Effect of cognitive-affective factors on people’s conservation behavior: A case study

Effect of cognitive-affective factors on people’s conservation behavior: A case study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effect of cognitive-affective factors on people’s conservation behavior: A case study Sanjeev Bakshi, Roshan Sahu, Chintamani Tandiya, Aprana Singh, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7580107/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract People's participation is one of the most fundamental inputs required for any conservation effort to succeed. However, due to socio-economic reasons, such as diffused benefits, indiscriminate use of resources offers better economic returns than conservation, lack of trust in conservation programs, and perception that such programs are the government’s oversight in their lives, many of these initiatives do not interest people. All this requires a positive change in their behavior. Here, we used the model proposed by Long et al ( 2025 ) to analyze the effect of some psychometric variables on people’s conservation behavior. We found that environmental responsibility and risk perception have a positive impact on people’s conservation emotion. However, the effect of positive emotion on people’s conservation attitude does not hold for the entire population but for certain subgroups. Neither the awareness campaign nor the Access and Benefits Sharing (ABS) had a moderating effect on the positive emotions and conservation attitude, except for certain subgroups. This suggests that for different sections of society, approaches that can be used to modify their conservation behavior vary. To develop an effective integrative conservation approach, we need different path models for different strata of society. In our case, risk perception (RP) resulted in positive conservation emotion (PE), which positively affected people’s environmental responsibility (ER). And, which in its turn, is positively moderated by ECC and ABS to modify people’s conservation attitude. Terrestrial Ecology Behavior Conservation psychology Emotion Modeling Responsibility Sustainability Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Biodiversity is key to the continued availability of goods and ecosystem services, and climate regulation (Pimm et al. 2014 ). Anthropogenic activities such as agricultural expansion, urbanization, deforestation, and climate change have accelerated the species extinction rate 10 to 100 times higher than the natural background rate (Sala et al. 2000 ; Turvey and Crees 2019 ), and have decisively altered over 75% of terrestrial and 66% of marine ecosystems. All these undermine critical ecological services and increase vulnerability to disasters. Conservation initiatives are vital for preventing these disasters. Governments may take appropriate initiatives and frame the needed policies, but ultimately, it is the shared responsibility between countries, conservationists, and local populations to stem the environmental degradation, guaranteeing their continued existence against anthropogenic and natural changes (CBD 1992 ). Our experiences reiterate that to make any conservation effort successful, people must be actively involved in it. They are responsible for saving species, not just for their own benefit but also for the overall integrity of the ecosystem (Naess 1973 ). Here, responsibility refers to the duty that people and societies perform to safeguard species from harm and guarantee their existence for future generations (Norton 1987 ). Ecological conservation involves multiple stakeholders (Kark et al. 2015 ), including the populace, which is a part of the very ecosystem. Ensuring their participation and raising their awareness are fundamental to the long-term success of conservation programs, which depend on using participatory conservation techniques and instilling a sense of accountability among people (Shrivastava et al. 2019 ). Cultural values and environmental education can help to cultivate personal responsibility among the masses (Miller 2005 ). Local populace should feel obligated to protect plant diversity for their historical and societal significance (Gadgil et al. 1993 ). It has been found that communities with traditional ecological knowledge observe customary rules and sustainable harvesting methods to ensure sustainability (Berkes 2008 ). However, a vast section of the population is either not involved or simply uninterested in government-backed conservation initiatives. Since conservation behavior is directly linked to the knowledge of environmental challenges (Gore and Ballantyne 2005 ). Such disenchanted people need to be made aware of a species/ecosystem's ecological, economic, and cultural significance. Science and society can apply a creative problem-solving approach through sustainable innovation in addressing complex challenges. Innovation is often hindered by past hierarchical thinking and practices and requires courage to use multiple, diverse perspectives. For that, we need to cultivate an interdisciplinary, culturally diverse, and empathic imagination (Diamond 2019 ). Imagination is an act of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imagination ). It combines creative ability and resourcefulness. It has a close relationship to empathy, which is the experience of understanding another person’s thoughts, feelings, and condition from their point of view, rather than from your own ( https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/empathy ). The imagination gap that often becomes very profound is the gap between current capability and future possibility (Manu 2006 ). Halskov and Christensen ( 2018 ) argue that to codesign an interdisciplinary research project involving people from diverse cultural backgrounds, the participation of all stakeholders in the creative process is critical. Further, effective and persuasive communication of environmental issues may help in achieving a sustainable future (Saunders and Myers Jr 2003 ). An understanding of what drives people’s behaviors will allow us to find win-win solutions to pressing conservation issues. In the past couple of decades, the use of psychological frameworks to understand and promote people’s environmental experiences and actions has increased considerably but disproportionately. The major focus had been on specific concepts (attitudes and beliefs), locations (North America and Europe), and contexts (terrestrial, rural) (Wallen and Landon 2020 ). Conservation psychology as a discipline aims to understand human-nature relationships and promote pro-environmental behavior. Essentially, it is a mission-driven, applied, and interdisciplinary discipline (Saunders and Myers Jr 2001 ; Saunders 2003 ; Clayton 2012 ). It uses psychological theories and techniques to study cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of the human-nature relationship, to promote a healthy relationship between them (Clayton 2012 ). It also attempts to create a strong connection between the natural and social sciences, and between research and practice (Saunders 2003 ). Changing behavior for an alternative and robust solution is difficult (more difficult for individuals than a community) unless we understand people’s values, beliefs, needs, and aspirations (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002 ). Questions such as: Why do people behave the way they do? How can caring relationships with the natural world be developed? How can we change the way people think of their relationship with nature, and most importantly, how can we inspire people to adopt new conservation behaviors that need to be appropriately investigated? In a post-truth society, appeals to emotions and personal belief have been found to be more effective in shaping people’s opinions. Psychologists also suggest that human behavior is greatly influenced by emotion (Kellert 1996 ). Emotional ties to nature often outweigh logical arguments. People with deep emotional ties to the natural world are more concerned about conservation (Chawla 1999 ). An emotional conversation messaging, through stories, sharing of personal experiences, use of narrative and imagery, may lead to a strong sense of appreciation, belongingness, and sustainable behaviors among the masses to take collective action to save a species. Particularly, if they are deeply affected by its extinction or the destruction of its habitat (Orr 1992 ; Schultz 2001 ; Zelenski et al. 2015 ). There is a range of psychological theories, hypotheses, models, and practical approaches linking behavior and emotion, and finding an appropriate one is not easy. Long et al ( 2025 ) used the Cognitive-Affective System (CAPS) hypothesis and Attitude-Context-Behavior (ACB/ABC) theory to explore the role of risk perception, environmental responsibility, and emotion in influencing the water-saving behavior of people. The CAPS hypothesis proposed by Mischel and Shoda ( 1995 ) suggests that through a coding process, the original information is input into the cognitive-affective unit for encoding and interpretation, followed by behavior generation (i.e., cognitive, emotional, and behavioral outputs), resulting from the interaction of cognitive-affective units. Thus, the individuals’ responses to situations are not passive, submissive, or indifferent, but rather active, goal-oriented, planned, and changeable. Behavior is a combination of rationality and sensibility (Slovic et al. 1982 ). Further, attitude alone cannot produce desired behavioral change. According to the Attitude-Context-Behavior (ACB) theory, an individual's behavior is determined by their internal attitudes and surrounding context (Guagnano et al. 1995 ). Positive behavior is an outcome of the interaction between variables governing an individual's attitude (intrinsic) with a specific condition (extrinsic) (Wei and Yu 2021 ). Risk perception, environmental responsibility, and emotion can play a role in changing people’s conservation behavior. And, factors such as environmental awareness and perceived benefits may increase responsibility through enhancing a person's sense of duty to preserve a species' ecological and cultural significance (Vogt et al. 2009 ). If people are interested in the plants' survival, then having an emotional bond with plants increases their feeling of accountability (Nash 2000 ). Therefore, developing a successful and long-lasting conservation regime requires an understanding of the role of these factors in people’s conservation behavior. In the present study, we tested the applicability of the CAPS and ACB on selected volunteers residing within the periphery of the Achanakmar-Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve (henceforth AABR). Methodology Working definitions of important terms Cognition: Acquisition of knowledge through psychological activities. Emotion: Inner experience towards objective things produced by individuals. Volitional activities: Those activities controlled by people’s behavior. Risk perception: It is an attitude and intuitive judgment when people face the risk of uncertain things. It measures the gap between expert opinions of risk and lay people’s perception. He ( 2013 ) suggests that cognition, emotion, and behavior are closely linked. Cognition is the source of emotion as well as affecting emotion, whereas volitional activities are influenced by emotion. Theoretical model and proposed hypotheses The local populace is an important stakeholder in conservation activities and needs to be involved in scientific investigations. It is a powerful approach, enriching both scientific communities and ordinary people with each other’s expertise, experience, and reach. In recent times, there has been much emphasis on this approach to better natural resource conservation, known as Citizen Science (CS). CS talks about including people in research and decision-making to enhance their role as proactive stewards of biodiversity conservation and fortifying a sense of accountability. In the present study, we conducted correlation analyses among six psychometric variables - risk perception (RP), environmental responsibility (ER), positive conservation emotion (PE), environmental awareness campaigns (ECC), knowledge of access and benefit sharing (ABS), and attitudes towards conservation (AC). We used regression and path analysis to verify the relatedness among these variables. First, we analyzed the effect of risk perception and environmental responsibility on people’s positive conservation emotion, followed by an analysis of the moderating effect of environmental awareness (say, educational campaigns) and ABS on the positive conservation emotion and attitudes towards conservation, which in a way represents the effect of institutional and informational interventions on shaping people’s conservation behavior. Lastly, we did heterogeneity analyses to understand the role of demographic and socio-economic factors on conservation behaviors by comparing two distinct population sets. We proposed the following five hypotheses, and analyzed their interrelatedness, as illustrated below (Fig. 1 ): H1: Risk perception has a positive impact on positive conservation emotions. H2: Environmental responsibility has a positive impact on positive conservation emotions. H3: Positive conservation emotion has a positive impact on conservation attitude. H4: Awareness positively moderates positive emotions, hence conservation. H5: The ABS positively moderates the relationship between positive emotion and conservation. Designing questions to measure variables As per the above-proposed hypotheses, we designed a questionnaire to record the informants' responses. In accordance to the cognitive-emotional model of risk perception (Slovic 2000 ), the following four questions were designed to evaluate informant’s risk perception - I know conserving plant resources is essential for the community’s need (e.g., food, fodder, timer and other non-forest timber products)(1); I know that plant resources are in danger (2); I know that plant resources are being over-exploited (3); I know that not enough is being done to ensure a continuity of plant resources (e.g. plantation and habitat protection)(4). Further, according to Catton and Dunlap ( 1978 ) and Nie ( 2016 ), environmental responsibility is a spirit people exert upon themselves and society. They act accordingly and treat it as their moral duty to protect the environment. We examined the environmental responsibility of the informants through these two questions: I know that protecting plant resources is my responsibility (1); and I will actively promote the importance of protecting plant resources to others (2). Emotional cues provide a psychological reward that encourages durable commitment to sustainable activities (Guagnano et al. 1995 ; Zelenski et al. 2015 ). Therefore, the following questions were used to measure informants' conservation emotion: I feel happy by saving plant species, and I shall advocate for conservation (1). I feel happy in protecting plant habitats (2). Planned activities, such as raising awareness, affect people’s attitudes and actions (Ajzen 1991 ; Mischel and Shoda 1995 ).The effect of conservation awareness campaigns on informants behavior was explored using four questions - Print and electronic media campaigns effectively shape my conservation behavior (1); The use of social media will be effective in shaping my conservation behavior (2); Social networking will also be conducive to my conservation behavior (3); Community education will be conducive to shaping my conservation behavior, especially through citizen science platforms (4). Further, acknowledging people’s legal and economic rights is essential to empowering local communities, which may promote their active involvement in conservation (Gadgil et al. 1993 ). The questions used to measure the effectiveness of ABS (Nagoya Protocol and the Biological Diversity Act 2002; CBD 2011 ) were: I know about ABC (1), and I know that if local people are given access to the forest, and a share of benefits arising out of its use I/they may have a