
Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
RIYAN J.G. VAN DEN BORN
Affiliation:
Institute of Science, Innovation and Society. Faculty of Science. Radboud University. P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
ALMUT BERINGER
Affiliation:
Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology – Environmental Ethics, University of Greifswald, Soldmannstrasse 15, 17487 Greifswald, Germany
FLAVIA BONAIUTO
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Sapienza Università di Roma, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Rome, Italy
LAVINIA CICERO
Affiliation:
Department of Human Studies, LUMSA University, Piazza delle Vaschette 101, 00193 Rome, Italy
JUHA HIEDANPÄÄ
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland, Itäinen Pitkäkatu 3, 20520 Turku, Finland
PAUL KNIGHTS
Affiliation:
Philosophy, School of Social Sciences, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
LUUK W.J. KNIPPENBERG
Affiliation:
Institute of Science, Innovation and Society. Faculty of Science. Radboud University. P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
ERICA MOLINARIO
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Sapienza Università di Roma, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Rome, Italy
CORNELIS J.M. MUSTERS
Affiliation:
Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
OSMA NAUKKARINEN
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland, Itäinen Pitkäkatu 3, 20520 Turku, Finland
KATARINA POLAJNAR
Affiliation:
Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, P.P. 306, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
FLORIN POPA
Affiliation:
European Commission, DG Education and Culture, Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium
ALES SMREKAR
Affiliation:
Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, P.P. 306, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
TIINA SOININEN
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland, Itäinen Pitkäkatu 3, 20520 Turku, Finland
CARMEN PORRAS-GOMEZ
Affiliation:
BIOGOV, Centre for Philosophy of Law, College Thomas More, Université Catholique de Louvain, Place Montesquieu 2 (Bte 15) B - 1348 Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium
NATHALIE SOETHE
Affiliation:
Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology – Environmental Ethics, University of Greifswald, Soldmannstrasse 15, 17487 Greifswald, Germany
JOSE-LUIS VIVERO-POL
Affiliation:
BIOGOV, Centre for Philosophy of Law, College Thomas More, Université Catholique de Louvain, Place Montesquieu 2 (Bte 15) B - 1348 Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium
WOUTER T. DE GROOT
Affiliation:
Institute of Science, Innovation and Society. Faculty of Science. Radboud University. P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
*
*Correspondence: Dr Jeroen F. Admiraal email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Despite ongoing efforts to motivate politicians and publics in Europe regarding nature conservation, biodiversity continues to decline. Monetary valuation of ecosystem services appears to be insufficient to motivate people, suggesting that non-monetary values have a crucial role to play. There is insufficient information about the motivations of actors who have been instrumental in successful conservation projects. We investigated the motivations underlying these biodiversity actors using the ranking of cards and compared the results with the rankings of motivations of a second group of actors with more socially related interests. For both groups of actors, their action relating to biodiversity was supported in general by two groups of motivations related to living a meaningful life and moral values. The non-biodiversity actors also noted that their action relating to biodiversity rested more on beauty, place attachment and intrinsic values in comparison with their main non-biodiversity interests. Our results have implications for environmental policy and biodiversity conservation in that the current tendency of focusing on the economic valuation of biodiversity fails to address the motivations of successful actors, thereby failing to motivate nature conservation on an individual level.

Keywords

biodiversity conservationecosystem servicesenvironmental policyeconomic valuation
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 148 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Supplementary material can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291700008X

