Human Ecology Forum

The Emerging Field of Conservation Psychology

Carol D. Saunders
Communications Research and Conservation Psychology
Brookfield Zoo, Brookfield, IL 60513 USA1

Abstract ence and a more compelling language to express what we

value and love. The magnitude and urgency of these prob-
The growing recognition that the social sciences play a lems present new challenges and opportunities for the social
key role in conservation requires more efficient ways for sciences in general, and for psychology in particular.
working together toward a common mission. A new field of The current frameworks for thinking about environmen-
conservation psychology is proposed to create stronger con- tal research are grounded in the natural sciences. Yet, be-
nections between the natural and social sciences, between cause humans are the source of the problems as well as the
research and practice, and between psychology and the other hope for solutions, the role of the social sciences has grown
social sciences. The purpose of such a network is to conduct in importance. As experts in human behavior, psychologists
psychological research that is directly oriented toward the have provided a number of approaches for understanding the
goal of environmental sustainability. To better understand cognitions, attitudes, motives, beliefs, values, and types of
the promise of conservation psychology, it is compared to behaviors related to conservation issues (e.g., Cvetkovich and
other fields, such as conservation biology and environmental Werner 1994; Gardner and Stern 2002; Bechtel and
psychology. Potential conservation psychology research top- Churchman 2002; Winter and Koger 2003; Nickerson 2003).
ics are discussed in relation to two broad outcome areas: a) Recently, there has been increasing attention to psychology’s
motivating people to act in more environmentally-friendly role in promoting environmentalism and environmental sus-
ways and b) encouraging people to care about the natural tainability (e.g., Oskamp et al. 2000; Zelezny and Schultz
world and their role in it. Within these outcome areas, 2000; Werner 1999; Kurz 2002; Schmuck and Schultz 2002).
research can be focused at the individual or the group level. Despite the ways psychology has explored conservation-
The type of research will range from more theoretical related problems, it is far from reaching its full potential
approaches to more applied, and examples are provided for (Kidner 1994). The topic is not a priority for most psycholo-
such a continuum. The dynamic process by which social sci- gists because they tend to study relationships between people,
entists and practitioners identify high-priority research ques- rather than relationships between people and the natural
tions is another important aspect of conservation psychology. world. Psychologists have much to offer in terms of under-
standing human-nature experiences and what motivates peo-
Keywords: conservation psychology, environmental psy- ple to protect such relationships. Another problem is that like
chology, sustainable relationship with nature, environmental- other scientists, psychologists are often content to describe
ly responsible behavior, human-nature relationships, environ- how things are, rather than explore how to empower people to
mental values make different choices. Finally, we are all handicapped by the
boundaries of our disciplinary homes and frameworks, even
though we recognize the need for interdisciplinary thinking.
As we begin a new century, environmental deterioration Psychology needs to apply its extensive toolkit of constructs
remains one of the most serious and daunting challenges and methods more effectively toward conservation issues, and
facing humanity. Globalization and other factors have con- it needs to be aware of approaches by other disciplines.
tributed to a future that is not sustainable,2 and a different A number of us have been exploring a new way for psy-
response is required from the sciences (Kates et al. 2001; chologists and other social scientists to organize ourselves,
Capra 2002). Not only is environmental sustainability an which we are calling Conservation Psychology. This area is
ecological crisis, it also includes the viability of socially emerging to join fields like Human Ecology to help forge
shaped relationships between people and nature (Becker et al. additional strategic connections between the natural and
1999). The destruction of natural environments threatens the social sciences, and between the applied and theoretical
well-being of humans in ways we are only beginning to worlds. It is also a possible way to mobilize sub-disciplines
appreciate. We need sweeping changes in human behavior to within psychology toward sustainability issues. In this arti-
lessen our collective impact on the natural environment. We cle, I attempt to articulate what this new field includes. I will
also need a better understanding of the human-nature experi- start by offering a definition of conservation psychology and

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003 137

Human Ecology Forum

describe its relationships to other fields. I will then speculate (Myers 2003). Psychology is comprised of both pure and
about the types of research topics that conservation psychol- applied sciences, and both aspects are found within conserva-
ogy might address. I will propose that one of the fundamen- tion psychology. Sommer (2000) observed that many appar-
tal characteristics of conservation psychology is the attempt ent disagreements over the names of specialty areas are the
to understand self-in-relation to nature in order to develop a result of inconsistent use of terms such as discipline and field
more powerful vocabulary for influencing the public dis- of study. Using his distinctions, psychology is a discipline
course and producing enduring behavior change. I will end because it is a branch of instruction where members are
with some ideas for how conservation psychologists might trained and they use a shared epistemology. There are many
work together. subdisciplines within psychology such as experimental psy-
chology, developmental psychology, and environmental psy-
Definition of Conservation Psychology chology. In contrast, people in a field of study have been
trained in various disciplines and professions but all focus on
Conservation psychology is the scientific study a common problem area. It seems that the most appropriate
of the reciprocal relationships between humans and way to think about conservation psychology is as a field of
the rest of nature, with a particular focus on how to study. It has a strong psychology focus but not exclusively so.
encourage conservation of the natural world. Conservation psychology can also be defined by how it
Conservation psychology is an applied field that functions as a network of researchers and practitioners. The
uses psychological principles, theories, or methods researchers include psychologists and other social scientists.
to understand and solve issues related to human The practitioners (non-scientists) can represent many per-
aspects of conservation. It has a strong mission spectives, ranging from environmental educators and envi-
focus in that it is motivated by the need to encour- ronmental communicators to policy makers. Possible part-
age people to care about and take care of the nat- ners include any entities or settings that communicate to, or
ural world. In addition to being a field of study, empower, audiences about conservation. The iterative way
conservation psychology is also the actual network the research questions are identified is key to the process.
of researchers and practitioners who work together While most academic scientists engage in investigator-initiat-
to understand and promote a sustainable and har- ed research, it is important for conservation psychologists to
monious relationship between people and the natur- focus on high priority, real-world issues by being attentive to
al environment. problems identified by practitioners. Likewise, practitioners
should be applying the most current principles from the
I would like to emphasize several aspects of the above
research literature, which in turn creates an experimental set-
definition.3 First of all, the word conservation is associated
ting for further research. I like the metaphor suggested by
with a rich scientific and philosophical history. Its primary
Soule (1986) for conservation biology of “a shuttle bus going
historical meaning in the United States is the protection,
back and forth, with a cargo of ideas, guidelines, and empir-
improvement, and wise use of “natural resources” to provide
ical results in one direction, and a cargo of issues, problems,
the greatest value for the present and future. Conservation
criticism, constraints, and changed conditions in the other.”
implies active management of human-nature interactions, as
The result is high-quality research that addresses urgent and
compared to “preservation,” which usually involves setting
practical needs.
aside scenic or fragile areas to minimize human impact or for
amenity or existence values. By its very nature, conservation
is value-driven because it focuses on benefits. Usually those
Relationship to Other Fields
benefits refer to humans, but the emphasis could also be on
Comparison to Conservation Biology
creating a more sustainable world for the many life forms that
There are many similarities between conservation psy-
share the planet. In his classic essay, Leopold (1949) argued
chology and the established field of conservation biology
for a new land ethic where humans live harmoniously within
(see Saunders and Myers 2001). Conservation biology was
nature. Conservation psychology aims to understand and
originally conceptualized as a “crisis” discipline, with the
promote such human-nature connections. The fact that val-
goal of providing principles and tools for preserving biodi-
ues guide the choice of conservation psychology research
versity (Soule 1985). The mission of preserving biodiversity
questions does not invalidate the research, as long as the
is clearly value-driven and implies an urgency, and yet the
analyses are conducted as objectively as possible. Values are
techniques of conservation biology are scientific ones. The
actually a factor in all research.
research questions and methods are derived from a broad
The other part of the name, psychology, is defined as the
range of pure and applied fields (see Figure 1). Most of the
scientific study of human thought, feeling, and behavior