better opinion about conservation (2). The pro-environmental behavior models link intention and action to positive behavior (Ajzen 1991 ). Therefore, the questions used to examine informants' attitude toward conservation were: I shall conserve plant resources at any cost, and (1) a plant has greater importance than the product/produce obtained from it (2). The scores for items under each variable, namely, RP, ER, PE, ECC, ABS, and AC, were added to provide a measure of the respective variables. These scores were standardized. The standardized scores were utilized for statistical analyses. Survey and the study area For the present study, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey from October 2024 to April 2025. A single semi-structured questionnaire (SSQ) was designed to capture demographic information of the informants and their opinions on the proposed hypotheses. Hypotheses-related questions were designed on a 7-point Likert scale, in which 7 indicates strong agreement, and 1 denotes strong disagreement. We subjected the questionnaire to expert review (n = 25) and pilot testing to test its reliability and validity, and modified it as per the suggestions, and got re-evaluated by the experts, prior to finalization. Cronbach's alpha scores for all constructs in the final questionnaire were higher than the suggested cutoff of 0.7, indicating strong internal consistency. Following exploratory factor analysis, sample adequacy was validated by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test (values > 0.75). The factorability of the correlation matrix was confirmed by the significant results of Bartlett's test of sphericity (p < 0.001). The study team consisted of two of the co-authors (CT and RS) of the article. Since some informants were illiterate, face-to-face interviews (semi-structured interviews, SSI) were also conducted. To analyze the impact of socio-economic factors on people’s conservation behavior, we selected another set of students and staff (52 participants) of the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU), Amarkantak, a central university located in the study area. For them, the questionnaire was converted into a Google Form to collect their responses online via email and WhatsApp. For the selection of participants, random sampling was adopted. In total of 113 people participated in the study, including 61 villagers representing different strata of the population, from nine (09) villages, namely- Damgarh, Pharrisemar, Miriya, Harra tola, Bhamariya, Lalpur, Bijauri, Pamra, and Umargohan of the Pushparajgarh tehsil of the district, Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh, India) (Fig. 2 ). All the villages are located in the buffer zone of the Achanakmar-Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve ( https://www.unesco.org/en/mab/achanakmar-amarkantak ). Pushparajgarh is the largest division of the district, with its 96% population residing in rural areas. Approximately 77% of its total population are scheduled tribes (www.anuppur.nic.in ), residing mainly in remote and isolated villages full of natural resources, and observe simple indigenous lifestyles. They survive primarily on agriculture and speak Hindi, Bagheli, Bundeli, Chhattisgarhi, and Gondi languages. Table 1 contains demographic details of the respondents. Statistical analyses Based on the informant’s gender (male/female), income (< Rs. 6000 per month/Rs. 6000 and above), children (no children/having children), age (25 years or less/more than 25 years), and place of residence (village/university campus), subgroups of respondents were formed. Descriptive statistics on standardized scores were used for each of the selected sub-groups. Regressions were conducted for estimating the effect of RP on PE, ER on PE, PE on AC, the interaction effect of ECC and PE on AC, and the interaction effect of ABS and PE on AC. The regressions were also conducted for each subgroup. The association between each pair of variables: RP, ER, PE, ECC, ABS, and AC was determined using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Finally, the conceptual model, Path Model I, that incorporates all the factors, was tested using path analysis with ECC and ABS as moderators. Path coefficients were estimated for the model. An alternative path model (i.e., Path Model II) was suggested as an alternative, and the path coefficients for this model were estimated. The R and JASP 0.95 software were used to perform the statistical analyses. Results Sample profile of the respondents and average scores A total of 113 responses took our survey (henceforth referred to as the overall population), with 52 from the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU), Amarkantak, and 61 from the local villages. Respondents differ in demographic, educational, and socio-economic parameters. Out of the total respondents, 54% reside in the selected villages and 46% on the university campus. Among the respondents, 66.4% were male and 33.6% were female. About 49.6% of the respondents had children. Most of the respondents are above 25 years (57.5%). For the majority (69.9%), monthly income was found to be above Rs. 6000. The rest of the respondents belonged to relatively lower incomes (Table 1). The mean standardized score for RP was found to be higher for males (0.140) compared to the females (-0.071). Similarly, the ECC and AC scores for males are 0.027 and 0.188, respectively, which are higher than the corresponding scores for females, -0.014 and − 0.095, respectively. However, the average standardized scores for ER, PE, and ABS for females are 0.134, 0.030, and 0.012, respectively (Table 2) , which are higher than those of the corresponding scores for males (-0.066, -0.059, and − 0.023, respectively. Respondents with children have higher scores for RP (0.003), ER (0.117), ECC (0.119), and ABS (0.120) than those without children (-0.003, -0.115, -0.117, and − 0.118 (Table 2) . However, PE for respondents with children (-0.001) is less than that of those without children (0.001). Similarly, the AC score for respondents with children (-0.092) is lower than that of those without children (0.091). The respondents with higher income (≥ Rs. 6000 pm) are found to have higher scores for RP (0.086), ER (0.053), PE (0.056), ECC (0.032), and AC (0.130) than those with lower monthly income. Their corresponding scores for RP, ER, PE, ECC, and AC are − 0.199, -0.123, -0.131, -0.075, and − 0.302, respectively (Table 2) . However, ABS scores for respondents with lower monthly income (0.279) are higher than those with higher monthly income (-0.120). Younger respondents (≤ 25 years of age) have higher scores for RP (0.389), PE (0.028), ECC (0.172), and AC (0.325) compared to the older respondents. Whereas the older respondents (≥ 25 years of age) have higher scores for ER (0.052) and ABS (0.335) compared to the younger respondents (Table 2) . Likewise, respondents residing in villages have higher scores for RP (0.333), ECC (0.195), and AC (0.421) compared to those residing on the university campus, who have higher scores for ER (0.137), PE (0.021), and ABS (0.416). Correlation Analysis outcomes The effect of different variables on each other has been presented in Tables 3–9. The correlation between RP and ER (0.258), RP and PE (0.379), PR and ECC (0.360), and RP and AC (0.288) is significant and positive (Table 3) . ER exhibits significant positive correlation with PE (0.524), ECC (0.174), and AC (0.175), apart from being correlated with RP. PE and ECC are positively correlated (0.190). ECC and AC show a positive correlation (0.259). ABS and AC show a negative correlation (-0.188). H1 Hypothesis: Effect of RP on PE The regression analysis between RP and PE showed an R 2 of 0.143 (Table 4) . The effect of RP on PE was significant and positive on the overall population as well as on the subgroups. Hypothesis H1 is thus validated. However, this effect was found to be greater for the villagers (0.429) and females (0.501) than for the university residents (0.423) and males (0.339). Likewise, this