Team 2- NA Paper Revision 12-14-2015

Prepared by:
Shareese Williams
Kevin Jones
Ben Crenca
Marian de Almeida
Tiana Milburn
The University of Baltimore
Supervised by Dr. Glazer
December 14, 2015
A Guide to Assessing Conservation
Behavior Change for Visitors of the
National Aquarium in Baltimore

Executive Summary
The National Aquarium (aka. NA or “Aquarium”) in Baltimore is a valuable source for information
on conservation of the world’s aquatic treasures. Visitors who come to the Aquarium not only find
themselves entertained, but gain access to vast amounts of information about the animals and
aquatic life living in award-winning habitats (“Our Story,” n.d.). Although many guests only visit
the NA for recreational purposes, the Aquarium also strives to take their visits as an opportunity
to deliver messages regarding sustainable conservation behaviors (Ballantyne, Packer, Hughes, &
Dierking, 2007). Students at the University of Baltimore were tasked with informing the NA on
identifying theoretical frameworks and methodologies that would enable the Aquarium to best
evaluate strategies for influencing visitors’ conservation behaviors. Through a combination of
interviews, observations, and a literature review, the team formulated different recommendations
that the NA might consider implementing as it works toward achieving the goal of selecting
conservation behavior change campaigns that would positively affect visitors’ conservation
behaviors, ultimately making a positive impact on the world’s ecosystem.
Based upon the data collected from interviews and a literature review, the team addressed the
following areas of concern in an effort to help the NA be able to design an effective conservation
behavior change selection strategy:
1) identifying barriers to selecting appropriate conservation change behaviors for the NA,
2) determining criteria for conservation behavior success,
3) assessing effectiveness of conservation change strategies through various methods, and
4) recommending methods that the NA can use going forward to assess the success of their
conservation change campaigns.
The methods recommended include:
1) focus groups, surveys, and polls to select conservation behaviors and create visitor
profiles,
2) setting a criteria based on the information from visitor profiles, and
3) the use of critical incidents and diaries to assess the effectiveness of the conservation
behavior change strategies.
The NA can begin to implement these assessments as soon as they are able to select appropriate
behaviors and set the criteria for behavior change success. The assessments will be based on the
resources the NA is willing to assign to the overall project. Limitations include having a substantial
sample size as well as limitations in gathering data. Failure to make the changes in assessments of
behavior change strategies could result in wasted resources and ineffective an inability to
systematically evaluate behavior change strategies for the NA.

iii.
Table of Contents
The National Aquarium’s Background...…………………………………………….……….….1
Scope of Project…………………………………………………………….……….…...2
Methods………………………………………………………………………….………….……5
Results…………………………………………………………………………….………….…..6
Interviews………………………………………………………………….……….….....6
Literature Review………………………………………………….………..……………7
Selecting appropriate behavior……………………………………………...……8
Factors contributing to the selection of appropriate behavior………….9
Knowledge………………………………………………………12
Attitudes…………………………………………………………13
Motivation……………………………………………………….13
Setting criteria for change………………….…………….………...…………....15
Monitoring and evaluation of change…………………..……….…………..…..16
Experiments……………………………………………………………...17
Observations……………………………………...……………………...17
Self-Report………………………………………………………………17
Surveys………………………………………………………….18
Interviews……………………………………………………….18
Focus groups……………………………………………………19
Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………20
Proposed Solutions……………………………………………………………………...20
Recommendation one……………...…………………………………………...21
Focus groups……………………………………………………………21
Surveys…………………………………………………………………22
Recommendation two………………………………………………………….23

iv.
Recommendation three…………………………………………………………24
Critical incidents…………………...……………………………….….24
Diaries………………………………………………………………….25
Implementation Plan……………………………………………………………….......27
Limitations and Constraints………………………………………………………………...….27
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………..28
References……………………………………………………………………………………..30
Appendices………………………………………………...…………………………………..37
Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………….43
Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………….44
Appendix C…………………………………………………………………………….47
Appendix D…………………………………………………………………………….49
Appendix E…………………………………………………………………………….50
Appendix F…………………………………………………………………………….56
Appendix G…………………………………………………………………………….57

CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 1
The National Aquarium’s Background
The National Aquarium (NA or “the Aquarium”) in Baltimore, Maryland is a non-profit
organization that aims to foster in its visitors a sense of appreciation for the world’s aquatic
environment, natural resources, and living systems (“Our Story,” n.d.). Since its establishment in
1981, the NA has served its community in a number of ways, including the redevelopment of
Baltimore’s Inner Harbor (“Our Story,” n.d.), partnering with organizations to protect the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and helping with the removal of debris from the Fort McHenry Trail
in Baltimore (“Change for the Chesapeake,” n.d.). Visitors and volunteers from across the globe
have also participated in these efforts and helped to make positive contributions to the
community (“Our Story,” n.d.). In addition, people of all ages who visit the Aquarium get both
an entertaining and educational experience. In the past year alone, the NA has hosted an
estimated 1.8 million visitors (H. Doggett, personal communication, August 31, 2015). The NA
has also provided guided tours and educational experiences for guests who have come to see the
estimated 20,000 fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and marine mammals living in award-winning
habitats (“Our Story,” n.d.). An estimated 650 million people visit zoos and aquariums every
year around the world (Penning et al., 2009). In the United States alone, approximately 140
million people go to American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) facilities every year
(Ballantyne et al., 2007); therefore, with the sheer volume of visitors locally and abroad, there is
a widespread audience to receive messages of conservation.
The NA, like all aquariums and wildlife conservatories, creates opportunities to educate
the general public on ways to protect the environment, but the NA often faces a number of
challenges in conveying conservation messages (Penning et al., 2009). Understanding how

important the visitor experience is to promoting the mission of the aquarium, the NA is
constantly trying to improve itself by accomplishing their established goals and developing new
ones. “Within the conservation framework, the NA seeks to educate the general public and
ultimately to change behaviors so that human pressures on the environment are lessened”
(Adelman, Falk, & James, 2000, p. 35). Currently at the NA, there are a number of exhibits that
promote conservation goals through strategically placed interactive exhibits and displays that
convey conservations messages; however, the impact of these messages on visitor behavior are
not often sustained.
Prior studies conducted across the Visitor Experience Division at the NA have shown that
conservation messages do influence conservation behaviors of visitors, but the impacts of these
behavior changes are not maintained over a long period of time (Graffeo, Ritov, Bonini, &
Hadjichristidis, 2015; Royer, Stehr, & Sydnor, 2013; Terrier & Marfaing, 2015). Adelman and
colleagues’ (2000) studied visitor experiences at the NA to assess how well the experience
impacted the individual’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors surrounding conservation.
Utilizing four different methodologies: interviews, personal meaning mapping, tracking, and
telephone interviews at follow-up, Adelman et al. found that changes in knowledge and interest
in conservation only continued six to eight weeks after their visit to the Aquarium. This is a
major problem for the NA and proponents of conservation in general because interactions with
visitors are short lived and therefore, messages from the NA do not have the desired, lasting
effect. It is even more worrisome, because change was measured only in terms of knowledge and
interest in conservation and not in terms of behavioral changes, which are likely also reduced. If

this problem is not properly addressed there is a risk for continued pollution, loss of ecosystems,
habitats, animal and aquatic life, and potentially the end of human existence.
Scope of Project
The NA faces several challenges in promoting conservation behaviors to its visitors. In
recent times, many aquariums, zoos, and wildlife exhibitors have changed their focus from being
solely a recreational tourist attraction to a place where conservation behaviors are encouraged.
These attractions were once solely entertainment sites for families. Getting visitors more
involved with conservation has been a difficult transition across all attractions of this kind. These
institutions are searching for best practices to inform visitors about conservation in hopes that
visitors will further engage in conservation behaviors in their personal lives and more
importantly, that these behaviors will be maintained (Ballantyne et al., 2007).
Conservation behaviors can be viewed as any “...activities that support a sustainable
society” (Monroe, 2003, p. 114.). Changing conservation behaviors can be difficult because it
requires time, energy, and money. For instance, green technology is suggested to be better for the
environment, yet it is too expensive for the average consumer (Schwartz, 2011). Therefore, it is a
huge undertaking to create conservation messages that are appreciated and understood by the
general public, and result in feasible conservation behavior changes. Individuals who create
programs for sustainable environmental behavior are often ill informed or underestimate the
power of psychology in changing behavior (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Although there have been
studies conducted to understand the relationship between environmental awareness and
conservation behaviors, researchers have yet to find a definitive solution to increasing
conservation behaviors (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). According to Monroe (2003), this may be