138 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003

 Human Ecology Forum

Tools provided by cognitive and physiological psychologists

Clinical psychology
biogeography

y
atio

olog
Historical

Eco
can help reveal underlying mechanisms for how humans

valu

ps y

sych
bio

gy
s
Isla ogra

lo
En

de
e

cho
ge

nc

ho
ps viro experience nature. Organizational psychologists could offer

lth p
nd phy

cie

zar

yc
log
ls yc nm

ps
Hea
ho e
Ha
Po
cia

ive
p lo nta l
bio ulat So ona insights about how to promote pro-environmental values and

sit
gy l
log ion ers y

Po
phy Hum
y oso an d nsp log
hil ime Tra sycho
cop
E nsio
ns p
al
inspire conserving practices within organizations. Clinical
Physiologic y
Ecology CONSERVATION
BIOLOGY
Natural resources
fields
Environmental
sociology
CONSERVATION
PSYCHOLOGY
psycholog and health psychologists could join efforts by ecopsycholo-
Consumer
avio
ral En
vi Hum
an ec
ology psycholog
y
gists to better understand the restorative and healing aspects
Beh iology mo ronm ity Co
b nit en
ori tal
ng
mun gy
m olo
Co ych
ps gn
yc itiv
ho e
log
of nature (e.g., Irvine and Warber 2002; Roszak et al. 1995).
cs

cho ring
Ve edici

De psyc
ps

y
y
ti

holo al
Newer subdisciplines of positive psychology (Seligman and
Physiology

m
ter ne

log
ne

Applied psychology

ve ho
Socia
psyc ization
psy inee

gy
Ge

ina

lop log
Eng

me y
ry

Csikszentmihaly 2000), community psychology (Dalton et al.

l p sy

nta
an
Org

l
cholo
2001), and transpersonal psychology (Braud and Anderson

gy
Figure 1. Conservation biology and conservation psychology are both 1998) all might provide useful ways of conceptualizing the
synthetic fields that mobilize contributions from other fields and subdis- relationship between people and the natural world. There are
ciplines toward conservation-related missions. many other possibilities.

content areas contributing to conservation biology are related Comparison to Environmental Psychology
to the natural sciences, but conservation biologists have Environmental psychology (EP) is the existing area
acknowledged that biological knowledge alone is not suffi- within psychology that is most like conservation psychology.
cient to solve conservation problems (e.g., Mascia et al. Defined as the study of the interactions between humans and
2003). In fact, Lidicker (1998) concluded that “conservation the environment, EP includes the application of psychologi-
needs conservation biologists for sure, but it also needs con- cal approaches to the solution of environmental problems.
servation sociologists, conservation political scientists, con- During the 1970s, when there was increased interest in envi-
servation chemists, conservation economists, conservation ronmental issues, the American Psychological Association
psychologists, and conservation humanitarians.” established Division 34 (Population and Environmental
Like conservation biology, conservation psychology has Psychology) as a subdisciplinary unit. Even before Division
a mission focus, which is to conduct psychological research 34 was created, there was an interest in Environment and
that is oriented toward environmental sustainability. This Behavior as a bigger umbrella concept, which was more like
mission directly complements that of conservation biology. an organized field of study, open to people from many disci-
It is driven by problem situations where humans are chal- plines. The Environmental Design Research Association
lenged to live in greater harmony with land and other species. (EDRA) has provided a home for such a field. Because envi-
As a result, conservation psychologists will have to be at least ronmental psychology operates both as a subdiscipline with-
minimally conversant with the natural scientists with whom in psychology and as a field, this has created some confusion
they work. A promising approach that draws on both biolog- (Sommer 2000).
ical and social sciences to support conservation practitioners A recent handbook edited by Bechtel and Churchman
is adaptive management (Salafsky et al. 2002; Norton unpub- (2002) provides an idea of the current scope of environmen-
lished paper; see also earlier work by Lee 1993). tal psychology. Much of the past emphasis has been on the
Another similarity with conservation biology is the way built environment. Also there has been a tendency to look at
conservation psychology is organized. It intersects with a the effects of environments on human behavior rather than
variety of subdisciplines within psychology, each with theo- the reverse, although there is a growing body of research
retical frameworks and methodologies that could contribute devoted to environmentally-responsible behavior. Despite
toward its mission (see Figure 1). For example, many contri- the overlapping interests, there are significant ways that con-
butions have already been made by the subdisciplines of servation psychology (CP) differs from environmental psy-
social and environmental psychology about environmental chology (EP). Most notably:
attitudes, values, and how to encourage environmentally- • CP emphasizes relationships with the natural world,
responsible behavior (e.g., Gardner and Stern 2002; Bechtel whereas EP focuses on both the built and natural envi-
and Churchman 2002; Schultz and Oskamp 2000). Social ronments
psychologists also study how the natural environment plays a • CP is envisioned to function more like a superfield
part in personal and social identities (Clayton and Opotow in rather than a subdiscipline
press). More attention is needed from developmental psy- • CP actively recruits large numbers of other psycholo-
chologists on how relationships with the natural world devel- gy specialists to apply their skills to conservation
op (e.g., Kahn 1997, 1999; Nevers et al. 1997; Myers 1998). problems

