Nature for whom? How type of beneficiary influences the effectiveness of conservation outreach messages
Nature for whom? How type of beneficiary influences the effectiveness of conservation outreach messages
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.biocon.2018.10.029
复制
发表时间：
2018-12-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Nelson, Michael Paul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Batavia, Chelsea;Bruskotter, Jeremy T.;Nelson, Michael Paul
近年来，自然保护界一直在争论非人类自然的价值，特别是当它与保护的动机有关时。许多人认为，当强调非人类自然对人类的好处，而不是强调非人类自然本身的价值时，会有更多人愿意支持保护自然。为了验证这一假设，我们设计了一项在线调查，调查外联信息中描述的受益人类型（人类、非人类或两者都有）如何影响支持的两个指标：对信息的态度和对保护组织的捐赠。每个受访者都看到了一条强调人类、非人类或两者都是保护受益者的信息。预测受益人类型的影响部分取决于个体差异，我们还测量了受访者的道德包容性，即他们对人类和各种非人类实体所持有的价值观和信仰。虽然受益人类型不影响态度，我们报告了捐赠的几个关键发现。与仅描述非人类受益人的信息相比，仅描述人类受益人的信息总体上与较低的捐赠可能性相关，并且在道德包容性较低的受访者中，捐赠金额较低。与此同时，描述人类和非人类受益人的信息与仅描述非人类受益人的信息相比，并没有更积极的捐赠结果相关。我们的研究结果表明，强调人类作为保护受益者可能不会最有效地产生保护的社会支持。倡导保护非人类本性的信息可能会产生最一致的积极捐赠结果。
In recent years the conservation community has engaged in debate over value in nonhuman nature, especially as it relates to motivations for conservation. Many have expressed the assumption that more people are willing to support conservation when emphasis is placed on the human benefits of nonhuman nature, rather than the value of nonhuman nature for its own sake. To test this assumption, we designed an online survey investigating how the type of beneficiary (human, nonhuman, or both) depicted in outreach messages affects two metrics of support: attitudes toward the message and donations for a conservation organization. Each respondent viewed one message highlighting humans, nonhumans, or both as conservation beneficiaries. Predicting that the effect of beneficiary type would depend partially on individual differences, we also measured respondents' moral inclusivity, i.e., the values and beliefs they hold with regard to human and various nonhuman entities. Although beneficiary type did not affect attitudes, we report several key findings for donation. Compared to messages depicting only nonhuman beneficiaries, messages depicting only human beneficiaries were associated with lower likelihood of donation overall and, among less morally inclusive respondents, lower donation amounts. At the same time, messages depicting both human and nonhuman beneficiaries were not associated with more positive donation outcomes than messages depicting only nonhuman beneficiaries. Our results suggest that highlighting humans as conservation beneficiaries may not most effectively generate social support for conservation. Messages advocating the protection of nonhuman nature for its own sake may produce the most consistently positive donation outcomes.