effect on people with children (0.299) was less than those without children (0.474). The respective scores for lower and higher income groups were 0.365 (less) and 0.378 (more), respectively. The effect of RP on PE was stronger among elderly people (0.476) than among the younger generation (0.344). H2 Hypothesis: Effect of ER on PE The findings validate hypothesis H2 ( Table 5) . The effect of ER on PE was significant and positive for the overall population and the subgroups. The regression R 2 was 0.275 for the populations, whereas for the subgroups it ranged from 0.141 to 0.458. The respective scores for villagers and university residents are 0.497 and 0.596, respectively. For males and females, it was 0.528 and 0.535, respectively. For people without children, the score was 0.755, greater than that of those with children (0.340). Similarly, emotion for conservation was highly affected by ER among the higher income group (0.549) than that of the lower income group (0.449). Age-wise, the effect was more pronounced among the elderly people (0.552) than the younger generation (0.500). H3 Hypothesis: Effect of PE on AC The effect of PE on AC was not significant for the overall population, but for some subgroups ( Table 6 ). Such as, villagers (0.298), females (0.03), those without children (0.236), and the younger group (0.306), where PE has a positive effect on conservation attitude. Thus, H3 stands validated for these subgroups only. For the university residents, males, people with children, and the higher income group, the score was zero (0). H4 Hypothesis: Moderating effect of ECC on PE and on AC The findings of the interaction model depicting the moderating effect of ECC on PE, which in turn affects AC, are given in Table 7 . ECC did not have a significant effect on PE either for the overall group and subgroups, including age and gender. However, it was significant for villagers (-0.263, negative), lower (-0.485, negative) and higher income groups (0.285, positive), people with (-0.461, negative) and without children (0.300, positive). Thus, the hypothesis H4 is valid for those without children and the higher income group only. H5 Hypothesis: Moderating effect of ABS on PE and on AC The findings of the interaction model depicting the effect of ABS on PE and consequently on AC are provided in Table 8 . The interaction was not found to be significant for the overall group and most of the subgroups, except females (-0.292, negative) and the higher income group (0.121, positive). Thus, H5 is validated for the higher-income subgroup only. Validation of the proposed path model and an alternative path model In the conceptual model (Fig. 1 ), we hypothesize a positive effect of RP and ER on PE. Accordingly, the Path Model I (Fig. 3 ) validates H1 and H2 for the overall population (or, survey group); however, it validates the proposed H3, H4, and H5 hypotheses for only certain subgroups. It indicates that PE has no significant effect on AC for the overall population when ECC and ABS act as moderators (Tables 6,7,8, and 9). Alternatively, we proposed another plausible model, the Path Model II (Fig. 4 ), for the population under consideration. In this model, AC is impacted by ER with ECC and ABS as moderators ( Table 9 ). ER is impacted by PE, which is further impacted by RP. Discussion The majority of our current environmental problems are anthropogenic. Thus, it is contingent upon us to involve people in finding their solution. Ironically, we are over-reliant on natural sciences and scientists for this job. Ignoring the important role social sciences may play in solving these problems. For instance, many studies highlight the role psychology can play in promoting environmental sustainability (Wallen and Landon 2020 ). However, for this, psychologists need to focus more on empowering people to make appropriate choices. Promoting an understanding of human-nature experiences, encouraging people to care about the natural world, and to act in more environmentally friendly ways (Saunders 2003 ). Pro-environmental behavior includes a number of dimensions. Each is associated with different causal factors. We need to develop appropriate strategies, a more powerful vocabulary for influencing the public discourse for enduring behavior change (Saunders 2003 ). And, the resulting insights may then be applied to develop new exhibits and programs. The mental and emotional processes (i.e., a positive emotional connection with nature) may determine the individuals’ attitude toward conservation, which is a predictor and can be used as a tool to promote a sustained pro-environment behavior change. Mischel and Shoda ( 1995 ) suggest that knowledge, emotional experience, and equitable engagement are essential components to promote positive conservation attitudes. For the present study, we used the model proposed by Long et al ( 2025 ) to examine water saving behavior of the people, which was based on the Cognitive-Affective System hypothesis and the Attitude-Context-Behavior theory. We found that the conservation behavior of two socio-economically and educationally different groups was variably affected by the chosen psychological variables. The conservation behavior of villagers is shaped by their direct reliance on forest resources and traditional ecological knowledge. Whereas the viewpoint of the University respondents is influenced by their education, financial well-being, and environmental awareness initiatives. Although both groups show emotional and cultural attachments to local flora, the nature and basis of their pro-conservation behavior are different. The University respondents valued ecological, academic, and global environmental concerns more. Village folk’s conservation behavior is significantly affected by RP, ECC, and AC, while the University population was more affected by ER, PE, and ABC. RP, PE, ECC, and AC have a more pronounced effect on young people than on the elderly, who are affected by ER and ABS. Similarly, RP, ER, PE, ECC, and AC have a better effect on the high-income group than the low-income group (ABC). Those with children are more affected by RP, ER, ECC, and ABS; nonetheless, PE is important for people without children. Females are more affected by ER, PE, and ABS, while males are affected by RP, ECC, and AC. Results show that risk perception and environmental responsibility positively affect the conservation behavior of people (H1 and H2). The long-term successful conservation depends on how these components interact. RP is one of the fundamental cognitive components that determines the behavioral reactions to environmental dangers. As and when people perceive a greater ecological risk, they take more decisive action (Slovic 2000 ). Among subgroups, the effect of RP has been more on village folks, young males, high-income group people, and people with children. Local people are emotionally and behaviorally more inclined toward conservation when they become aware of threats to their natural resources (Zhu et al. 2016 ). Environmental responsibility has a strong emotional effect on people. It manifests people's innate sense to preserve and maintain biodiversity, and is a major motivating factor for pro-environmental activity (Catton and Dunlap 1978 ). ER may inspire people to save species if they are made aware of their environmental significance (e.g., species with medicinal and spiritual importance) (Miller 2005 ), which improves the chances of their long-term conservation Nie 2016 ). Positive conservation feelings like pride, happiness, and contentment are crucial for the long-term conservation commitment. It has been observed that social activists promoting conservation have positive conservation emotions. We found that females, people with children, the higher income group, older, and educated people have a strong sense of ER. Women have always been sensitive towards local natural resources (Gadgil et al. 1993 ). This may be because they are most likely to be affected by their shortage. Efforts based on a species' emotional, cultural, and ethical