A systematic review of motivational values and conservation success in and around protected areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In conservation projects in and around protected areas (PAs), a suite of policy instruments are used to promote conservation behavior in local people. Few studies have related psychological research on motivational values to conservation in PAs. We conducted a systematic review of 120 peer-reviewed articles to assess the relative frequencies of policy instruments that aimed to foster intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations to conserve. We examined how the type of motivation engendered by the instrument (i.e., intrinsic or extrinsic motivation and based on the description of how the project was designed and implemented) influenced the ecological, economic, and social success of the project. We assessed the success of the project in only the case studies that included a quantitative or qualitative analysis of success. Projects designed to foster at least one intrinsically motivating instrument were 3 times more likely to meet socioeconomic or ecological goals. Although certain types of instruments such as payments or fines tended to be based on extrinsic motivators more often than education or monitoring programs, several successful projects involving payments or fines were linked to intrinsic motivation in the local community. Thus, our results suggest that rather than debating the relative merits of specific types of policy instruments, conservationists may have more success by focusing on how different motivators, suited to specific contexts, can better empower local communities to conserve. Broadly, our results suggest the current emphasis on social justice and well-being of local communities is a positive step toward protecting the world's remaining biodiversity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".