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003 139

Human Ecology Forum

• CP attempts to catalyze contributions from other institutional frameworks, economic processes, technologies,
social sciences by orienting more strongly around a and cultural beliefs. Martinez-Alier (1999) talks about it as a
conservation mission transdisciplinary field that includes the intersection of eco-
• CP practitioners play a strong role in helping to shape logical economics, political ecology, and more conventional
the research questions approaches in human ecology. The human social system and
ecosystem services are central concepts, but Human Ecology
Other Relationships also includes other psychological variables.
Conservation psychology will need to work closely Human Dimensions is another field of social science
with other social science umbrella groups that are devoted to research. It studies human interactions with the environment,
conservation issues. Some of these groups are included in especially human behavior associated with natural resource
Figure 1.4 While the boundaries between these fields are management. This area of study exists in several forms,
often fuzzy ones, there are many opportunities for cross fer- whether it is Human Dimensions of Wildlife5 or Human
tilization and collaboration. In addition, the histories of these Dimensions of Global Change6 or some other focus. One of
complementary areas provide insights about the struggles of its goals is to apply concepts and empirical findings to real-
maintaining a large enough vision and operating as a super- world, contemporary problems of management. Although
field. current research in this area often emphasizes public prefer-
Environmental Sociology is an area of research that ences regarding narrowly defined natural resources, there is a
emerged in the late 1960s when awareness of environmental growing interest in the overall psychology of resource deci-
problems was growing rapidly. While psychologists tend to sion making. Research results are used in the policy devel-
focus on individuals, sociologists talk about groups, commu- opment, implementation, and evaluation processes of a wide
nities, and societies. Thus, the types of interactions studied array of policymakers, especially those in state and federal
by environmental sociologists are between the physical envi- agencies. Human dimensions professionals are found in dif-
ronment, social organizations, and social behavior. Much ferent groups, including the International Association for
work has been done on public attitudes toward the environ- Society and Natural Resources which promotes the applica-
ment, and assessment of the social impacts/dimensions of tion of social science in addressing natural resources issues
proposed projects that involve environmental change. and management problems.
Research related to the revised New Environmental Paradigm The fact that there are a number of related specialty
Scale (Dunlap et al. 2000), and the norm activation model of groups in a range of professional societies illustrates the
environmental concern and behavior from cultural psycholo- interest in studying human aspects of conservation.7 Having
gy (Schwartz 1977) are examples of important intersection multiple lenses of social inquiry can be stimulating but it can
points for conservation psychology (see also Dunlap and also point to the lack of a cohesive community. Instead of
Michelson 2002). Environmental sociology was originally leading to a further diffusion of efforts, we hope that conser-
considered a way to reorient sociology toward a more holis- vation psychology will help facilitate some much-needed
tic perspective, but it is often viewed more like a sub-disci- connections. It might even be a vehicle for more efficient
pline rather than a scholarly cause (Buttel 1987). There is sharing of research. To do this, we believe conservation psy-
continued tension between fostering research at the sub-dis- chology should be defined around outcome areas that support
cipline level versus defining a stand-alone empirical field of its mission. By addressing a more strategic set of problems,
research. the specifics for how CP collaborates with practitioners and
Also at the sociological/anthropological level, Human other specialists in the social and natural sciences will
Ecology looks at how human systems relate to and interact become more evident. In the next section, I will sketch a pos-
with the ecological systems on which they depend (Marten sible framework for conservation psychology research areas.
2001). Readers of this journal are no doubt familiar with the
history of this field. Although the term human ecology was Outcome Areas for
first introduced in the 1920s by a small group of urban soci- Conservation Psychology Research
ologists, there was more emphasis in the 1970s on the fact
that humans are subject to the same ecological limitations as The science of conservation psychology is oriented
other animals. By the 1980s, biological ecologists and social toward environmental sustainability, which includes concerns
scientists were working together in multidisciplinary re- like conservation of resources, conservation of ecosystems,
search teams addressing practical problems involving the and quality of life issues for humans and other species.8
environment. Human ecology often includes the social per- There are many research pathways that will support the end
ception of material and energy flows as well as mediation by goal of environmental sustainability. Not only will each sub-

140 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003

 Human Ecology Forum

discipline of psychology offer a different perspective, the research is related to encouraging a person to bond with ele-
research process itself can involve different levels of partici- ments in nature, whether those elements are particular ani-
pation by non-scientists. What characterizes CP research is mals, plants, species, places, or ecosystems. Much of this
that in addition to descriptive and theoretical analyses, stud- research involves emotional connections with nature, envi-
ies will explore how to cause the kinds of changes that lessen ronmental identity, value formation and the development of
the impact of human behavior on the natural environment, an environmental ethic. Group-level caring research is more
and that lead to more sustainable and harmonious relation- related to establishing a richer human-nature language that
ships (e.g., Zelezny and Schultz 2000; Werner 1999). This might lead to changing the societal discourse/social norms
goal requires that psychologists play a more active role, related to nature. Finally, for both outcome areas, the type of
focusing on conservation-related issues in the first place, and research will range from more theoretical approaches to more
experimenting with different approaches to see their effect on applied, as indicated by the third dimension. I will use the
desired outcomes. framework provided in Figure 2 to discuss examples of con-
Several authors have suggested possible research areas servation psychology research topics.
for psychologists interested in sustainability issues. Oskamp
(2002) offers a number of specific ideas in terms of the level Conservation Behaviors
of the research questions (individual or group approaches) A key assumption underlying environmental sustainabil-
and the type of research needs (measurement research, corre- ity is the need to decrease the negative impact of humans, as
lational studies of naturally occurring relationships, or inter- well as the need to encourage environmentally-friendly
vention research). Other topics for future psychological re- behaviors. Collectively, any activities that support sustain-
search have been identified by Cvetkovich and Werner ability, either by reducing harmful behaviors or by adopt-
(1994), Gardner and Stern (1996), Winter (1996),Werner ing helpful ones, can be called conservation behaviors.9
(1999), Nickerson (2003), and others. Many of the research Achieving more sustainable relationships with nature will
needs that have been identified would fit well under a con- basically require that large numbers of people change their
servation psychology umbrella. reproductive and consumptive behaviors. In the grandest
For the purpose of discussion, I propose two broad out- sense, such behavior change is the ultimate outcome for a
come categories as a way to organize CP research questions. science of conservation psychology. But this outcome area
I recognize that much of my own thinking has concentrated quickly becomes complex as we try to identify the specific
on biodiversity issues and education/communication chal- types of direct and indirect behaviors that are included. Both
lenges involving American audiences, so I invite others to Stern (2000) and Gough (2002) have pointed out that pro-
add to this framework. My suggestion is that many of the environmental behavior actually includes a number of di-
research topics addressed by conservation psychology will be mensions, each associated with different causal factors. See
related to: Monroe (this issue) for a further discussion of this matter.
• how humans behave towards nature (with the goal of
creating durable behavior change at multiple levels
and sustainable relationships), and/or
• how humans care about/value nature (with the goal of
creating harmonious relationships and an environmen-
rch
tal ethic) ea
R es
This distinction emphasizes the reciprocal quality of of
p es
Ty
relationships between humans and the rest of nature. The
first research area focuses on what humans do for nature, Conservation Caring about/
About/
Behaviors Valuing
Valuing Nature
Nature
while the second category explores what nature means to
humans. These outcomes are diagrammed in Figure 2. Ob-
Individual Level

Personal connections
viously, there will be linkages between the two columns (i.e., Individual
behaviors to animals, places,
ecosystems, etc.
caring might lead to behavior change and vice versa). Within
Evaluative
the outcome areas, research questions might focus at the indi- (Measuring success)
Group Level

vidual level or at the group level. For example, in terms of Applied

Collective Social norms (Identifying effective strategies)
behavioral outcomes, models can address changing an indi- action & discourses

vidual’s behavior as one focus, or the behaviors of business- Theoretical

(Developing conceptual models)
es/governments and issues related to policy change. In terms Figure 2. One way to organize possible Conservation Psychology
of the caring about/valuing nature outcomes, individual-level research areas.