aspects are more likely to win over the public (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002 ). However, with the current model, we found that PE has no significant effect on people’s conservation attitude (AC) (H3 rejected), but did have a positive impact on villagers, females, and people without children. Possibly, as this group is more emotionally volatile. The impact of RP and ER on PE can further be enhanced through meaningful environmental activities (Guagnano et al. 1995 ; Zelenski et al. 2021). Awareness campaigns highlighting the threat and importance of biodiversity may trigger a sense of responsibility, facilitating people to take action, especially when designed and developed in active collaboration with the community. Structured outreach initiatives (e.g., workshops, visual aids, storytelling, school programs, etc.) may improve people’s conservation awareness. Nowadays, social media has penetrated every walk of life; its wise use may strengthen people’s involvement in conservation, which can be greatly enhanced through emotional connections (Gifford 2013 ). For example, letting people know about the negative effects of invasive species, deforestation, and climate change on the environment may enhance their support for conservation laws and programs (O'Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann 2002 ). Further, local people possess the best knowledge about the local species and their applications. Hence, they may play a greater role in increasing awareness. The outside agencies, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), facilitate spreading the relevant knowledge to a wider audience, creating a sense of urgency about conservation (Kark et al. 2015 ). However, in our model, ECC has no moderating effect on people’s positive emotion, hence, on their conservation behavior. Rather, it has a negative effect on conservation emotion and attitude of village folks, and people with lower income and with children. This is a worrisome aspect for conservationists and policymakers, as people representing the lower strata of society and more vulnerable are getting immune to such campaigns. Which is found to be effective for higher-income groups, and also for people without children. People without children may see caring nature as an alternative and positive way to express their love. There are many instances where educated and well-to-do elders with (old and independent children) or without children have devoted themselves to nature conservation. Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) is a framework that ensures local populations gain from the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources. The advantages could be financial or non-financial (e.g., technology transfer, capacity building, recognition). ABS can promote a more equitable and inclusive system and increase the emotional value of conservation (Sheng et al. 2018 ). However, our model suggests that ABS has no significant effect on PE, hence on AC, for the population and all but one subgroup, i.e., positive for people in the higher income group. This difference in viewpoints highlights the necessity for finding an alternative model in order to develop an integrative conservation approach. Accordingly, we proposed another alternative model, the Path Model II (Fig. 4 ), for the population under consideration. In this model, risk perception (RP) has a positive effect on positive conservation emotion (PE), which positively affects people’s environmental responsibility (ER). ER is positively moderated by ECC and ABS to affect people’s conservation attitude. Declarations Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest among themselves. Author Contributions: Sanjeev Bakshi - Modeling, statistical analyses, and data interpretation; Roshan Sahu - Survey and collected data; Chintamani Tandiya - Data collection; Aprana Singh - Writing; Naveen K Sharma- Conceptualization, writing, supervision, editing. Acknowledgment: The Authors thank the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, for financial support to the Department of Botany, IGNTU, Amarkantak, in the form of FIST (SR/FST/LS-I/2018/132(C). NKS thanks the Nalanda University, Rajgir, for the fellowship in the form of AINU-FEP 2025. Data availability: Data has been provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files. References Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211 Berkes F (2008) Sacred Ecology. Routledge Catton WR, Dunlap RE (1978) Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. Am Sociologist 13:41–49 CBD (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations CBD (2011) Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal Chawla L (1999) Life paths into effective environmental action. J Environ Educ 31(1):15–26 Clayton S (2012) Environment and identity. In: Clayton S (ed) Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, Oxford, New York, pp. 164–180 Diamond S (2019) Addressing the imagination gap through STEAMM + D and indigenous knowledge. PNAS 116(6):1851–1856 Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C (1993) Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2/3):151–156 Gifford R (2013) The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 66(4):290–302 Gore A, Ballantyne R (2005) The impact of conservation education on conservation behavior. Australian J Environ Educ 21:41–52 Guagnano GA, Stern PC, Dietz T (1995) Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ Behav 27(5):699–718 Halskov K, Christensen BT (2018) Designing across cultures. CoDesign 14:75–78 He H (2013) Risk perception and behavior: Towards an integrated cognitive-affective framework. J Risk Res 16(2):141–158 Kark S, Tulloch A, Gordon A, Mazor T, Bunnefeld N, Levin N (2015) Cross-boundary collaboration: Key to the conservation puzzle. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:12–24 Kellert SR (1996) The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260 Long X, Liu Y, Cheng W, Zhang J, Jin C, Tao S (2025) Environmental responsibility, emotion and public water saving behavior. Environ Dev Sustain 27:8935–8950 Manu A (2006) The Imagination Challenge: Strategic Foresight and Innovation in the Global Economy. Pearson Education, Chicago Miller TR (2005) The role of spiritual and cultural values in conservation. Ecol Appl 15(5):1456–1461 Mischel W, Shoda Y (1995) A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol Rev 102(2):246–268 Naess A (1973) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry 16(1–4):95–100 Nash R (2000) Loving nature: Ecological integrity and the ethics of responsibility. Island Nie W (2016) Environmental responsibility and ecological behavior: A moral foundation perspective. Chin J Appl Psychol 22(4):321–329 Norton BG (1987) Why preserve natural variety? Princeton University Press O'Riordan T, Stoll-Kleemann S (2002) Biodiversity, sustainability and human communities: Protecting beyond the protected. Cambridge University Press Orr DW (1992) Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. SUNY Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Abell R, Brooks TM, Gittleman JL, Joppa LN, Raven PH, Roberts CM, Sexton JO (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344(6187):1246752 Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ et al (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287(5459):1770–1774 Saunders CD (2003) The Emerging Field of Conservation Psychology. Hum Ecol Rev 10(2):137–149 Saunders CD, Myers OE Jr (2001) Using conservation biology as a model for thinking about conservation psychology. Popul Environ Psychol Bull 27(2):7–8 Saunders CD, Myers OE Jr (2003) Exploring the potential of conservation psychology. Hum Ecol Rev 10(2):iii–v Schultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21(4):327–339 Sheng J, Shen L, Qi G (2018) Equity and sustainability in benefit-sharing mechanisms of biodiversity resources. Ecol Econ 148:11–18 Shrivastava RJ, Heinen JT, Kishore D (2019) Local communities’ participation in biodiversity conservation: A case study from the