because conservation behaviors are complex. Recommended behaviors are likely to vary
according to culture or geographic location, making it almost impossible to delineate what is a
correct behavior for all people. In addition, internal factors such as motivation, environmental
knowledge, awareness, values, attitudes, emotion, responsibilities, and priorities may also have a
major influence on the variance in conservation behavior across individuals.
With the rise in research on the promotion of conservation behaviors at wildlife
attractions, there have also been a number of methodological inconsistencies. First, the
measurement of attitudes about conservation is often too broad. “Often measured attitudes are
much broader in scope than the measured actions” (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002, p. 242) making
it difficult to draw implications from the studies. For example, an assessment might ask if the
individual cares for the environment rather than ask if he or she actually engages in a specific
conservation behavior. Second, inconsistency in results may occur when data collection for
attitudes and behaviors are assessed at distal points, such as days or months, at a time. For
instance, results may first be gathered at the beginning of the year and a follow-up assessment
may be completed at the end of that same year; the passage of time between initial collection and
follow-up is subject to changes in attitudes and behaviors as a function of the passage of time.
Maturation, known as the effect that time has on people and their attitudes can occur in a data
collection process (Slack & Draugalis, 2001). Lastly, studies that explore wildlife visitor
conservation, attitudes, behavior, and knowledge often measure intentions as indicators of
behavioral change rather than actual behaviors (Hughes 2013). Research once suggested that
individual beliefs impact attitudes toward behavior, which dictates intentions toward doing
specific behaviors (Frederick & Dossett, 1983). Evidence currently suggests that intentions

rarely result in actual behavior change because on-site commitment and excitement tend to
diminish after the visit. Therefore, intentions are poor indicators of off-site behavioral change
(Hughes, 2013). All of these issues suggest that conservation behavior change strategies are only
as effective as the methods used to evaluate their success.
Heather Doggett, Director of Visitor Programs and Staff Training at the NA, requested
that this consulting team evaluate the current literature on conservation behavior strategies to
recommend a methodology designed to not only select appropriate conservation behaviors for
change, but also how to best assess the effectiveness of behavior change strategies. In addition,
recommendations will be provided for future engagements to assess the success of conservation
behavior change strategies. The following are the methods used to collect data for this project.
Methods
In order to develop a contextual understanding of the National Aquarium, members of
Team 2 visited the National Aquarium. However, the main sources of data gathering were from
interviews and a literature review. First, three separate interviews/meetings were held with
stakeholders at the NA. Upon learning about the project, Ms. Doggett provided information
about the details of current NA conservation strategies and contact information of other
stakeholders at the NA who were eventually contacted to answer questions about current
conservation strategies at the NA. Candice Canady, the Immersion Program Specialist, informed
the consultants via email of the current criteria used to assess conservation strategies, as well as
strategies used to select appropriate behaviors. In addition, a telephone interview was conducted
with the NA’s Social Media Strategist to gain information about the NA’s social media presence,
which is a tactic currently used by the Aquarium to promote conservation behavior change.

Lastly, we conducted a literature review on selection strategies for conservation
behaviors, criteria used to assess behavior change, and the assessment used to evaluate the
effectiveness of conservation behavior change strategies. All five members of the consulting
group gathered empirical articles and other pertinent literature to read, summarize, and annotate
for the literature review. A variety of academic databases, including Google Scholar, PsycINFO,
and PsycARTICLES, EBSCOhost, and Medline were used to include in the review. Key search
terms included conservation behavior change, pro-environmental behavior, behavior
modification, criteria for selecting behavior, stages of behavior change, evaluating change
programs, assessing change over time, models of change, barriers to change, community based
social marketing, behavior change tools, monitoring change, change campaigns, criteria for
evaluation, individual change factors, and evaluating conservation impact. A pie chart in
Appendix A depicts that 75 works/sources obtained, though only 57 were deemed useful in
supporting recommendations for this current project.
Results
Interviews
The on-site meeting with Ms. Doggett allowed the group to gain insight about the
consulting project. She explained the requirements of the project and offered resources to use for
the literature review. Further clarification of the project was provided by Ms. Doggett through
email with the help of the supervising Lead Consultant, Dr. Sharon Glazer. Ms. Canady provided
useful information on how the NA selects conservation behaviors to change, the way they assess
these targeted behavior changes, and what successful criteria looks like for the NA. Currently,
the NA uses a card sorting method to identify the conservation behavior visitors are already

doing, willing to do, or never going to do. Specifically, participants are asked to sort cards that
describe conservation behaviors such as recycling, marine health, wildlife friendly backyards,
etc... into one of three stacks: “I am already doing this,” “I would be willing to do this,” and “I
will never do this.” The purpose of the activity is to gauge conservation behaviors the public is
already participating in (indicating that they do not need to be motivated to perform these
conservation behaviors) and also to gauge what the participant will not do. The NA looks to
focus on behaviors that the individual is willing to do instead of wasting resources on
conservation behavior change strategies to change behavior the individual is not willing to
change. Ms. Canady also mentioned that the NA needs to first recognize the barriers, through
the card sorting activity, to behavior before selecting behaviors. Additionally, behaviors that are
currently targeted are at the community level, as opposed to the individual levels. The NA
addresses community behaviors through its partnerships with associations of science educators
and scientists to attempt to reduce an individual's carbon footprints, focusing on reducing plastic
waste, getting guests involved in citizen science, and sustainable seafood.
Ms. Canady also stated that the NA measures success when NA guests indicate that they
are starting a conservation behavior as a direct result of an experience or interaction with the NA.
The NA currently gathers indicators of new conservation behaviors through social media, their
website, or in focus groups (card-sorting). They gain information about their visitors experience
at the NA as well as their feelings towards conservation. Other ways to evaluate success are
through email list sign-ups and surveys. The NA gauges visitor interest through the sign-ups and
the surveys. Ms. Canady also shared that she is dissatisfied with the current assessment methods,
because they do not measure long term monitoring of the actual behavior. The NA would like to

explore ways that the NA can determine what guests are actually doing after their visit and if
those behaviors can be linked to their experience(s) at the NA.
According to the NA’s Social Media Strategist, the NA uses social media to engage the
public and reach new potential visitors. The social media department targets a plethora of
demographics at group and individual levels including families, young mothers via Facebook,
and the younger generation on platforms, such as Instagram and Tumblr. They assess the social
media usage with Key Performance Indicators (KPI). KPIs include social interaction and
perceptions towards conservation behaviors. The most important factor of satisfaction measured
according to the NA is shared experiences with family and/or staff members. The social media
strategist also mentioned that a successful conservation behavior change strategy is one that
creates a hopeful sense of urgency, is consistent, and educates the general public.
Literature Review
The results from the literature review suggest that there are a number of commonalities in
assessments of behavior change strategies. This literature review follows McKenzie-Mohr’s
(2000, 2013) method for choosing effective behavior change tools through community based
social marketing. Social marketing derives from the social learning model, which suggests that
individuals will learn from one another through observation and modeling (Bandura, 1971).
Community based social marketing, includes the following steps: selecting behavior, identifying
barriers to behavior, designing strategies to reducing barriers, piloting strategies, and evaluating
change (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). This project focuses on the themes found amongst all literature
on measuring the efficacy of conservation behavior change strategies. The themes include
breaking down barriers to selecting appropriate behaviors, setting criteria for success, and

evaluating the effectiveness of conservation behavior change strategies through various
assessments. Each of these components are necessary for designing a successful behavior change
strategy.
Selecting appropriate behavior. Designing an intervention for change first requires the
selection of appropriate conservation behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; McKenzie-Mohr &
Schultz, 2012). Selecting target conservation behaviors may be difficult because there is limited
data on a) the accumulated environmental impact of behavior in contrast to all other human
behaviors, b) the current extent of behavioral practice, and c) the likelihood of a specific
component of an intervention resulting in conservation behavior changes (Akerlof & Kennedy,
2013). Although there is minimal research on successful interventions targeting specific
behaviors, research does suggest that there are general factors that can be used to select
significant behaviors. For example, behaviors that are most amenable to change are those that do
not have a long history of reinforcement (St. Peter-Pipkin & Vollmer, 2009) and that require
minimal effort (Friman & Poling, 1995). St. Peter-Pipkin and Vollmer (2009) described
reinforcement history as an individual's “exposure to various schedules of reinforcement that are
no longer in place” (p. 83). The amount of response effort required to engage in a behavior is a
determining factor in whether or not the behavior is done (Friman & Poling, 1995). Response
effort relates to the number of steps necessary to carry-out a behavior. Imagine a household
where people are able to either recycle or dispose of their waste in a trash bin; those people have
a reinforcement history of using both recycle bins and trash bins. In contrast, people who have
never owned a recycling bin and have been using one receptacle to dispose of both recyclables
and waste, have a reinforcement history of throwing all trash into one bin. For the individuals