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003 141

Human Ecology Forum

Understanding the Psychology of Behavior Change. An ter sustainable behavior...Psychologists need to

important research area for conservation psychology will participate with program planners in an ongoing
involve contributions to the theoretical frameworks by which dialogue to ensure that their research efforts are
we understand conservation behaviors. There has been a both informed and informative. (2000)
rapid increase in the number of conceptual models and stud-
Werner (1999), Kaplan (2000), DeYoung (2000), Bator
ies directed toward how to promote conservation behaviors,
and Cialdini (2000), and McKenzie-Mohr (2000) are some
and psychological constructs are involved in every one.
of the researchers who have attempted to identify behavior
Recent reviews by Stern (2000), Vining and Ebreo (2002),
change strategies based on principles derived from the litera-
and Kollmus and Agyeman (2002) provide helpful sum-
ture. Strategies range from creating a sense of “being need-
maries of many of these approaches and offer steps toward
ed” (Kaplan 1990) to social marketing (McKenzie-Mohr
more integrated conceptions. We will continue to need ways
2000), which is a technique for targeting a specific behavior
to compare these models and their underlying assumptions.
by understanding the barriers and benefits of doing that be-
For example, Kurz (2002) suggests there are four psycholog-
havior. See Monroe (this issue) for an overview of some of
ical approaches to environmentally sustainable behavior: 1)
the more commonly advanced models, along with related
rational-economic models, 2) social-dilemmas models, 3)
behavior change strategies.
attitude models, and 4) models based on behavior modifica-
We also need more studies that directly compare the
tion and learning theory. Another example is the pro-social,
explanatory power of the various models empirically (e.g.,
altruistic context for Schwartz’s (1977) norm activation
Stern et al. 1999; Bamberg and Schmidt 2003), as well as
model versus the cost/benefit assumption underlying Ajzen
studies that allow us to match models to critical contextual
and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action.
variables. We can then use those results to create more effec-
Within the models, we will need more precise articula-
tive behavior change strategies. However, rather than choos-
tions of the psychological constructs and of the causal path-
ing the one best model, it is more likely that practitioners will
ways. This will involve more careful operational definitions
use a combination of strategies, based on the empirical
of the dependent variable(s) and the hypothesized deter-
results and the specifics of the need.
minants of pro-environmental behavior, as well as clearer
Stern (2000) argues that psychology’s tendency to focus
descriptions of how these factors relate to each other. Many
at the individual level can under-emphasize some of the
of the earlier models were exploratory attempts to look at
important causes and solutions of environmental problems.
relationships between knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values,
For example, there are external forces operating on groups of
and behaviors, while more recent models take advantage of
individuals or social systems, such as prices, technology
well-established theories from social psychology, cognitive
changes, laws, and regulations. Also, some of the biggest
psychology, and other disciplines. Nevertheless, there is still
threats to environmental degradation occur at the level of
much room for theoretical development. For example, one of
organizations. There has been research regarding corporate
the variables in the Hungerford and Volk (1990) model for
sustainability (e.g., Sharma and Starik 2003) and studies link-
environmentally responsible behavior is “environmental sen-
ing developments in organizational theory with corporate
sitivity” and yet we know little about what that construct
environmentalism and environmental policy (e.g., Hoffman
includes, or the nature of the linkages between caring about
and Ventresca 2002). There has also been extensive research
nature and conservation behavior. Work in this area has been
of common-pool resources (natural resource systems used by
very preliminary (e.g., Kals et al. 1999; Schultz 2002).
multiple individuals) that identifies the variables underlying
the formation of self-governing associations and the psycho-
Developing Behavior Change Strategies and Measuring
logical factors that influence cooperation in commons dilem-
Success. Additional research areas related to conservation
mas (see Ostrom et al. 2002). Whether the focus is at the
behavior will focus on 1) how to identify the most appropri-
individual or at the group level, Gardner and Stern (1996)
ate strategies for producing environmental behavior change
suggest an “environment-first” research strategy that begins
and 2) how to measure the success of those applications with
by identifying environmentally important activities and
respect to the CP mission. Because of the variety of circum-
determining whose actions and which actions matter most.
stances and plethora of research findings and models, this
The ultimate success of conservation psychology will be
will require that researchers and practitioners work closely
based on whether its research resulted in programs and appli-
together. McKenzie-Mohr observes that:
cations that made a difference with respect to environmental
Although a cornerstone of sustainability is behavior sustainability. We need to be able to measure the effective-
change, psychology has yet to make a major contri- ness of the programs in terms of their impact on behavior for-
bution to the design and delivery of programs to fos- mation or behavior change, using tools developed by conser-

142 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003

 Human Ecology Forum

vation psychologists. This also means working with natural ronmental ethic. The other involves the adoption and main-
scientists to determine that the behavior changes have posi- tenance of conservation behaviors. These pathways are relat-
tive effects on high-priority ecological functions and features. ed, but they tend to operate over different time frames and
they usually require different research approaches.
Caring About/Valuing Nature
In the previous section, I emphasized behavior-oriented Understanding the Psychology of Caring About Nature.
research related to the conservation of resources and ecosys- The theoretical frameworks for understanding the connec-
tems. I would now like to focus on the quality of life aspects tions and caring relationships between humans and the natur-
of sustainability. By definition, environmental sustainability al world are not as well developed as the theoretical models
is a relational term. It is about creating viable and harmo- for conservation behaviors. Research questions include
nious relationships between humans and nature over long things like:
periods of time. It includes concerns about quality of life for • What are the effects of experiences with the natural
humans and other species, as well as the quality of the environment?
human-nature relationship itself. • What do we mean when we say “care about the natur-
Usually when we think of human impacts on the envi- al world”?
ronment, we think of consequences such as the loss of biodi- • How do people develop caring relationships with ani-
versity. However, not only are we losing components of the mals, places, and nature?
natural world, we are also losing certain experiences with • How do environmental values develop?
nature. Pyle (1993) speaks of the “extinction of experience” One body of research related to forming connections
as humans have fewer direct, personal contacts with living with nature has looked at the psychological benefits of expe-
things. This can lead to environmental generational amnesia, riences in nature. There have been a number of studies that
where each generation regards the degraded environment document human preference for natural settings (e.g., Kaplan
they inherit as the normal experience (Kahn 1997). and Kaplan 1989), how humans benefit from and are affected
Psychology is as much about human experience and by the natural world (e.g., Ulrich 1993), how interactions
relationships as it is about human behavior. The relationship with nature positively affect multiple dimensions of human
between humans and nature develops over the course of an health (see review by Irvine and Warber 2002), and the effect
individual’s lifetime, and these relationships are also socially of nature on spiritual well-being (e.g., Driver et al. 1996).
and culturally shaped. Understanding our relationship to the Nevertheless, this literature could be better integrated, and
natural world well enough so that we have a language to cel- there are still many unanswered questions. For example, as
ebrate and defend that relationship is another research area human society moves more toward technology and nature
for conservation psychology. Schultz comments on the need experiences decrease, how does this affect the individual?
for such research: There are a number of assertions about the value of the
natural world, but little empirical evidence. According to the
At the heart of the discourse on human-nature rela-
biophilia hypothesis, the human species evolved in the com-
tions is the recurring theme about a relationship
pany of other life forms, and we continue to rely — physi-
with nature. Philosophers talk about this in terms
cally, emotionally, intellectually — on the quality and rich-
of ethics, or morality. Sociologists talk about cul-
ness of our affiliations with natural diversity. A healthy and
ture, values, and the ways in which societies inter-
diverse natural environment is considered an essential condi-
act with nature. Conservationists talk about land
tion for human lives of satisfaction and fulfillment (Kellert
ethics, and the experiences that result from encoun-
and Wilson 1993). Kahn (1999) reviews some of the empiri-
ters with nature. But at the core is the individual
cal support for these claims. This seems to be an area where
and his or her understanding of his place in nature.
positive psychology and health psychology research could be
So far, psychologists have had little to say about this
especially helpful.
connection. (2002)
Although we know that strong emotional ties exist
The ways that people care about and/or value nature between people and living creatures and/or natural settings,
have been included as important variables in behavior change our culture has not developed a vocabulary for an apprecia-
models. For the sake of outlining a research agenda, I would tion of the non-human. Not only do we have a shallow lan-
like to highlight this area as its own outcome category. We guage for caring relationships with the living world, this
can think of two pathways leading toward environmental sus- topic has only recently started to receive more research at-
tainability. One involves emotional connections with nature, tention. See Vining (this issue) for a discussion of research
identity and value formation, and the development of an envi- related to connections to other animals. Similarly, Bott et al.