Indian Himalayas. Environ Manage 64(3):303–313 Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1982) Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In: Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, pp 463–489 Turvey ST, Crees JJ (2019) Extinction in the Anthropocene. Curr Biol 29:R982–R986 Vogt JM, Grove JM, Ascher WL, Pickett ST, Dale VH (2009) Demographic change, human agency, and resilience in social-ecological systems. Environ Res Lett 4(4):045003 Wallen KE, Landon AC (2020) Systematic map of conservation psychology. Conserv Biol 34(6):1339–1352 Wei XY, Yu GT (2021) How do mentoring motivate innovative behavior of protégé: Dual path study based on cognition and affect. Bus Manage J 43(02):123–138 Zelenski JM, Dopko RL, Capaldi CA (2015) Cooperation is in our nature: Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. J Environ Psychol 42:24–31 Zhu X, Li H, Pan W (2016) The influence of perceived risk on behavioral intention in environmental conservation. J Clean Prod 134:177–184 Tables Tables 1 to 9 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files TablesFigures.docx These are part of the manuscript Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7580107","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":512936442,"identity":"0bb29631-4763-410a-bd15-5853bd717b43","order_by":0,"name":"Sanjeev Bakshi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Statistics, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak 484 887, M.P., India","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sanjeev","middleName":"","lastName":"Bakshi","suffix":""},{"id":512936443,"identity":"d5de5faf-0383-4b32-81a6-05f1f5fb6a33","order_by":1,"name":"Roshan Sahu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Botany, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak 484 887, M.P., India","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Roshan","middleName":"","lastName":"Sahu","suffix":""},{"id":512936444,"identity":"ba7f8129-ded9-4a1f-8839-0c8817acfb54","order_by":2,"name":"Chintamani Tandiya","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Botany, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak 484 887, M.P., India","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chintamani","middleName":"","lastName":"Tandiya","suffix":""},{"id":512936445,"identity":"934cac1c-8f57-45c2-bc25-b48573c5e01c","order_by":3,"name":"Aprana Singh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Environmental Biology, Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa 486001, M. P., India","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aprana","middleName":"","lastName":"Singh","suffix":""},{"id":512936446,"identity":"2d3dfec2-15cb-4c80-9a06-378da6bb0b07","order_by":4,"name":"Naveen K. Sharma","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8658-7671","institution":"Department of Botany, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak 484 887, M.P., India","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Naveen","middleName":"K.","lastName":"Sharma","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-10 07:53:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7580107/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7580107/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91510992,"identity":"f1cf763f-a9c9-4847-8834-8961e2e6b6e7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 08:45:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":47689,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe proposed model, showing the interrelatedness among different psychometric variables (adopted from Long et al., 2025, and modified).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7580107/v1/decada06758c3b3bae945901.jpg"},{"id":91512411,"identity":"88c6d6d5-64fb-4bd2-a56d-e4f1192ad7a5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 08:53:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":68141,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA map of the study area.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7580107/v1/a58f92968767e641d8753953.jpg"},{"id":91510989,"identity":"b45432b0-2e7a-4994-a299-c478c4fd334d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 08:45:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15234,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Path Model I.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7580107/v1/1c7995f840fc8dbc56edbcfd.jpg"},{"id":91512405,"identity":"febef08d-6f4c-4bb6-94be-330ba6b99180","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 08:53:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":19557,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Path Model II.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7580107/v1/a31ca7f8245cb024b89ad3cd.jpg"},{"id":91514754,"identity":"091ce3b8-fade-4d09-84ba-7b6f5df5d9c8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 09:09:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":874698,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7580107/v1/e2df6921-30de-4890-b398-0180f46c0313.pdf"},{"id":91510995,"identity":"0f38b2c3-1f83-403d-993b-2e9f8f0edbac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 08:45:54","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":297996,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThese are part of the manuscript\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"TablesFigures.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7580107/v1/3a31ca6620417835286bee70.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of cognitive-affective factors on people’s conservation behavior: A case study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eBiodiversity is key to the continued availability of goods and ecosystem services, and climate regulation (Pimm et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Anthropogenic activities such as agricultural expansion, urbanization, deforestation, and climate change have accelerated the species extinction rate 10 to 100 times higher than the natural background rate (Sala et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Turvey and Crees \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and have decisively altered over 75% of terrestrial and 66% of marine ecosystems. All these undermine critical ecological services and increase vulnerability to disasters. Conservation initiatives are vital for preventing these disasters. Governments may take appropriate initiatives and frame the needed policies, but ultimately, it is the shared responsibility between countries, conservationists, and local populations to stem the environmental degradation, guaranteeing their continued existence against anthropogenic and natural changes (CBD \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). Our experiences reiterate that to make any conservation effort successful, people must be actively involved in it. They are responsible for saving species, not just for their own benefit but also for the overall integrity of the ecosystem (Naess \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e). Here, responsibility refers to the duty that people and societies perform to safeguard species from harm and guarantee their existence for future generations (Norton \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEcological conservation involves multiple stakeholders (Kark et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), including the populace, which is a part of the very ecosystem. Ensuring their participation and raising their awareness are fundamental to the long-term success of conservation programs, which depend on using participatory conservation techniques and instilling a sense of accountability among people (Shrivastava et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Cultural values and environmental education can help to cultivate personal responsibility among the masses (Miller \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Local populace should feel obligated to protect plant diversity for their historical and societal