accustomed to using only one receptacle, separating trash from recyclables is an additional step
that requires a higher response effort. Encouraging this person to recycle may be difficult
because of the established history of throwing all trash into one receptacle. However, evidence
indicates that with time and social pressure people’s recycling habits can change too.
Factors contributing to the selection of appropriate behavior. The first factor to
consider when selecting relevant conservation behaviors is audience identification. Akerlof and
Kennedy (2013) suggest that target behaviors should be selected concurrently when identifying
the audience because interventions can be tailored to target specific subgroups; this will increase
the likelihood of responsiveness to different behavior change techniques. In a meta-analysis that
compares tailored health behavior change interventions, Noar, Benac, and Harris (2007) found
that health behavior change interventions that tailor messages to its audience are more effective
than interventions that use generic, non-audience specific messages. One way to tailor behavior
change messages is through grouping individual by their readiness to change selected behaviors.
Guided by the principles the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) (Prochaska, 1986; 1992 as cited in
Rakowski et al. 1998) of health behavior change, Rakowski and colleagues (1998) used a
behavior change, stage-matched intervention in which educational packets were used to increase
mammography practices among 1,397 women, aged 40-74. According to the TTM there are five
stages of readiness to change, including precontemplation, relapse, risk of relapse,
contemplation, action, and maintenance (See Appendix B for further information and
definitions). The methodology used to obtain the data were both survey and telephone interviews
where women were asked their intentions to change their behavior surrounding mammography at
baseline and two first follow up surveys, one which was administered one year after the

intervention. The results of this study suggested that receiving mammography was statistically
higher in the stage-matched group than the group who received no audience specific messages or
materials. The implications of the study support the ideas that tailoring interventions to the target
audience can be effective and effective strategy to selecting behaviors. Nonetheless, no single
strategy will be effective for all people because of a variety of individual differences (Monroe,
2003). Similarly, people who visit aquariums and zoos possess various demographic
characteristics and disparate backgrounds, including knowledge, attitudes, and motivation toward
conservation. These are all opportunities and barriers to selecting appropriate conservation
behaviors and change strategies. An important point to note is that the mere asking of women
about their mammography intentions serves as an intervention in itself. If different sources ask
such questions and exposure to the question or the issue is repeated, there is a greater chance that
the person being asked will find her way toward regular mammography tests.
McKenzie-Mohr (2013) suggests that as a rule, selected behaviors should be both a) non-
divisible and b) an end state. Non-divisible behaviors are those that cannot be broken down into
smaller behaviors, while end state refers to those that actually produce change with no additional
steps. For example, adding insulation into a home is a divisible behavior because it can be done
in multiple locations in the home, such as the basement or attic. Non-divisible behaviors are
distinct, meaning each is specific, having their own barriers (e.g. knowledge, attitudes, and
motivation toward the behavior) and benefits (e.g., the rewards associated with engaging in that
behavior). An example of a behavior that is an end state would be the actual installation of
energy efficient appliances. The mere purchase of the appliances is the beginning behavior, but
the end state is the behavior that is at the end of the behavioral change (i.e., installation). “Too

frequently, initiatives to promote sustainable behavior focus on prior behaviors and never
achieve the end-state behavioral change that matters” (p.6). Additionally, upon the creation of
the list of behaviors that are both non-divisible and end state, no item on the list should be a
strategy, such as having a household engaging in an energy audit.
When selecting behaviors, behaviors should also be chosen based upon whether they are
worth being promoted. Three criteria determine whether a behavior is worth promotion: impact
(how much of an impact the behavior will have on the individual), penetration (how many
individuals are currently engaging in the behavior), and probability (the likelihood of individuals
adopting the selected behavior). When comparing selected behaviors, the ideal behaviors are
ones that have high probability and impact, but low penetration (See Appendix C). To determine
all three criteria, information and data need to be collected from various locations. First, to
determine impact, data on comparing energy use for behaviors, such as using high efficiency
appliances and adding home insulation, can be collected either through federal or state agencies.
Additionally, individual surveys of those who are knowledgeable on the selected behavior (e.g.
installation) and/or experts can be used to determine impact. Second, to determine penetration,
data can be collected through observations to assess individuals’ present engagement with
different behaviors or through surveys/diaries of the target audience to ask them how often they
engage in different conservation behaviors. Lastly, if the list of selected behaviors is large,
surveys that are built to measure the likelihood of follow-through can first be utilized to assess
the probability of individuals engaging in those behaviors to decrease the list to a manageable
number. Alternatively, to assess probability, one may evaluate similar programs that have been
previously used to facilitate the change of selected behaviors. Information regarding costs of

each program should be calculated to obtain the return on investment (ROI), wherein investment
refers to the amount of financial capital, time, and human resources necessary for
implementation (McKenzie-Mohr, Lees, Schultz, & Kotler, 2012).
Evaluating barriers is the next factor to selecting appropriate behaviors for change.
Strategies to change conservation behaviors should only be adopted after barriers and benefits
are determined (McKenzie-Mohr et al., 2012). It is almost impossible to design an effective
program to promote behavior change without knowing what will possibly limit people from
engaging in target behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). According to Schultz’s (2014) model,
when benefits are high and barriers are low, changes are more likely to be made. Various benefit
and barrier situations call for different behavior change strategies. In a low benefit/high barrier
situation, both education and feedback are the most appropriate strategies to use to influence
behaviors. In such situations, people’s behaviors are more difficult to change because the
strategies used need to increase an individual’s overall commitment; without commitment, the
individual is not likely to engage in the desired behavior (Schultz, 2014). Another consideration
is that barriers are present across different behaviors. For example, the barriers to getting people
to install energy efficient appliances are different from the barriers related to carpooling
(McKenzie-Mohr & Schultz, 2012). The installation of energy efficient appliances is an example
of a one-time action, while carpooling is considered a (likely) repeated action. It may be
convenient to solve environmental issues with the use of one time actions, but these actions do
not sustain long-term change. Repeated actions sustain long term change because they involve
conservation behavior commitment. Therefore, to effectively select behaviors that maximize
long term change, one must consider whether the targeted behavior is one time or repetitive

(McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Below, the team addresses categories of barriers: knowledge, attitudes,
and motivation. Note that these barriers are also serve as outlets for change. A change effort,
therefore, requires identifying a goal behavior to change and reducing barriers by counteracting
them with the opposite outlets for change.
Knowledge. A lack of knowledge is the first barrier to selecting conservation behavior at
the individual level. Two common perspectives of program planners on sustainable behaviors are
that (1) knowledge equates to action, in that making the public more knowledgeable of the
environmental issues, through social media and advertising, will evoke action to change
environmental behaviors and (2) that individuals act rationally when reviewing their choices.
However, these perspectives are not sufficient for environmental behavior change because they
assume that knowledge is one of the only barriers preventing sustainable behavior change
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). While knowledge is important, increased knowledge alone does not
result in changing conservation behavior (Schultz, 2011). Thus, changing what people think they
know with counterfactual and new knowledge could change individuals’ attitudes (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986).
Attitudes. Together, a person’s affect, referring to feeling toward an object; behaviors,
referring to actions toward an object; and cognition, referring to the beliefs or thoughts a person
has toward an object form the ABC model of attitudes. Attitudes, as it relates to behavioral
change, are often viewed as a stimulus that directly impacts behavior (Jain, 2014). In order to
stimulate conservation behavior change, a person’s attitude is often dissonant to the desired
behavior, thus motivating change. Cognitive dissonance occurs when individuals experience
discomfort as a result of a conflict between their cognitions and their behavior toward something