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003 143

Human Ecology Forum

(this issue) and Giuliani (2003) provide overviews of talked about having an ecological aesthetic — experiencing
research related to connections to place. Studies by conser- the landscape as an active participant and as a set of inter-
vation psychologists can contribute toward our ability to actions and relationships. He pursued careful first-hand
express the essence of such caring experiences.10 This in turn knowledge of his surrounding ecology, which included
can provide more compelling communication tools for shap- humans. He argued that the ability to perceive beauty in
ing our societal stories about human-nature relationships. nature may be one factor that leads people to develop the kind
Forbes (2001) claims that “the lack of language to adequate- of love that includes voluntary self-restraint for the sake of
ly express our love of the land is the clearest indication that, long-term, distant ecological needs. As mentioned before,
despite our enormous successes in saving land across the research is needed to explore the relationships between car-
country, we are losing the battle for the souls of America.” ing and action.
In terms of the language of science, we need better oper-
ational definitions of the dependent variables we are study- Developing Strategies to Foster Caring, Shape Values,
ing, and better measures. Rabb and Saunders (in press) use and Measure Success. In addition to creating better concep-
the language of caring as a way to conceptualize some of tual models, more applied research is needed to: 1) identify
these relationships. The word “care” can be used in different the most promising strategies for fostering ways of caring
ways related to thinking, feeling, and acting towards animals about nature, 2) find ways to reframe debates and strategical-
and nature (e.g., Geller 1995; Brown 1997). Schultz (2002) ly communicate to the existing values that people have, 3)
refers to similar cognitive, affective and behavioral dimen- identify the most promising strategies for shifting the societal
sions in his psychological model for understanding environ- discourse about human-nature relationships, and 4) measure
mental inclusion. Myers and Saunders (2002) point out that the success of these applications with respect to the CP mis-
the object of care can vary from individual animal level to the sion. In Figure 2, this would include the applied and evalua-
ecosystem level, and they speculate about possible pathways tive research for either individual or group level approaches
from natural care to environmental care. As Noddings (1984) to caring about nature. Because this is a very broad catego-
notes, care most naturally extends to individuals that visibly ry, I will only be able to suggest a few representative types of
respond to the caring. Abstract entities such as ecosystems research. Just like the research associated with developing
do not provide such tangible feedback. behavior change strategies, this research will require that
An increasing number of researchers are studying how researchers and practitioners work closely together.
caring about the natural world develops (see examples in Some of the psychological research that can be used to
Kahn and Kellert 2002), the formation of an environmental encourage personal connections to nature includes: signifi-
identity (see examples in Clayton and Opotow in press), rela- cant life experience research (Tanner 1980; Chawla 1999),
tionships between a psychological connection with nature research about the restorative qualities of nature (Kaplan and
and environmental sustainability (see examples in Schultz Kaplan 1989), environmental identity research (Clayton and
2002), significant life experiences as precursors of environ- Opotow in press), and biophilia research (reviewed by Kahn
mental concern (e.g., Chawla 1980, 1999; Tanner 1998; 1997; Kellert and Wilson 1993). Monroe (this issue) pro-
Gough 1999), development of a sense of place (see Bott et al. vides examples of research that has helped create strategies
this issue), moral development (Kahn 1999; Nevers et al. for building environmental literacy. Vernon et al. (1997)
1997) and moral functioning (Opotow and Weiss 2000) in show how principles derived from similar research have been
relation to the natural environment, and the links between applied in a zoo setting, using a process of collaboration
environmental values, concern, and action (e.g., Kempton et between researchers and educators.
al. 1995; Schultz and Zelezny 1998). Norton (1991) suggests In addition to finding ways to foster emotional connec-
the intriguing notion of “transformative values” where certain tions with nature, psychology can help identify currently-
experiences of nature could provide opportunities for form- held values that are directly or indirectly related to the envi-
ing and criticizing our values. A helpful review of the devel- ronment or environmental action. Schultz and Zelezny (this
opment of environmental values and the translation of values issue) provide an overview of commonly shared American
into behavior is provided by Doremus (2003). values and their relationship to environmental attitudes and
In general, the development of a caring relationship with behaviors. By understanding the dimensions of such values,
nature is related to the formation of an environmental ethic. psychologists can suggest and test strategies for framing
Aldo Leopold (1949) argued that an ethic of care was an environmental messages in ways that speak to those values.
essential part of humanity’s relationship with the natural Environmental communication could be much more strategic
world. At the heart of Leopold’s ethic was an understanding if it were better informed by how people see themselves in
of land as something more than just a set of resources. He relation to self, other people, and the biosphere.

144 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003

 Human Ecology Forum

In terms of research oriented toward reshaping the rela- action research projects; other times researchers will work
tions between humans and the natural environment at a group more directly with each other. (See Salafsky et al. 2002, for
level, psychology can help society create a new vocabulary a conceptual framework and research agenda for a conserva-
and powerful communication strategies. We know that the tion science that uses the principles of adaptive manage-
way words are put together constrains our perceptions of ment.) Although the degree of involvement of the practition-
the problem and its potential solutions (Doremus 2000). ers and the form of cooperation between the researchers will
Principles from psychology can reveal the assumptions in our vary, a common theme will be an orientation towards a con-
current discourses and help us tell different stories. An exam- servation mission.12 Becker and his colleagues (1999) pro-
ple is the work being done by the Trust for Public Land that vide additional ideas for how to reorient the social sciences to
they are calling conservation sociology.11 They distinguish better address sustainability issues.
between saving land without people, saving land for people, A sample recipe for a conservation psychology project
and saving land and people (the latter being most like might be: 1) gather a team of researchers and practitioners
Leopold’s conception). In addition, we can structure our around a conservation problem so that each individual brings
legal policies to encourage regular unplanned contact with their knowledge and experiences to help frame an approach
nature, as well as vigorous public discussions of values to the problem, 2) clarify the fundamental questions being
(Doremus in press). asked by practitioners and blend in what is known from a
Psychology can assist by providing insights into moral psychological perspective to create research questions that
reasoning and moral functioning, which lie at the heart of have practical and theoretical value, 3) fold what is known
human-nature relationships. Encouraging public dialogue from the research literature into the design of educational/
about challenging issues would allow people to develop a communications programs or other approaches to the prob-
more powerful language. Werner (1999) provides examples lem, 4) mobilize a team of researchers to measure the success
of psychological research that is needed to influence general of the approach, using whatever methods are appropriate or
social awareness and concern about a problem. Studies can creating new ones, 5) look for opportunities to test models
range from analyses of social change and innovation diffusion and/or develop new theories, and 6) share results and impli-
to cross-cultural analyses of underlying values and ways of cations with other researchers and practitioners.
thinking. She suggests that research is needed to understand Whatever the approach, the trick will be to take ad-
how groups reach a common understanding, and to determine vantage of existing infrastructures and form new linkages
how best to make resource problems visible and convincing. between them. In many cases, internet communication sys-
In sum, I have suggested that conservation psychology tems can help. Researchers and practitioners can thereby
research questions could be organized by two broad outcome maintain their professional identities but work together in
areas: how humans behave toward nature and how humans new ways. For example, a group of practitioners could send
care about/value nature. Within these two areas, research can ambassadors to existing conferences, enlisting the aid of
focus at the individual or the group level. Considered togeth- researchers who attend those conferences to help them orga-
er, CP research will include: 1) research that helps to clari- nize panels around their problem topic. Another example
fy key concepts related to conservation behaviors and to ways might be for conservation psychologists to work at the biore-
of caring about nature, 2) research on behavior change strate- gional level by providing insights about the knowledge, atti-
gies and strategies for fostering environmental care, and 3) tudes, values and behaviors of different stakeholders in the
research that measures the success of any programs toward communities. Also, institutions that have similar wildlife
conservation psychology goals. conservation missions, such as national parks and zoos, could
form partnerships and enlist the aid of conservation psychol-
Possible Ways to Work Together ogists to better understand their collective impact on shared
audiences. Other examples are provided in this issue.
Because of its focus on mission-driven research ques- Finally, networking efforts will need to include different
tions and problem-solving, conservation psychology will cultural/international perspectives. Different viewpoints will
need efficient ways to facilitate cooperation between re- lead to a richer vocabulary for describing the human relation-
searchers and practitioners, and between the researchers ship to nature, although efforts to achieve cross-cultural rel-
themselves. Given the inherent complexity of environmental evance will add layers of complexity. The Journal for Nature
problems, there will be many research needs and opportuni- Conservation is one example of an international, interdisci-
ties. I expect that the process of blending researcher and plinary vehicle for encouraging communication between sci-
practitioner voices will sometimes be similar to how scien- entists and practitioners in order to explore new research
tists and managers work together for adaptive management or avenues.