significance (Gadgil et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). It has been found that communities with traditional ecological knowledge observe customary rules and sustainable harvesting methods to ensure sustainability (Berkes \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). However, a vast section of the population is either not involved or simply uninterested in government-backed conservation initiatives. Since conservation behavior is directly linked to the knowledge of environmental challenges (Gore and Ballantyne \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Such disenchanted people need to be made aware of a species/ecosystem's ecological, economic, and cultural significance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScience and society can apply a creative problem-solving approach through sustainable innovation in addressing complex challenges. Innovation is often hindered by past hierarchical thinking and practices and requires courage to use multiple, diverse perspectives. For that, we need to cultivate an interdisciplinary, culturally diverse, and empathic imagination (Diamond \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Imagination is an act of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imagination\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imagination\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). It combines creative ability and resourcefulness. It has a close relationship to empathy, which is the experience of understanding another person\u0026rsquo;s thoughts, feelings, and condition from their point of view, rather than from your own (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/empathy\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/empathy\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). The imagination gap that often becomes very profound is the gap between current capability and future possibility (Manu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Halskov and Christensen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) argue that to codesign an interdisciplinary research project involving people from diverse cultural backgrounds, the participation of all stakeholders in the creative process is critical.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther, effective and persuasive communication of environmental issues may help in achieving a sustainable future (Saunders and Myers Jr \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). An understanding of what drives people\u0026rsquo;s behaviors will allow us to find win-win solutions to pressing conservation issues. In the past couple of decades, the use of psychological frameworks to understand and promote people\u0026rsquo;s environmental experiences and actions has increased considerably but disproportionately. The major focus had been on specific concepts (attitudes and beliefs), locations (North America and Europe), and contexts (terrestrial, rural) (Wallen and Landon \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Conservation psychology as a discipline aims to understand human-nature relationships and promote pro-environmental behavior. Essentially, it is a mission-driven, applied, and interdisciplinary discipline (Saunders and Myers Jr \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Saunders \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Clayton \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). It uses psychological theories and techniques to study cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of the human-nature relationship, to promote a healthy relationship between them (Clayton \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). It also attempts to create a strong connection between the natural and social sciences, and between research and practice (Saunders \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Changing behavior for an alternative and robust solution is difficult (more difficult for individuals than a community) unless we understand people\u0026rsquo;s values, beliefs, needs, and aspirations (Kollmuss and Agyeman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Questions such as: Why do people behave the way they do? How can caring relationships with the natural world be developed? How can we change the way people think of their relationship with nature, and most importantly, how can we inspire people to adopt new conservation behaviors that need to be appropriately investigated?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn a post-truth society, appeals to emotions and personal belief have been found to be more effective in shaping people\u0026rsquo;s opinions. Psychologists also suggest that human behavior is greatly influenced by emotion (Kellert \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Emotional ties to nature often outweigh logical arguments. People with deep emotional ties to the natural world are more concerned about conservation (Chawla \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). An emotional conversation messaging, through stories, sharing of personal experiences, use of narrative and imagery, may lead to a strong sense of appreciation, belongingness, and sustainable behaviors among the masses to take collective action to save a species. Particularly, if they are deeply affected by its extinction or the destruction of its habitat (Orr \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Schultz \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Zelenski et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a range of psychological theories, hypotheses, models, and practical approaches linking behavior and emotion, and finding an appropriate one is not easy. Long et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) used the Cognitive-Affective System (CAPS) hypothesis and Attitude-Context-Behavior (ACB/ABC) theory to explore the role of risk perception, environmental responsibility, and emotion in influencing the water-saving behavior of people. The CAPS hypothesis proposed by Mischel and Shoda (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that through a coding process, the original information is input into the cognitive-affective unit for encoding and interpretation, followed by behavior generation (i.e., cognitive, emotional, and behavioral outputs), resulting from the interaction of cognitive-affective units. Thus, the individuals\u0026rsquo; responses to situations are not passive, submissive, or indifferent, but rather active, goal-oriented, planned, and changeable. Behavior is a combination of rationality and sensibility (Slovic et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther, attitude alone cannot produce desired behavioral change. According to the Attitude-Context-Behavior (ACB) theory, an individual's behavior is determined by their internal attitudes and surrounding context (Guagnano et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). Positive behavior is an outcome of the interaction between variables governing an individual's attitude (intrinsic) with a specific condition (extrinsic) (Wei and Yu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Risk perception, environmental responsibility, and emotion can play a role in changing people\u0026rsquo;s conservation behavior. And, factors such as environmental awareness and perceived benefits may increase responsibility through enhancing a person's sense of duty to preserve a species' ecological and cultural significance (Vogt et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). If people are interested in the plants' survival, then having an emotional bond with plants increases their feeling of accountability (Nash \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, developing a successful and long-lasting conservation regime requires an understanding of the role of these factors in people\u0026rsquo;s conservation behavior. In the present study, we tested the applicability of the CAPS and ACB on selected volunteers residing within the periphery of the Achanakmar-Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve (henceforth AABR).