(Festinger, 1957). Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, and Miller (1992) conducted a study using
cognitive dissonance to impact water usage among 80 female swimmers at a public university. In
the first condition, subjects were given feedback on the duration of their previous showering
behavior and were asked to make a public commitment to use less water. In the second
condition, subjects only received information about past showering behavior. In the third
condition, subjects only made a public commitment to use less water. Each of these three
conditions were compared to a control group that did not receive any information about their
previous showering behavior and were not asked to make a public commitment to use less water.
Results indicated that participants in the first condition, compared to those in the other
conditions, changed their showering behavior, as they used significantly less water than
participants in the other conditions. The implications of the findings suggest that using cognitive
dissonance to elicit behavior change is possible.
Motivation. The last barrier to selecting behaviors across individuals is motivation. Falk
and colleagues (2007) suggest that the demographics of visitors to aquariums and zoos are not
enough to capture the attitudes and knowledge of visitors. Motivation to visit free-choice
learning establishments has been found to be identity related (Falk & Storkdieck, as cited in
Falk, et al. 2007). With this knowledge, these researchers designed a visitor impact study over
the course of three years to create identity related motivational categorizations of visitors that
were based on the prior knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, motivation, behaviors interests, and
experience; these variables impact the educational outcomes of both zoos and aquariums. Falk
and colleagues created five different groups of motivation identity profiles: explorers,
facilitators, professional/ lobbyist, experience seekers, and spiritual pilgrims. For further

explanation of each group, please see Appendix D. Upon creating an assessment representing
each group, items reflecting conservation related cognition, affect, and visitor motivation were
tested on a sample of 1,863 adult visitors to aquariums and zoos. The results suggest that identity
related motivation profiles directly linked to the way visitors conducted their visits and their
experience during the visit. The most important finding was that facilitators,
professional/hobbyists, and experience seekers were significantly more likely to positively
change their attitudes toward conservation than any of the other groups. Their research suggests
that creating visitor profiles based upon identity related motivations may be helpful in designing
effective studies to track change.
Another consideration in individuals’ motivation is the rewards that drive them. De
Young (1985) administered a survey to 263 individuals that frequented a recycling center and
questioned them about their motives behind conservation behaviors. The findings support the
notion that individuals who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to participate in everyday
conservation behaviors (De Young, 1985). The study implies that investigations of personal
motivation surrounding conservation behavior activities can increase intrinsic motivation toward
conservation behavior.
Additionally, the motives and rewards that drive individuals to engage in conservation
behaviors differ according to an individual's attitudes and environmental concerns. Extrinsic
rewards, such as monetary incentives or praise from peers or community members, can be
motivating to individuals if they are considered important to the person (Ryan & Deci, 2000);
however, these rewards are not likely to sustain motivation or behavior because if the extrinsic
rewards are withheld, the motivation to complete the act or engage in the behavior is no longer

present. In contrast, intrinsic rewards are actions that the individual engages in because he or she
finds them exciting, fun, or interesting. These types of rewards are motivational to the individual
because the activity he or she is engaging in results in an experience of enjoyment; therefore,
intrinsically motivating behaviors are more likely to be maintained because the individual is not
dependent on other people or objects to obtain personal satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Setting criteria for change. Criteria for change are dependent on the selected behavior
being targeted by the intervention and the assessments used to measure the change in behavior
(Catania, 2013). A certain percentage of observed change can be found by comparing baseline
levels of behavior to the levels of behavior post-intervention. Additionally, sustaining a high
level of a certain behavior above some pre-determined criteria should help to determine if
desired levels of behavior have been achieved and maintained. For example, Rubio, Borrero, and
Taylor (2015) increased food consumption of children with pediatric feeding disorders and
monitored the effectiveness of their interventions by examining a graphical representations of
patient data. From these data, Rubio and colleagues were able to compare baseline levels of food
consumption to levels of consumption after introducing interventions. These researchers set a
score of 80% acceptance of all bites presented to the child and moved on to the next phase of the
intervention after children maintained acceptance scores of above 80% for 5 straight sessions
(Rubio, Borrero, & Taylor, 2015).
An alternative, generalizable methodology for setting criteria can be derived from a study
by Margules and Usher (1981), who reviewed nine publications from a decades-worth of
conservation related research and found five common-criteria for measuring the potential of
wildlife conservation sites. The five criteria Margules and Usher (1981) described are diversity

(of community, habitat, or species), rarity (i.e., the protection of rare species and communities),
naturalness (most difficult to define, it is the freedom of human influence), area (explained as a
function of the species-area relationship where the number of species increases as the size of the
area being examined increases), and threat of human interference (which advocates for leaving
land untouched versus developing it for various purposes). Further, these researchers grouped
criteria as those that could be gathered during a site visit, while surveying the geographical area,
and by reviewing case histories (Margules & Usher, 1981).
Monitoring and evaluation of change. According to Mascia and colleagues (2014),
despite the commonalities in approaches to conservation interventions, the monitoring and
evaluation of behavior change are not consistently presented in the literature. Commonly, there
are five approaches to monitoring and evaluation: ambient monitoring, management assessment,
performance measurement, impact evaluation, and systematic review. See Table 1 below for
more details
Table 1. Monitoring and evaluation of change.
Approaches
Definition
Ambient Monitoring
measures change in social and ecological conditions,
independent of any intervention

Management assessment
measures inputs, activities, and outputs as investments to build
management capacity for conservation projects
Performance measurements
assesses progress or program progress toward desired levels of
specific activities, outputs, and outcomes
Impact Evaluation
process of measuring the intended and unintended causal effects
of conservation interventions emphasizing impacts on ecology
Systematic Review
examines existing research to assess the state of evidence
regarding the impacts of conservation interventions
Conservation behavior change programs or initiatives are evaluated using a variety of
methods: experiments, observation, and various methods of self-report including, survey,
interviews, and focus groups. The appropriate time to assess the effectiveness of change
programs or initiatives depends on whether or not there will be an opportunity to follow-up. If
follow-up is not possible, Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) suggested that information about
attitudes and behaviors should be gathered and assessed concurrently due to the dynamic nature
of attitudes. If follow-up contact can be made, the effectiveness of interventions can also be
measured if substantial information can be collected about individual behavior before an
intervention is implemented; this information would then be compared to information gathered

after the intervention begins. This method follows the guidelines for single-subject
experimentation in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) (Catania, 2013).
Experiments. Many behavioral interventions are assessed through field experiments;
however, within the field of conservation, field experiments are rare. The barriers to conducting
field experiments are that many conservation practitioners are not familiar with the social and
behavioral science approaches to experimentation, including important details such as designing
large site-specific programs, difficulty defining indicators against the criteria, and budgeting.
When experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations are not able to be executed, secondary
sources and expert judgment can be used to evaluate the efficacy of conservation programs
(Akerlof & Kennedy, 2013).
Observations. Observations allow for researchers to view behaviors as they are occurring
and to quantify what they see. In one study, De Young (1989) determined differences between
people who do and do not recycle. Two hundred households were observed over a span of
several months and categorized as being recyclers or not being recyclers. Attempts were made to
contact each of the 200 households; one-hundred-forty-six phone calls were answered; ninety
one agreed to participate in the study and were asked to complete a survey that addressed past
and current recycling activity, demographics, and recycling experience. Although data pointed to
some similarities in pro-recycling behavior and extrinsic motivation, households that did not
recycle had significantly less knowledge about how to recycle (De Young, 1989). A limitation of
direct observation is the costs associated with having people observe others, as well as the
potential for people to change their behaviors when strangers are observing them (Catania,
2013).

Self-report. Based upon the information desired, self-report studies can include
quantitative or qualitative questions through surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Self-report
techniques ascertain subjective data directly from the individuals who engage in behavior
targeted for change.
Surveys. Surveys are used to gather information on how individuals influence and are
influenced by their social environment. Surveys comprise of questions that are either open-ended
or closed-ended. Open-ended questions are qualitative and ask the respondent to answer in his or
her own words. An example of an open ended question is: “What do you believe is the biggest
threat to the environment?” Closed ended questions require the respondent to choose an answer
from a list of possible responses (Visser, Krosnick, & Lavrakas, 2000). An example of a closed
ended question may be “On a scale from 1-5 (1 = “I never recycle” and 5 = “I always recycle”),
how often do you recycle?” Metha and Heinan (2001) used a survey to gather data on villagers’
reactions to community-based conservation (CBC) and found that the CBC approach was
effective among the people of Nepal in shaping the attitudes of locals. Minteer and Corley (2007)
utilized a survey to assess respondents’ feelings about conservation and preservation in the
Chattahoochee National Forest, located in Northern Georgia. From this research, they were able
to gauge the knowledge people had about conservation vs. preservation. The downsides of
survey research include sampling error (not surveying a representative sample of people) and
generalizability (are the results remain the same across different parts of the population) (Visser
et al.,).
Interviews. Interviews are generally used to gather qualitative data. They can be either
unstructured, such as interviews used in an anthropological setting whereby a conversation is

initiated and flows freely, or structured, in-depth interviews, such as those used in healthcare
research to gather information for specific research questions, whereby specific questions and
probing follow-ups are asked in the same specific order and consistently of all interviewees
(DiCicco & Bloom, 2006). Another type of interview that can be used are those that ask
individuals about critical incidents of an observed behavior. A critical incident interview gathers
respondent’s observations of human behavior or a specific experience, in which their opinion is
recorded to ascertain the most important of experiences (Cassell & Symon, 2004). Merrill and
Wright (2001) described a method to utilize critical incidents to evaluate the effectiveness of
work processes and programs in the outdoor recreation and education industry. The method
includes identifying information sources (which were the current employees in the organization),
conducting investigative action (in the form of interviews/focus groups with current employees,
or literature review), developing written summaries the critical incidents, analyzing the data
gathered, and taking decisive action. They say that high quality information can be obtained
based on the answers respondents given by the respondents. From that information, researchers
are able to assess the education and training programs. A limitation of the interview technique is
response bias. Often respondents will give answers that they deem socially desirable (Furnham,
1986). This biased information will skew the results of a study. Another limitation is the amount
of time (and therefore high cost) it takes to conduct interviews, transcribe interview content, and
then evaluate interview data.
Focus groups. Focus groups are different from group interviews because focus groups
promote interaction between group members and use the interactions of those members to
generate quantitative data; group interviews do not promote interactions between group