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003 145

Human Ecology Forum

Concluding Remarks Disciplines are not logical constructs; they are

social crystallizations which occur when a group of
In this essay I have argued that psychology needs a bet- people agree that association and discourse serve
ter way to organize an applied focus centered on conserva- their interests. Conservation Biology began when a
tion, and conservation needs it to produce one. The magni- critical mass of people agreed that they were con-
tude and urgency of the sustainability issues facing humanity servation biologists. There is something very social
demands more attention from psychologists and other social and very human about this realization. (1986)
scientists. The emerging field of conservation psychology Soule and Wilcox also spoke about the value of having a
provides an effective applied focus that welcomes all of the useful label. “A community of interest and concern is often
resources within psychology to the service of a conservation crystallized by a simple term... Conservation biology is such
mission. The following summarizes some characteristics of a term” (1980).
this new field: I believe that Conservation Psychology is an equally use-
• Conservation psychology is mission-driven, with a ful term and that there is a critical mass of people interested
focus on research committed to encouraging conserva- in working together under a Conservation Psychology
tion of the natural world umbrella. This overview suggests the types of research that
• It is an applied field that makes use of scientific might be included and provides a framework for considering
approaches to study cognitive, affective and behav- and using such research. This is an ongoing evolution and
ioral aspects of the human-nature relationship; the part of the process will be to define what Conservation
type of research is based on psychological frameworks Psychology is together. The challenge is to listen carefully
and methods and create useful processes for accomplishing our goals,
• It involves an active exchange between researchers rather than fragmenting our energies. The intent of conserva-
and practitioners during all stages of the research; this tion psychology is to fill a need, not duplicate efforts by other
iterative approach to problem solving is necessary groups. My current thoughts are very much a reflection of the
because of the urgency and complexity of conserva- input by a number of colleagues, and I welcome the opportu-
tion problems nity provided by this forum to further refine these ideas.
• Desired outcomes from CP research include 1) a new
vocabulary for helping humans express and value per- Endnotes
sonal relationships to nature, and 2) principles for
encouraging the adoption and maintenance of pro- 1. E-mail: casaunde@brookfieldzoo.org
environmental behaviors 2. Sustainability has been defined in many ways, even pre-dating the
In many ways, psychology represents our culture’s for- concept of sustainable development that was presented to the United
malized conceptions of what it means to be human, and that Nations in 1987 in the Brundtland report. I like the four domains
most certainly includes our relationships with the rest of the summarized by Oskamp (2002): ecological, social, economic, and
living world (see Myers 1998, 18, 20). One of the masters at political/institutional/cultural. Most of my comments in this article
articulating those connections, E.O.Wilson claims that will refer to ecological/environmental sustainability, although con-
humans are currently: servation psychology will need to address all four domains. In fact,
it is not really possible to consider any one of these domains in iso-
inside a bottleneck of overpopulation and wasteful lation.
consumption...In order to pass through the bottle- 3. Further discussions about the term “conservation psychology” itself
neck, a global land ethic is urgently needed...based and debates about what should be included are presented in a special
on the best understanding of ourselves and the issue of the Population and Environmental Psychology Bulletin
world around us...We will be wise to listen careful- (Brook 2001; Myers 2001; Reser 2001).
ly to the heart, then act with rational intention.” 4. In addition to the subdisciplines within psychology and the social sci-
ence umbrella groups mentioned in Figure 1b, there are many other
(2002)
important intersection groups, including Geography, Ecological
It is my hope that conservation psychology can provide psychology, Ecotherapy, Environmental education research,
insights about what it means to listen carefully to the heart Environmental communication, Environmental anthropology,
and how to act with rational intention. Environmental economics, Environmental ethics, and Environmental
When Conservation Biology was forming, it served as a law to name a few.
5. There is a journal called Human Dimensions of Wildlife as well as
rallying point for biologists to pool their knowledge and tech-
several research units in universities devoted to this area of research.
niques to solve problems. Soule made the following obser- A textbook on the subject has been produced by Decker, Brown and
vation about the process: Siemer (2001).