References

Admiraal, J.F., Musters, C.J.M. & de Snoo, G.R. (2016) The loss of biodiversity conservation in EU research programmes: thematic shifts in biodiversity wording in the environment themes of EU research programmes FP7 and Horizon 2020. Journal for Nature Conservation 30: 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asah, S.T. & Blahna, D.J. (2013) Practical implications of understanding the influence of motivations on commitment to voluntary urban conservation stewardship. Conservation Biology 27: 866–875.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-9 [www document]. URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 Google Scholar
BIOMOT (2013) Motivation for Biodiversity Action: Vocabulary, Theories and Framework. L. Knippenberg (ed.) [www document]. URL http://www.biomotivation.eu/docs/BIOMOT_CC_document_July_2013.pdf Google Scholar
Boitani, L., & Sutherland, W.J. (2015) Conservation in Europe as a model for emerging conservation issues globally. Conservation Biology 29: 975–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, W.F. & Acott, T.G. (2007) An inquiry concerning the acceptance of intrinsic value theories of nature. Environmental Values 16: 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrus, G., Passafaro, P. & Bonnes, M. (2008) Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C.F., Kotchen, M.J. & Moore, M.R. (2003) Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corral-Verdugo, V., Fraijo-Sing, B. & Pinheiro, J.Q. (2006) Sustainable behavior and time perspective: present, past, and future orientations and their relationship with water conservation behavior. Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology 40: 139–147.Google Scholar
Dedeurwaerdere, T., Admiraal, J.F., Beringer, A., Bonaiuto, F., Cicero, L., Fernandez-Wulff, P., Hagens, J., Hiedanpaa, J., Knights, P., Molinario, E., Melindi-Ghidi, P., Popa, F., Silc, U., Soethe, N., Soininen, T. & Vivero, J.L. (2016) Combining internal and external motivations in multi-actor governance arrangements for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy 58: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, M. & Van den Born, R.J.G. (2007) Humans, nature and god: exploring images of their interrelationships in Victoria, Canada. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 11: 324–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EEA (2015) State of nature in the EU; results from reporting under the nature directives 2007–2012. EEA (European Environment Agency) [www document]. URL http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu Google Scholar
EU (2015) Special Eurobarometer 436 ‘Attitudes of Europeans towards biodiversity’. ISBN 978-92-79-50788-5. TNS opinion, Brussels. European Union [www document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2091 Google Scholar
Flint, C.G., Kunze, I., Muhar, A., Yoshida, Y. & Penker, M. (2013) Exploring empirical typologies of human–nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landscape and Urban Planning 120: 208–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S.T. (2014) Social Beings: A Core Motives Approach to Social Psychology. 4th edition. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. (2014) Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. International Journal of Psychology 49: 141–157.Google ScholarPubMed
Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Ruiz-Pérez, M. (2011) Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography 35: 613–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grendstad, G. & Wollebaek, D. (1998) Greener still? An empirical examination of Eckersley's ecocentric approach. Environment & Behavior 30: 653–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, C.C., Cinner, J.E., Stoeckl, N. & McClanahan, T.R. (2015) Linking ecosystem services and human-values theory. Conservation Biology 29: 1471–1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiedanpää, J. & Borgström, S. (2014) Why do some institutional arrangements succeed? Voluntary protection of forest biodiversity in Southwestern Finland and of the Golden Eagle in Finnish Lapland. Nature Conservation 7: 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPBES (2015) The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [www document]. URL http://www.ipbes.net/about-us Google Scholar
Jagers, S.C. & Matti, S. (2010) Ecological citizens: identifying values and beliefs that support individual environmental responsibility among Swedes. Sustainability 2: 1055–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, W., Boster, J.S. & Hartley, J.A. (1995) Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8: 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruglanski, A.W., Chen, X., Dechesne, M., Fishman, S. & Orehek, E. (2009) Fully committed: suicide bombers’ motivation and the quest for personal significance. Political Psychology 30: 331–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, F.S. & Frantz, C.M. (2004) The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MEA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Muraca, B. (2011) The map of moral significance: a new matrix for environmental ethics. Environmental Values 20: 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolt, J. (2006) The move from good to ought in environmental ethics. Environmental Ethics 28: 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norgaard, R.B. (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69: 1219–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, D. (1976) Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press.Google Scholar
O'Neill, J. (1997) Managing without prices: the monetary valuation of biodiversity. Ambio 26: 546–550.Google Scholar
O'Neill, J. & Spash, C.L. (2000) Conceptions of value in environmental decision-making. Environmental Values 9: 521–536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D. (2007) Do we really care about Biodiversity? Environmental and Resource Economics 37: 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, H.E. (2010) Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Core Team, R (2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Richards, R. (2001) A new aesthetic for environmental awareness: chaos theory, the beauty of nature, and our broader humanistic identity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 41: 59–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rode, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Krause, T. (2015) Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics 109: 270–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55: 68–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, R.M., Huta, V. & Deci, E.L. (2008) Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies 9: 139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryff, C.D. & Singer, B.H. (2008) Know thyself and become what you are: a eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 9: 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, P.W. (2000) Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues 56: 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, P.W. (2001) The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S.H. (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sponarski, C.C., Vaske, J.J., Bath, A.J. & Musiani, M.M. (2014) Salient values, social trust, and attitudes toward wolf management in south-western Alberta, Canada. Environmental Conservation 41: 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tam, K.P. (2013) Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: similarities and Differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 34: 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TEEB (2013) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. A synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB [www document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics Google Scholar
Tittensor, D.P. et al. (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346: 241–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Born, R.J.G., Lenders, R.H.J., De Groot, W.T. & Huijsman, E. (2001) The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environmental Conservation 28: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Born, R.J.G. (2008) Rethinking nature: public visions in The Netherlands. Environmental Values 17: 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Werff, E., Steg, L. & Keizer, K. (2013) The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 34: 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D.R. & Vaske, J.J. (2003) The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science 49: 830–840.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Admiraal supplementary material

Table S1

Download Admiraal supplementary material(File)
File 30.9 KB