members, instead focusing on asking those in attendance for answers to interviewers’ questions.
Focus groups help researchers to gain specific information about individuals’ knowledge,
experiences, and attitudes surrounding a particular subject matter (Kitzinger, 1995). Focus group
meetings typically include 7 to 10 strangers who are selected due to similar characteristics or
interests in a specific subject (Marczak & Sewell, 1998). The facilitator of the group leads the
discussion and ensures that participants feel comfortable to voice their opinions. Information
about the subject(s) of interests or the purpose of hosting a particular focus group is not revealed
to the participants as a means to not impact responses. In addition, the interview sessions are
often recorded and/or transcribed (McKenzie-Mohr, 2013). According to Marczak and Sewell
(1998), the information gathered from focus groups may be subjective, but focus groups provide
a sense of which programs participants are happy with and which programs participants believe
are helpful in changing conservation behaviors. They go on to suggest that focus groups should
be an integral part of pre- and post intervention assessment, used during piloting phases of an
intervention, and used to assess attitudes toward change that has occurred once an intervention
has been implemented.
Recommendations
Upon examining the available methodologies and recognizing the current needs of the
NA, the team forwards three recommendations for studying methods that would enable the NA
to select appropriate conservation behaviors, set criteria for successful behavior change, and
evaluate the success of conservation behavior campaigns the NA currently employs to change
conservation behaviors amongst visitors. The three recommendations include: (1) selecting

behaviors by identifying barriers, (2) setting criteria for success based on the selected behaviors,
and (3) methods to assess the conservation behavior change strategies currently used by the NA.
All recommendations utilize a multi-method design to provide more insight into the
information collected from visitors. First, to select appropriate behaviors, it is suggested that
barriers to change be identified on the basis of the NA’s target audience’s personality, values,
attitudes, motivation, and knowledge profiles, as in Falk and colleagues (2007). Furthermore,
barriers should be identified through expert interviews and focus groups that provide information
about visitors and their current conservation practices or lack thereof. Secondly, visitor profiles
should be used in the establishment of criteria for change, such that those who are in one
category of conservation behaviors can be tested to see if they move along the spectrum of
change. Lastly, after coming to the NA, visitors could be given access to a digital diary in which
they can chronicle their experiences of engaging in conservation behaviors after their visit to the
Aquarium. Through a design similar to this, the NA would not only be able to obtain enriched
data on visitors’ current conservation behaviors, but would also be able to effectively measure
the impact of current change campaigns.
Proposed Solutions
When designing an assessment procedure, DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006) suggest
using a multi-method design of quantitative and qualitative approaches. They mention that the
use of a multi-method approach will provide integral information and allow new insights to
emerge. Additionally, Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) suggest that behavior and attitudes should
be evaluated concurrently to measure the effectiveness of recently implemented interventions.
Regardless of which behaviors are being targeted for change, information about previous

behavior levels needs to be gathered. A question to ask is whether or not there will be
possibilities to follow-up with participants. If the answer is negative, concurrent methods should
be employed; if the answer is affirmative, more experimental methods of comparing baseline
rates of behavior to levels of behavior after intervention implementation can be utilized.
Regardless of method, information should be captured at multiple time points, including,
baseline, during implementation/intervention, and follow-up.
Recommendation one. The first recommendation is to select behaviors by identifying
barriers through various measures of self-report (focus groups and surveys). Self-report methods
are valuable, despite the fact that they are subjective and likely unverifiable ways to obtain
needed information. Normative data (i.e., information about individual, community, and global
behavior levels), which may be collected from secondary sources, is often used to supplement
primary sources, such as self-report methods. This normative information obtained through
surveys can be a cheaper, more efficient and valid method than gathering information from
primary sources (Byers, 1996). Furthermore, environmental impact assessment (EIA) can be a
valuable source of information to assess how the environment is impacted presently, before any
intervention occurs; these EIAs attempt to describe the impact of events to come, such as land-
development (Mapstone, 1995). By using EIAs, the NA can measure the current standing of the
environment they hope to positively impact with their conservation behavior interventions and
assess the effectiveness of those interventions when follow-up EIAs are conducted.
Focus groups. Focus groups are beneficial for uncovering the knowledge, attitudes and
experiences of individuals (Kitzinger, 1995). In the process of selecting conservation behaviors,
the NA should use focus groups to identify the barriers to behavior change for the Aquarium

visitors and the messages that will be most receptive to the public. For instance, AT&T used
focus groups to identify the messages that are most effective to change behaviors in their
“#ItCanWait” campaign, which encourages people, particularly youth, not to text while driving.
Similar to NA’s shore hero exhibit, the “#ItCanWait” campaign asks individuals to take a pledge
to change behavior. Despite raising awareness and its popularity on social media, the campaign
did very little to inspire change. In their focus groups, participants of various age groups were
asked to provide information on potential campaign messages and identify the overall tone of the
campaign. AT&T found that specific messages resonate more with certain age groups than others
(AT&T Companies, 2014). The NA can use this methodology to not only select behaviors, but
also to gauge how they should convey their conservation messages to the public. Focus groups
should also be held for different age groups so that the NA can identify the tones and behaviors
most appropriate for each age group (McDermott, 2014). Another benefit of focus groups is the
ability to gauge attitudes and thoughts toward any interventions that are piloted and
implemented. For instance, a focus group can be used to gather information from NA visitors
initially on conservation behaviors, then focus groups can be formed again during piloting phases
of interventions, and after the intervention is implemented. This will allow the NA to determine
if they are having the desired impact they seek.
Surveys. Another way that the NA should select appropriate behaviors to change is by
grouping visitors by their motivation identity (Falk, et al., 2007) and/or place in the behavior
change cycle (Rakowski et al, 1998) to create a visitor profile. When visitors come to the
Aquarium, they can be asked to take a survey to identify their profile. Profiles will consist of a)
motivation identity (Falk et al., 2007) and their place on the behavior change cycle (Prochaska,

1986 as cited in Rakowski et al. 1998). Once profiles are identified, it will be easier to assess the
visitors who are more amenable to change, that is the individuals who will be most impacted by
conservation messages, and what behaviors they are more willing to change. It is almost of no
importance to promote change if the NA does not understand how people can move along the
change spectrum. The only way to know if the individuals did or did not change their behaviors
is to first ascertain attitudes or values towards conservation of the visitor before they are exposed
to conservation messages.
Also, in selecting behavior, the NA can use social media to survey and poll the public on
their perceptions of the NA’s impact on conservation behavior. In recent years, social media has
become a major part of many individual’s daily lives. Statista (2015) projected that by 2016,
there will be over two billion social media accounts worldwide, making it difficult to find an
individual who does not have some form of social media. The NA currently utilizes Twitter,
Facebook, and Instagram to reach a vast number of people. Following the methods used by
AT&T during their “#ItCanWait campaign” (McDermott, 2014), the NA should take to Twitter
to assess public perceptions of NA’s impact in relationship to conservation behavior. Results of
the survey suggested that not only did many people not associate the campaign with AT&T, but
despite being aware of the campaign, individuals still did not change their behavior of texting
while driving (see Appendix F for an example question from the Twitter survey that AT&T
created). Findings showed that the current methods were not engaging the public the way AT&T
wanted. The findings were used to reenergize the campaign and to find new strategies to change
behavior (McDermott, 2014).

Recommendation two. A second recommendation that the NA should utilize is setting
criteria for success that are based upon the profiles previously suggested. Criteria should be
quantifiable as well as qualitative. Information gathered during focus groups and surveys can
provide subjective data on where an individual's conservation behavior levels currently stand.
These data can be used as a baseline to measure intervention success, but they may also serve as
a means to setting criteria for what a successful change initiative will look like. Individuals who
move along the change spectrum will be considered evidence of successful change, while those
who do not move along the continuum will be considered unsuccessful. As for quantitative data,
those pieces of information that can be obtained from secondary sources that speak to individual,
community, and global norms can serve as a means to comparing data gathered following
intervention implementation. Additionally, norms gathered across visitors to the NA can be
averaged before launching an intervention and compared to norms reported during piloting and
after the change initiative is rolled-out. Moreover, data gathered from EIAs can be used to
supplement profiles and determine where criteria levels of targets for behavior change currently
stand; then realistic expectations for change can be set as benchmarks for success. In all, setting
the criteria for change will be heavily dependent on which behaviors the NA choses to focus on
and the strategies they will employ to influence those conservation behaviors.
Recommendation three. The following are methods to assess conservation behavior
change of strategies currently used by the NA. We recommend two methods of assessment:
critical incidents and electronic and/or paper diaries. These methods will allow the NA to better
understand the effectiveness of their conservation behavior change tactics.