146 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003

 Human Ecology Forum

6. The Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change is a greatly appreciated, including his helpful comments on this particular arti-
standing committee that was established in 1989 to help guide cle. Much of the progress on conservation psychology has been made pos-
research in the United States on the interaction between human activ- sible by a generous grant from the Elizabeth Morse Genius Charitable
ity and global environmental change. Trust, funding for the Conservation Psychology Dialogue by the Daniel F.
7. Examples of social science special interest groups with an environ- and Ada L. Rice Foundation, and the insightful encouragement from Dr.
mental focus include the Nature and Ecology Network of EDRA George Rabb, Director Emeritus of Brookfield Zoo.
(Environmental Design Research Association), the Environmental
Psychology division of IAPS (International Association of Applied References
Psychology), the Environmental Education Research Commission of
NAAEE (North American Association of Environmental Education), Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting
the Ecological and Environmental Education Special Interest Group Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
of AERA (American Educational Research Association), the Bamberg, S. and P. Schmidt. 2003. Incentives, morality, or habit?
Environmental Program Evaluation of AEA (American Evaluation Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of
Association), the Environmental Communication Commission of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and Behavior 35, 2, 264-
NCA (National Communication Association), the biennial multidis- 285.
ciplinary Conference on Communication and Environment (COCE), Bator, R. and R. Cialdini. 2000. The application of persuasion theory to the
the Anthropology and Environment Section of AAA (American development of effective proenvironmental public service announce-
Anthropological Association), and the newly formed Social Science ments. Journal of Social Issues 56, 3, 527-542.
Working Group of SCB (Society for Conservation Biology). Bechtel, R.B. and A. Churchman. 2002. Handbook of Environmental
8. As a network of researchers and practitioners, the mission of CP is to Psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
encourage sustainable and harmonious human relationships with Becker, E., T. Jahn and I. Stiess. 1999. Exploring uncommon ground:
nature. The goal of CP research is to support that mission by con- Sustainability and the social sciences. In E. Becker and T. Jahn (eds.),
ducting studies that have direct relevance. Sustainability and the Social Sciences: A Cross-Disciplinary
9. Other terms that can be used include pro-environmental behaviors, Approach to Integrating Environmental Considerations into
environmentally responsible behaviors, environmentally friendly Theoretical Reorientation, 1-22. London: Zed Books.
behaviors, and environmentally sustainable behaviors. Bott, S., J. Cantrill and O.E. Myers Jr. 2003. Place and the promise of con-
10. Interestingly, some cultures have words for caring about nature. For servation psychology. Human Ecology Review (this issue).
example, in Hawaiian, malama ke kai literally means “to care for the Braud, W. and R. Anderson. 1998. Transpersonal Research Methods for
sea,” where “care” includes both a management/stewardship context the Social Sciences: Honoring Human Experience. Thousand Oaks,
and a love/spiritual connection context; a similar word in the CA: SAGE Publications.
Solomon Islands is puava (Parks, pers. commun.) Brook, A.T. 2001. What is “conservation psychology”? Population and
11. Rogers (2000) describes conservation sociology as “a philosophical Environmental Psychology Bulletin 27, 2, 1-2.
and practical base, from which we hope meaningful action can grow. Brown, G. 1997. Is ‘care for nature’ a wise focus for educational efforts? A
Many of the ideas and actions that are so essential to the nurturing of paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American
healthy relationships between land and people are already in place and Association for Environmental Education, Vancouver, BC.
in practice. Other concepts and practices, including a more compelling Buttel, F.H. 1987. New directions in environmental sociology. Annual
land and people vocabulary, have yet to be developed or tested.” Review of Sociology 13, 465-488.
12. Although it is important to choose research questions that matter to Capra, F. 2002. The Hidden Connections: Integrating the Biological,
the solution of real-world conservation problems, this does not imply Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life into a Science of
that people in this field will impose particular views about what con- Sustainability. New York: Doubleday.
servation is, how trade-offs should be made between conservation Chawla, L. 1980. Significant life experiences: A new research area in
and other societal goals, or how conservation should be best estab- environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 11, 4,
lished (Doremus, pers. commun.). 20-25.
Chawla, L. 1999. Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of
Acknowledgements Environmental Education 31, 1, 15-26.
Clayton, S. and S. Opotow (eds.). In press. Identity and the Natural
The colleagues I have met along the way who are interested in the Environment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
idea of conservation psychology have enriched my understanding and Cvetkovich, G.T. and R. Werner. 1994. How Can Psychology Help Save the
added great enjoyment to the journey. I am thankful for inspiring and Planet?: A Research Agenda on Environmental Problems. Statement
thought-provoking conversations at many occasions, including the 2001 distributed by the APA Taskforce on Psychology and Environmental
ISSRM conference in Bellingham, WA, the Conservation Psychology Problems. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dialogue held at Brookfield Zoo in May 2002, and the Conservation Dalton, J.H., M.J. Elias and A. Wandersman. 2001. Community
Psychology Workshop at the San Francisco Zoo in January 2003. A key Psychology: Linking Individuals and Communities. Stamford, CT:
person who has helped guide the development of conservation psychology Wadsworth Publishing.
from the start has been Gene Myers. His wisdom and tireless support are

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003 147

Human Ecology Forum

Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown and W.F. Siemer. 2001. Human Dimensions of Kaplan, S. 2000. Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior.
Wildlife Management in North America. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Journal of Social Issues 56, 3, 491-508.
Society. Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A
DeYoung, R. 2000. Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally Psychological Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56, 3, 509-526. Press.
Doremus, H. 2000. The rhetoric and reality of nature protection: Toward a Kates, R.W., W.C. Clark, R. Corell, J.M. Hall, C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J.J.
new discourse. Washington and Lee Law Review 57, 1, 11-73. McCarthy, H.J. Schellnhuber, B. Bolin, N.M. Dickerson, S.
Doremus, H. In press. Shaping the future: The dialectic of law and envi- Faucheux, G.C. Gallopin, A. Grubler, B. Huntley, J. Jager, N.S.
ronmental values. U.C. Davis Law Review 37. Jodha, R.E. Kasperson, A. Mabogunie, P. Matson, H. Mooney, B.
Driver, B.L., D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson. 1996. Nature Moore III, T. O’Riordan and U. Svedin. 2001. Sustainability science.
and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Science 292, 641-642.
Ethic. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Kellert, S.R. and E.O. Wilson (eds.). 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis.
Dunlap, R.E. and A.G. Michelson (eds.). 2002. Handbook of Washington, DC: Island Press.
Environmental Sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Kempton, W., J.S. Boster and J. Hartley. 1995. Environmental Values in
Dunlap, R., K. Van Liere, A. Mertig and R.E. Jones. 2000. Measuring American Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Kidner, D.W. 1994. Why psychology is mute about the environmental cri-
Journal of Social Issues 56, 3, 425-442. sis. Environmental Ethics 16, 359-376.
Forbes, P. 2001. The Great Remembering: Further Thoughts on Land, Soul, Kollmus, A. and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act
and Society. San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land. environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental
Gardner, G.T. and P.C. Stern. 1996. Environmental Problems and Human behavior? Environmental Education Research 8, 3, 239-260.
Behavior. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kurz, T. 2002. The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior:
Geller, E.S. 1995. Actively caring for the environment: An integration of Fitting together pieces of the puzzle. Analyses of Social Issues and
behaviorism and humanism. Environment and Behavior 27, 2, 184- Public Policy 2, 1, 257-278.
195. Lee, K. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics
Giuliani, M.V. 2003. Theory of attachment and place attachment. In M. for the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Bonnes, T. Lee and M. Bonaiuto (eds.) Psychological Theories for Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There.
Environmental Issues. Adershort, UK: Ashgate Publishing Company, New York: Oxford University Press.
Series: Ethnoscapes. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. 1998. Revisiting the human dimension in conservation
Gough, S. 1999. Significant life experiences (SLE) research: A view from biology. Conservation Biology 12, 1170-1171.
somewhere. Environmental Education Research 5, 4, 353-363. Marten, G.G. 2001. Human Ecology: Basic Concepts for Sustainable
Gough, S. 2002. Whose gap? Whose mind? Plural rationalities and disap- Development. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.
pearing academics. Environmental Education Research 8, 3, 273- Martinez-Alier, J. 1999. The socio-ecological embeddedness of economic
282. activity: The emergence of a transdisciplinary field. In E. Becker and
Hoffman, A.J. and M.J. Ventresca (eds.). 2002. Organizations, Policy, and T. Jahn (eds.), Sustainability and the Social Sciences: A Cross-
the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives. Disciplinary Approach to Integrating Environmental Considerations
Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. into Theoretical Reorientation, 112-139. London: Zed Books.
Hungerford, H. and T. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behavior through Mascia, M.B., J.P. Brosius, T.A. Dobson, B.C. Forbes, L. Horowitz, M.A.
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 21, 3, McKean and N.J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and the social sciences.
8-22. Conservation Biology 17, 3, 649-650.
Irvine, K.N. and S.L. Warber. 2002. Greening healthcare: Practicing as if McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000. Fostering sustainable behavior through commu-
the natural environment really mattered. Alternative Therapies 8, 5, nity-based social marketing. American Psychologist 55, 5, 531-537.
76-83. Monroe, M. C. 2003. Two avenues for encouraging conservation behav-
Kahn, P.H., Jr. 1997. Developmental psychology and the biophilia hy- iors. Human Ecology Review (this issue).
pothesis: Children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental Review Myers, D.G. 2003. Psychology, 7th Edition. New York: Worth Publishers.
17, 1-61. Myers, O.G., Jr. 1998. Children and Animals: Social Development and Our
Kahn, P.H., Jr. 1999. The Human Relationship with Nature: Development Connections to Other Species. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
and Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Myers, O.G., Jr. 2001. Some issues to consider in the role of psychology
Kahn, P.H., Jr. and S.R. Kellert (eds.). 2002. Children and Nature: in conservation. Population and Environmental Psychology Bulletin
Psychological, Sociocultural and Evolutionary Investigations. 27, 2, 2-4.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Myers, O.G., Jr. and C.D. Saunders. 2002. Animals as links toward devel-
Kals, E., D. Schumacher and L. Montada. 1999. Emotional affinity toward oping caring relationships with the natural world. In P.H. Kahn, Jr.
nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and and S.R. Kellert (eds.), Children and Nature: Psychological,
Behavior 31, 2, 178-202. Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, 153-178. Cambridge,
Kaplan, S. 1990. Being needed, adaptive muddling and human-environ- MA: The MIT Press.
ment relationships. Proceedings of the Environmental Design
Research Association 21, 19-25.