Critical incidents. Critical incidents are a way to gather information about attitude,
knowledge, and barriers to a certain experience (Cassell & Symon, 2004). For the NA, they can
use critical incidents to evaluate their educational programs or exhibits. Merrill and Wright
(2001) described a plan for obtaining critical incidents that the NA can utilize for evaluation
purposes. The strategy used by Merrill and Wright (2001) was implemented in an occupational
setting. However, this does not mean that the NA should shy away from critical incidents. The
team recommends that the NA station employees at the end of exhibits or at the exit of the
Aquarium to approach visitors and ask if they would like to answer a few questions about their
experience. This is the first stage in Merrill and Wright’s (2001) strategy. The NA needs to
identify the information sources which in this case will be the visitors. If the visitor agrees to the
critical incident interview, the NA employees will ask the visitors two questions based on their
experience; this is the second stage, referred to as conducting investigative action. The questions
will inquire about visitors’ (1) most positive experience at the NA and (2) most negative
experience at the NA. This information will be summarized into thematic categories and then
analyzed in the final stages of the process (Merrill & Wright, 2001). By analyzing this
information, the NA can assess the limitations or the benefits of their exhibits and campaigns
regarding conservation. After the NA has the information from a substantial number of
individuals (e.g., 500 individuals each with one positive and one negative critical incident), they
can use the results from the critical incidents evaluation to determine the effectiveness of their
exhibits or campaigns.
Diaries. Our final recommendation is to assess change through designing a study that
utilizes online diaries. Shek (2010) used diaries to evaluate students in a positive youth

development program. Students were asked to write in reflective journals weekly to keep a log of
feelings regarding the program. The results suggest that the diaries were an effective way to
assess change for individuals in the program. Similarly, Jin, Hanley, and Beaulieu (2013) utilized
tangible, paper and pencil diaries as a method of measuring sleep behavior in three children,
aged seven to nine. The participants in this study were children with sleep problems and their
parents, who received the diary from the researchers and were given directions for how to use
them. The parents were asked to document when their child was bid goodnight, when the child
actually fell asleep, of any instances when the child woke and subsequently fell back asleep,
when the child woke in the morning, and any napping behavior during a 24 hour period. Parents
were also given an opportunity to answer open-ended questions regarding their child’s sleep
behavior, such as non-compliance issues or any behaviors that interfered with sleeping. The
information gathered from parental report, i.e., what was recorded in the diaries, was compared
to video monitoring, which was used to measure the agreement between parental report and
observed child behavior (Jin et al., 2013).
Borrowing from the above approach, the team recommends that the NA’s online
conservation diary be accessible for visitors after they leave the Aquarium. When entering the
Aquarium, a random sample of visitors would be asked if they wish to participate in a study on
tracking conservation behaviors. Those who agree will be given a survey to identify
demographics, contact information, and current conservation practices. Upon leaving the NA,
visitors would be given a link (via a piece of paper or pamphlet, or sent one via the email address
they provided when initially propositioned to participate) to their online diary and encouraged to
keep a log of conservation behaviors in their daily life. The online diary would have checklists

where visitors could check off their behaviors that day. Additionally, participants would have an
open space where they can place their thoughts on the conservation behaviors they engaged in
that day. Alternatively, for those visitors who do not have the knowledge or ability to use a
smartphone or computer, paper versions of the diary, in paperback or hard copy format, can be
provided by the NA to the participants. This alternative would require the NA to provide a means
for getting the diary back, such as a pre-stamped envelope. Not only does this method allow the
Aquarium to keep a track of behavior to evaluate if change is occurring, but the diary makes
conservation more salient in the minds of participants, which may encourage future conservation
behavior and establish a reinforcement history (St. Peter-Pipkin & Vollmer, 2009). The measure
of success would be determined by the difference between baseline assessments, the recorded
average number of conservation behaviors engaged in per day after viewing exhibits, and follow-
up surveys.
Another suggestion is for diaries to be accessible via smartphone. Similar to the Nielsen
ratings methodology, which measures more than 40% of the world’s television viewing behavior
(Solutions, n.d.), visitors can be given a smartphone or download the NA application on their
mobile device after their visit and use their device or the NA’s smartphone to chronicle
conservation behaviors in their personal lives. Upon receiving the phone, participants would
receive a tutorial on how to operate the electronic diary and what contents to include in the diary.
Recognizing that there are differences in individual motivation, individuals may need to be
incentivized for participation. Incentives should be tailored to the participant because what works
to reinforce a child’s conservation behavior could be different from what an adult would find
reinforcing (Van Houten et al, 1998). Van Houten and colleagues (1988) suggested an essential

element to a successful behavioral intervention is participant reinforcer preference. For reference
to selecting a proper incentives, Nielsen ratings are incentivized (Solutions, n.d.), although it is
unclear exactly how much and/or what participants are given. Further research from various
forums suggests that Nielsen rating incentives can range anywhere from $5-50 in the form of
check or gift card for participation (“Are you a Nielsen family?”, 2011; Donahue, 2013; “Why
should we sign up to be a Nielsen Family?”, 2014).
Implementation Plan
The implementation of the recommended methodologies will require time and a number
of resources. In Appendix G, the implementation table lays out a preliminary plan for how the
NA will need to devote time and both human and financial resources to complete the
recommendations proposed by the consulting team.
Limitations and Constraints
Undertakings described in the recommendation section are not without constraints. The
selection of appropriate conservation behavior for change will be dependent on the visitors who
come to the NA and attend the focus groups or respond to surveys. It is therefore imperative that
the NA attempts to gather a representative sample so that their efforts will be most likely to
impact maximum individuals in the population. While a representative sample would be
beneficial, the NA also must recognize that the information they obtain from self-reports is
subjective and therefore open to interpretation; it is also difficult to verify. Moreover, despite
attempts for a representative sample, most of the time people who complete surveys are already
conserving or ready to engage in conservation behaviors and completing surveys or diaries
simply reinforces conservation behavior, thus making it difficult to determine to what extent

conservation behaviors are due to the initiative/campaign or due to external factors, such as
reminders to complete surveys or diaries.
The methodologies suggested by the consulting team are also subject to limitations. For
instance, the information gathered from semi-structured interviews only capture a small snapshot
of what employees at the NA were likely to think and feel. Still, through interviews, the
interviewer, if not rigid in interviewing approach, can also dig deeper into the meaning of
answers provided (i.e., seek clarification). Were more interviews conducted with NA employees
outside of the Visitor Experience and Social Media divisions, a more representative picture of
how the NA’s employee feel about NA initiatives would have been obtained. As for the literature
review, sources of information were vast and not necessarily directly about conservation
behaviors. While most of the methods and approaches described and the inferences made by the
consultants relate, some of the procedures and findings in fields, such as healthcare will likely be
difficult for the NA to replicate. As more research regarding behavior change, as it pertains to
conservation, is published, a better sense of what strategies can be useful for NA will be realized.
Conclusion
Following McKenzie-Mohr’s (2000; 2013) model of community based social marketing,
this project report reflects findings from interviews and literature review on methodologies to
impact conservation behavior of visitors to the NA. A major portion of this paper is the literature
review which informs the NA about how it can identify boundaries to selecting conservation
behaviors, set criteria for change, and evaluate behavior change among visitors. Additionally,
suggested recommendations were based upon the findings of the literature review.
Recommendations provided to the NA included a method for determining appropriate behavioral

targets for visitors based on self-reports of barriers to change, methods for setting criteria for
success, and methods for how the NA can evaluate the success of their current strategies and
future conservation programs and strategies.

References
Akerlof, K., & Kennedy, C. (2013). Nudging toward a healthy natural environment: How
behavioral change research can inform conservation. Fairfax, VA: George Mason
University.
Adelman, L. M., Falk, J. H., & James, S. (2000). Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on
visitors' conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator: The Museum Journal,
43, 33-61.
Are you a Nielsen family? (2009, January 9). Retrieved December 7, 2015, from
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=418208
AT&T Companies. (2014). It can wait: Report on focus groups with young drivers. Retrieved
December 5th, 2014, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/236722913/It-Can-Wait-Report-
on-focus-groups-with-young-drivers
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K., & Dierking, L. (2007). Conservation learning in wildlife
tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education
Research, 13, 367-383. doi:10.1080/13504620701430604
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Byers, B.A. (1996) Understanding and Influencing Conservation Behavior in Natural Resource
Management. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnabz072.pdf
Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2004). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational
research. London: SAGE.
Catania, A. (2013). Learning (5th ed.). Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan.

Changing the Chesapeake. (n.d.) Retrieved December 2nd, 2015, from
http://www.aqua.org/care/chesapeake-bay
De Young, R. (1985). Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: The role of intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Environmental Systems, 15, 281-292.
De Young, R. (1989). Exploring the difference between recyclers and non-recyclers: The role of
information. Journal of Environmental Systems, 18, 341-351.
DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B.F. (2006) The qualitative research interview. Medical
Education, 40, 314-321.
Dickerson, C. A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance
to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 841-854.
Donahue, S. (2013, May 1). My experience as a Nielsen participant. Retrieved December 7,
2015, from http://www.fiercecable.com/story/my-experience-nielsen-participant/2013-
05-01
Falk, J. H., Reinhard, E. M., Vernon, C. L., Bronnenkant, K., Deans, N. L., & Heimlich, J. E.
(2007). Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit. Association of
Zoos & Aquariums. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Retrieved
from https://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/Education/why_zoos_matter.pdf.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Frederick, A. J., & Dossett, D. L. (1983). Attitude-behavior relations: a comparison of the
Fishbein-Ajzen and the Bentler-Speckart models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 501-512.

Friman, P. C., & Poling, A. (1995). Making life easier with effort: Basic findings and applied
research on response effort. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 583–590.
Furnham, A (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and
Individual Differences, 7, 385-400. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0
Graffeo, M., Ritov, I., Bonini, N., & Hadjichristidis, C. (2015). To make people save energy tell
them what others do but also who they are: A preliminary study. Frontiers in Psychology,
6, 1-9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01287.
Hughes, K. (2013). Measuring the impact of viewing wildlife: Do positive intentions equate to
long-term changes in conservation behaviour? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21, 42-59.
Jain, V. (2014). 3D model of attitude. International Journal of Advanced Research in
Management and Social Sciences, 3, 1-12.
Jin, S. C., Hanley, G. P., & Beaulieu, L. (2013). An individualized and comprehensive approach
to treating sleep problems in young children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 46, 161-180. doi:10.1002/jaba.16.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal,
311(7000), 299-302.
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.
Manubay, G., Dotzour, A., Schulz, K., Smith, J.C., Houston, C., De Young, R., & Saunders,
C.D. (2002) Do exhibits promote environmentally responsible behavior? An evaluation of

the Bog of Habits. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of
Michigan.
Mapstone, B.D. (1995). Scalable decision rules for environmental impact studies: Effect size,
Type 1 and Type 2 errors. Ecological Applications, 5, 401-410.
Marczak, M. & Sewell, M. (1998). Using Focus Groups for Evaluation. Tucson, AZ: The
University of Arizona.
Margules, C., & Usher, M. (1981). Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A
review. Biological Conservation, 21, 79-109.
Mascia, M. B., Pailler, S., Thieme, M. L., Rowe, A., Bottrill, M. C., Danielsen, F., ... & Burgess,
N. D. (2014). Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation
monitoring and evaluation. Biological Conservation, 169, 258-267.
McDermott, J. (2014, Aug. 14th). AT&T’s anti-texting campaign: Lots of impressions, zero
success. DigiDay. Retrieved December 4, 2015, from http://digiday.com/platforms/att-
asks-twitter-whether-anti-texting-driving-campaign-working/
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social
marketing. American Psychologist, 55, 531-537.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., Lee, N. R., Schultz, P. W., & Kotler, P. (2012). Social Marketing to
Protect the Environment: What Works (pp. 3-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Schultz, P.W. (2012). Choosing Effective Behavior Change Tools. Paper
presented at the Behavior, Energy and climate Change Conference, Sacramento, CA.
Retrieved from http://media.cbsm.com/uploads/1/BECC.pdf

McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999) Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An introduction to
Community-Based Social Marketing. Vancouver, BC: New Society Publishers. Retrieved
from file:///C:/Users/ID55NI34/Downloads/FosteringSustainableBehavior.pdf.
Merrill, K.A., & Wright, K. (2001) Conducting internal incident reports: A process for
developing wilderness incident case studies. Paper presented at Wilderness Risk
Management Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.nols.edu/nolspro/pdf/wrmc_proceedings_06_internal_review_merrill.pdf.
Metha, J. N., & Heinin, J.T. (2001). Does community-based conservation shape favorable
attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management, 28,
165-177. doi: 10.1007/s002670010215
Minteer, B. A., & Corley, E. A. (2007). Conservation or preservation? A qualitative study of the
conceptual foundations of natural resource management. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 20, 307-333. doi: 10.1007/s10806-007-9040-2
Monroe, M. C. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human Ecology
Review, 10, 113-125.
Noar, S. M., Benac, C. N., & Harris, M. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review
of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 673-
693.
Our Story. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2015, from http://www.aqua.org/about/our-story
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-162.

Penning, M., Reid, G., Koldewey, H., Dick, G., Andrews, B., Arai, K., ...Gibson, C. (2009).
Turning the tide: A global aquarium strategy for conservation and sustainability.
Retrieved from World Association of Zoos and Aquariums:
http://www.waza.org/files/webcontent/1.public_site/5.conservation/conservation_strategi
es/turning_the_tide/Aquarium%20strategy%20EN.pdf
Rakowski, W., Ehrich, B., Goldstein, M. G., Rimer, B. K., Pearlman, D. N., Clark, M. A., ... &
Woolverton, H. (1998). Increasing mammography among women aged 40–74 by use of a
stage-matched, tailored intervention. Preventive Medicine, 27, 748-756.
Royer, H., Stehr, M., & Sydnor, J. (2013). Incentives, commitments and habit formation in
exercise: Evidence from a field experiment with workers at a fortune-500 company
(Working Paper No. 18580). Retrieved December 2nd, 2015, from National Bureau of
Economic Research: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18580.pdf
Rubio, E., Borrero, C., & Taylor, T. (2015). Use of a side deposit to increase consumption in
children with food refusal. Behavioral Interventions, 30, 231-246. doi: 10.1002/bin.1404.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Schultz, P. W. (2011). Conservation means behavior. Conservation Biology, 25, 1081-1083.
Schultz, P. W. (2014). Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few
instructions. European Psychologist, 19, 107-117. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000163
Schwartz, E. (2011, Jan. 6). Is renewable energy a "good" investment? | MIT Technology
Review. Retrieved from http://www.technologyreview.com/news/422295/is-renewable-
energy-a-good-investment/

Shek, D. T. (2010). Using students’ weekly diaries to evaluate positive youth development
programs: Are findings based on multiple studies consistent? Social Indicators Research,
95, 475-487.
Slack, M. K., & Draugalis, J. R. (2001). Establishing the internal and external validity of
experimental studies. American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists, 58, 2173-2181
Solutions - Television Management. (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2015, from
http://www.nielsen.com/eu/en/solutions/measurement/television.html
St. Peter Pipkin, C., & Vollmer, T. (2009). Applied implications of reinforcement history effects.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 83–103.
Terrier, L., & Marfaing, B. (2015). Using binding communication to promote conservation
among hotel guests. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 74, 169-175. doi: 10.1024/1421-
0185/a000160.
Statista (2015). Number of social media accounts worldwide from 2010 to 2018 (in billions).
Retrieved November 26, 2015, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-
of-worldwide-social-network
Van Houten, R., Axelrod, S., Bailey, J. S., Favell, J. E., Foxx, R. M., Iwata, B. A., & Lovaas, O.
I. (1988). The right to effective behavioral treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 21, 381-384. doi:10.1901/jaba.1988.21-381.
Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Lavrakas, P. (2000). Survey research In H. T. Reis & C. M.
Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Why should we sign up to be a ‘Nielsen Family’? (2014, November 5). Retrieved December 7,
2015, from http://ask.metafilter.com/271091/Why-should-we-sign-up-to-be-a-Nielsen-
Family

Appendix A
Sources Retrieved for the Literature Review
Figure 1: Pie chart explaining the distribution of sources used for the report.

Appendix B
Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change
The Transtheoretical Method (TTM) (Prochaska, 1986 as seen in Rakowski et al, 1998) suggests that individuals become more
committed to change behavior at different stages, ranging from precontemplation to maintenance of the adopted behavior. The stage of
change that an individual is at reflects the person’s perceptions of the positive and negative aspects of the selected behavior. Positives
and negatives are often used as leverage to either engage on the change behavior or not. In Table 1, Rakowski and colleagues (1998)
used this model to set criteria for defining the stages of adoption at baseline in their intervention on mammography.