148 Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003

 Human Ecology Forum

Nevers, P., U. Gebhard and E. Billmann-Mahecha. 1997. Patterns of rea- Schultz, P.W. and L. Zelezny. 1998. Values and proenvironmental behavior:
soning exhibited by children and adolescents in response to moral A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29, 4,
dilemmas involving plants, animals and ecosystems. Journal of 540-558.
Moral Education 26, 169-186. Schultz, P.W. and L. Zelezny. 2003. Reframing environmental messages to be
Nickerson, R.S. 2003. Psychology and Environmental Change. Mahwah, congruent with American values. Human Ecology Review (this issue).
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schwartz, S.H. 1977. Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz
Noddings, N. 1984. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10, 221-279. San
Education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Norton, B.G. 1991. Thoreau’s insect analogies: Or, why environmentalists Seligman, M. and M. Csikszentmihaly. 2000. Positive psychology: An
hate mainstream economists. Environmental Ethics 13, 235-251. introduction. American Psychologist 55, 5-14.
Norton, B.G. Unpublished manuscript. Constructing Sustainability: A Sharma, S. and M. Starik (eds.). 2003. Research in Corporate
Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management. Contact Bryan G. Sustainability: The Evolving Theory and Practice of Organizations in
Norton, Professor of Philosophy, Georgia Institute of Technology, the Natural Environment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub.
School of Public Policy, Atlanta, GA 30332. Sommer, R. 2000. Discipline and field of study: A search for clarification.
Opotow, S. and L. Weiss. 2000. Denial and the process of moral exclusion Journal of Environmental Psychology 20, 1-4.
in environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues 56, 3, 475-490. Soule, M.E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35, 727-734.
Oskamp, S. 2002. Summarizing sustainability issues and research Soule, M.E. 1986. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and
approaches. In P. Schmuck and W.P. Schultz (eds.), Psychology of Diversity. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Sustainable Development, 301-324. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Soule, M.E. and B.A. Wilcox. 1980. Conservation Biology: An Evolution-
Publishers. ary-Ecological Perspective. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Oskamp, S., G.S. Howard, D.N. Winter, P.C. Stern and D. McKenzie-Mohr. Stern, P.C. 2000. Psychology and the science of human-environment inter-
2000. Environmental sustainability. American Psychologist 55, 5, actions. American Psychologist 55, 5, 523-530.
496-537. Stern, P.C., T. Dietz, T. Abel, G.A. Guagnano and L. Kalof. 1999. A value-
Ostrom, E., T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich and E.U. Weber belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of
(eds.). 2002. The Drama of the Commons. Washington, DC: National environmentalism. Human Ecology Review 6, 2, 81-97.
Academy Press. Tanner, T. 1980. Significant life experiences: A new research area in
Pyle, R.M. 1993. The Thunder Tree: Lessons from an Urban Wildland. environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 11, 4,
Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 20-24.
Rabb, G.B. and C.D. Saunders. In press. The future of zoos and aquariums: Tanner, T. 1998. On the origins of SLE research, questions outstanding,
Conservation and caring. International Zoo Yearbook. Zoological and other research traditions. Environmental Education Research 4,
Society of London. 4, 399-418.
Reser, J.P. 2001. Situating and representing psychology, environmental Ulrich, R.S. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S.R.
psychology, and conservation vis-á-vis the natural environment and Kellert and E.O. Wilson (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis, 73-137.
other perspectives and disciplines. Population and Environmental Washington, DC: Island Press.
Psychology Bulletin 27, 2, 4-7. Vernon, C., C.D. Saunders and D. Kalina (eds.). 1997. Developing and
Rogers, W. 2000. Introduction from Culture of Conservation. CD. The Promoting Caring Attitudes Toward the Natural World. Proceedings
Trust for Public Land. of a planning charrette hosted by Brookfield Zoo and Minnesota Zoo.
Roszak, T., M.E. Gomes and A.D. Kanner. 1995. Ecopsychology: Brookfield, IL: Chicago Zoological Society.
Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Vining, J. 2003. The connection to other animals and caring for nature.
Club Books. Human Ecology Review (this issue).
Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, K.H. Redford and J.G. Robinson. 2002. Vining, J. and A. Ebreo. 2002. Emerging theoretical and methodological
Improving the practice of conservation: A conceptual framework and perspectives on conservation behavior. In R.B. Bechtel and A.
research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology 16, Churchman (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New
6, 1469-1479. York: John Wiley and Sons.
Saunders, C.D. and O.G. Myers, Jr. 2001. Using conservation biology as Werner, C.M. 1999. Psychological perspectives on sustainability. In E.
a model for thinking about conservation psychology. Population and Becker and T. Jahn (eds.), Sustainability and the Social Sciences: A
Environmental Psychology Bulletin 27, 2, 7-8. Cross-Disciplinary Approach to Integrating Environmental
Schmuck, P. and W.P. Schultz (eds.). 2002. Psychology of Sustainable Considerations into Theoretical Reorientation, 223-242. London:
Development. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zed Books.
Schultz, P.W. 2002. Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human- Wilson, E.O. 2002. The Future of Life. New York: Vintage Books.
nature relations. In P. Schmuck and W.P. Schultz (eds.), Psychology Winter, D.D. 1996. Ecological Psychology: Healing the Split Between
of Sustainable Development, 61-78. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Planet and Self. New York: Harper Collins Text.
Publishers. Winter, D.D. and S. Koger. 2003. Psychology of Environmental Problems.
Schultz, P.W. and S. Oskamp. 2000. Social Psychology: An Applied Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zelezny, L.C. and P.W. Schultz (eds.). 2000. Promoting environmentalism.
Journal of Social Issues 56, 3, 365-578.

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2003 149