Table 2. Criteria used to define the stages of adoption in the baseline survey
Criteria Used for Defining
Stage-of-Adoption at the Baseline Survey
Stage-of-Adoption Criteria for Definition
Precontemplation Never has had a mammogram and does not plan to have
one within the next 2 years.
Relapse Has had one or more mammograms in the past, but is now
off-schedule and does not plan to have a mammogram
within the next 2 years.
Risk of relapse Currently on schedule, but does not plan to have a
mammogram on a time frame that will keep her on
schedule
Contemplation Never has had a mammogram, but plans to have one in the
coming 2 years; (or) is off-schedule after having a prior
mammogram, but intends to have one in the coming 2
years.
Action Has had one mammogram on schedule and intends to have
another on a time frame that will keep the woman on
schedule; (or) says that she has a mammogram scheduled.

Maintenance Has had at least two mammograms on schedule and
intends to have another on a time frame that will keep the
woman on schedule.
Source: Rakowski, W., Ehrich, B., Goldstein, M. G., Rimer, B. K., Pearlman, D. N., Clark, M. A., ... & Woolverton, H. (1998).
Increasing mammography among women aged 40–74 by use of a stage-matched, tailored intervention. Preventive Medicine, 27, 748-
756.

Appendix C
Formula for Selecting Appropriate Conservation Behaviors
When comparing various selected behaviors to assess whether they should be promoted, McKenzie- Mohr (2013) suggests that
ideal selected behaviors are those who have high probability and impact and penetration. First, behaviors are calculated by multiplying
the probability of the audience engaging in the behavior by the impact to obtain the behavior’s weight; behaviors that have higher
weights are ideal. “To do this, simply subtract the present level of adoption from one (e.g., if 60% of households have installed high-
efficiency showerheads subtract .60 from 1) to obtain the number of people (40%) who we could realistically encourage to install
high-efficiency showerheads” (p.8). Table 2 presents an example of how the formula may be used to compare impact, penetration, and
probabilities for the use of high efficiency showerheads and the installation of fluorescent light bulbs. The formula is as follows:
Weight = Impact × (1 – Penetration) × Probability

Table 3. Comparing impacts, penetration, and probabilities
Comparing Impacts, Penetration, and Probabilities
Behavior Impact
(pounds of
CO2/household/
year)
Penetration Probability Weight
High-efficiency showerhead 400 0.40 2.2 352
Install five compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) 100 0.20 3.4 68
Source: McKenzie-Mohr, D., Lee, N.R., Schultz, P.W., & Kotler, P. (2012). Social Marketing to Protect the Environment: What
Works. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Appendix D
Table 3. Motivation identities of zoo and aquarium visitors
Motivation Identity Definition
Experience Seeker Primarily derive satisfaction from the act of visiting the site.
Professional/Hobbyist
Feel close tie between the institution’s content and their
professional or hobbyist passion.
Spiritual Pilgrim
Are primarily seeking a contemplative and/or restorative
experience.
Facilitator
Are focused primarily on enabling the experience and learning of
others in their accompanying social group.
Explorer
Curiosity-driven and seek to learn more about whatever they
might encounter at the institution.
Source: Falk, J. H., Reinhard, E. M., Vernon, C. L., Bronnenkant, K., Deans, N. L., & Heimlich,
J. E. (2007). Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit. Association of Zoos
& Aquariums. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

Appendix E
Monitoring and Evaluation of Change
Mascia and colleagues (2013) examined the relationship among approaches to
conservation monitoring and evaluation. Table 1 presents definitions for each of the approaches.
Each approach is characterized by eight domains, including (1) the focal question, (2) the project
cycles/timing, (3) scale of data collection, (4) implementer, (5) decisions supported, (6)
audience, (7) data collection methods, and (8) data analysis (see Table 5). The researchers also
provide a decision tree from which to identify an appropriate type of assessment for different
behavior change interventions (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Appropriate evaluations for behavior change assessments
Source: Mascia, M. B., Pailler, S., Thieme, M. L., Rowe, A., Bottrill, M. C., Danielsen, F., ... &
Burgess, N. D. (2014). Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation
monitoring and evaluation. Biological Conservation, 169, 258-267.

Table 5. Eight domains of conservation change strategy assessments
Ambient
Monitoring
Management
Assessment
Performance
measurement
Impact
Evaluation
Systematic
Review
Focal Question What is the state
of ambient social
and/or
environmental
conditions, and
how are these
conditions
changing over
time and space?
What are the
management inputs,
activities, and outputs
associated with a
conservation
intervention and how
are theses changing
over time?
To what extent is a co
nservation intervention
making progress toward
its intended objectives
for activities, outputs,
and outcomes?
What intended
and unintended
impacts are
causally
induced by a
conservation
intervention?
What is the state
of the evidence
for the impact of
an intervention,
and what does
this evidence say
about
intervention
impacts?
Timing Varies; often pre-
intervention
During
Implementation
During and after
implementation
Post-
Implementation
, with pre-
implementation
baseline
Post-
implementation

Scale Any: often
state/province
(social),
landscape,
ecoregion
(ecological), or
country (both)
One or more
interventions usually
protected areas
Single project or
program
Multiple
projects or one
or more
programs, with
corresponding
nonintervention
comparison
group
Multiple
projects,
programs, or
policies
Implementor Professional
researchers.
Citizen volunteers
Project and program
managers, government
agencies
Project managers Professional
researchers and
evaluators
Professional
researcher
Decisions supported Spatial and
temporal priority-
setting, selection
of strategies, and
objectives
Setting priorities
among potential
capacity building
investments at one or
more projects
Project reporting &
accountability
assessments; Adapt
activities & strategies to
enhance performance
Adaptive
management of
existing and
future
intervention,
scaling up of
down future
investments in
said
intervention
Selecting an
intervention;
scaling up or
scaling down
investments in
said intervention

Practitioner Audience Decision makers
at local to global
levels
Project and programs
manager, donors,
senior decision makers
Project and program
managers, senior
decision makers, donors
Project and
program
managers,
senior decision
makers, donors
Project and
program
managers, senior
decision makers,
donors
Data collection
methods
Primary data
collection; remote
sensing, transects
(ecological):
household
surveys, focus
groups (social)
Expert judgment,
secondary sources
Expert judgment,
secondary sources,
occasional primary data
Primary data
collection or
manipulation of
secondary
source data;
remote sensing
transects
(ecological);
household
surveys, focus
groups,
interviews
(social)
Data extraction
from secondary
sources
Data analysis Moderate to
complex: may
require data
Simple; requires
scoring self-
administered
Simple to moderate;
may require statistical
manipulation of
Complex;
requires data
management
Moderate to
complex;
requires

processing and
statistical analyses
questionnaires secondary source data and
sophisticated
statistical
analyses
sophisticated
data extraction
and statistical
analyses
Source: Mascia, M. B., Pailler, S., Thieme, M. L., Rowe, A., Bottrill, M. C., Danielsen, F., ... & Burgess, N. D. (2014). Commonalities
and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation. Biological Conservation, 169, 258-267.

Appendix F
Example of Twitter Surveys Used by AT&T
Figure 3. Twitter survey for the “#ItCanWait” campaign
Source: McDermott, J. (2014, Aug. 14th). AT&T’s anti-texting campaign: Lots of impressions,
zero success. DigiDay. Retrieved December 4th, 2015, from http://digiday.com/platforms/att-
asks-twitter-whether-anti-texting-driving-campaign-working

Appendix G
Implementation Table
Recommendatio
n
Time Resources Budget
Selecting
appropriate
behaviors
● Initial meetings to discuss
and plan
● Two - Four weeks of data
collection
● Meetings to discuss the
selected behaviors
● Employee Involvement
● Area to hold meetings and
focus groups
● Employee Salary
● Price of meeting space
● Incentives for
participants
● Research firm costs
● Materials to select
behavior
Setting criteria for
change
● Meetings to discuss what
success looks like
● Meetings to set initial
criteria for success
● Employee Involvement
● Information from behavior
selection meetings
● Employee Salary
● Distribution of criteria to
various departments
Monitoring and
evaluation of
change
● Launch time
● Creating the surveys/focus
groups/interviews
● Six months – 12 months of
data collection
● Follow-up and Maintenance
● IT Department for computer
based assessments
● Marketing team for distribution
of surveys
● Employees used for
interviewing
● Communication platforms
(phones, emails, social media)
● Employee Salary
● Application developer
costs
● Possible incentives for
participants
● Printing costs for surveys
● Research Firm Costs

Team 2- NA Paper Revision 12-14-2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Team 2- NA Paper Revision 12-14-2015

Similar to Team 2- NA Paper Revision 12-14-2015 (20)

Team 2- NA Paper Revision 12-14-2015