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eWorking definitions of important terms\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognition: Acquisition of knowledge through psychological activities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmotion: Inner experience towards objective things produced by individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVolitional activities: Those activities controlled by people\u0026rsquo;s behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRisk perception: It is an attitude and intuitive judgment when people face the risk of uncertain things. It measures the gap between expert opinions of risk and lay people\u0026rsquo;s perception.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that cognition, emotion, and behavior are closely linked. Cognition is the source of emotion as well as affecting emotion, whereas volitional activities are influenced by emotion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical model and proposed hypotheses\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe local populace is an important stakeholder in conservation activities and needs to be involved in scientific investigations. It is a powerful approach, enriching both scientific communities and ordinary people with each other\u0026rsquo;s expertise, experience, and reach. In recent times, there has been much emphasis on this approach to better natural resource conservation, known as Citizen Science (CS). CS talks about including people in research and decision-making to enhance their role as proactive stewards of biodiversity conservation and fortifying a sense of accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the present study, we conducted correlation analyses among six psychometric variables - risk perception (RP), environmental responsibility (ER), positive conservation emotion (PE), environmental awareness campaigns (ECC), knowledge of access and benefit sharing (ABS), and attitudes towards conservation (AC). We used regression and path analysis to verify the relatedness among these variables. First, we analyzed the effect of risk perception and environmental responsibility on people\u0026rsquo;s positive conservation emotion, followed by an analysis of the moderating effect of environmental awareness (say, educational campaigns) and ABS on the positive conservation emotion and attitudes towards conservation, which in a way represents the effect of institutional and informational interventions on shaping people\u0026rsquo;s conservation behavior. Lastly, we did heterogeneity analyses to understand the role of demographic and socio-economic factors on conservation behaviors by comparing two distinct population sets. We proposed the following five hypotheses, and analyzed their interrelatedness, as illustrated below (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1: Risk perception has a positive impact on positive conservation emotions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2: Environmental responsibility has a positive impact on positive conservation emotions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH3: Positive conservation emotion has a positive impact on conservation attitude.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH4: Awareness positively moderates positive emotions, hence conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH5: The ABS positively moderates the relationship between positive emotion and conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDesigning questions to measure variables\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs per the above-proposed hypotheses, we designed a questionnaire to record the informants' responses. In accordance to the cognitive-emotional model of risk perception (Slovic \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), the following four questions were designed to evaluate informant\u0026rsquo;s risk perception - I know conserving plant resources is essential for the community\u0026rsquo;s need (e.g., food, fodder, timer and other non-forest timber products)(1); I know that plant resources are in danger (2); I know that plant resources are being over-exploited (3); I know that not enough is being done to ensure a continuity of plant resources (e.g. plantation and habitat protection)(4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther, according to Catton and Dunlap (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e) and Nie (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), environmental responsibility is a spirit people exert upon themselves and society. They act accordingly and treat it as their moral duty to protect the environment. We examined the environmental responsibility of the informants through these two questions: I know that protecting plant resources is my responsibility (1); and I will actively promote the importance of protecting plant resources to others (2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmotional cues provide a psychological reward that encourages durable commitment to sustainable activities (Guagnano et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Zelenski et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the following questions were used to measure informants' conservation emotion: I feel happy by saving plant species, and I shall advocate for conservation (1). I feel happy in protecting plant habitats (2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanned activities, such as raising awareness, affect people\u0026rsquo;s attitudes and actions (Ajzen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Mischel and Shoda \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e).The effect of conservation awareness campaigns on informants behavior was explored using four questions - Print and electronic media campaigns effectively shape my conservation behavior (1); The use of social media will be effective in shaping my conservation behavior (2); Social networking will also be conducive to my conservation behavior (3); Community education will be conducive to shaping my conservation behavior, especially through citizen science platforms (4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther, acknowledging people\u0026rsquo;s legal and economic rights is essential to empowering local communities, which may promote their active involvement in conservation (Gadgil et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). The questions used to measure the effectiveness of ABS (Nagoya Protocol and the Biological Diversity Act 2002; CBD \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) were: I know about ABC (1), and I know that if local people are given access to the forest, and a share of benefits arising out of its use I/they may have a better opinion about conservation (2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe pro-environmental behavior models link intention and action to positive behavior (Ajzen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the questions used to examine informants' attitude toward conservation were: I shall conserve plant resources at any cost, and (1) a plant has greater importance than the product/produce obtained from it (2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scores for items under each variable, namely, RP, ER, PE, ECC, ABS, and AC, were added to provide a measure of the respective variables. These scores were standardized. The standardized scores were utilized for statistical analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSurvey and the study area\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the present study, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey from October 2024 to April 2025. A single semi-structured questionnaire (SSQ) was designed to capture demographic information of the informants and their opinions on the proposed hypotheses. Hypotheses-related questions were designed on a 7-point Likert scale, in which 7 indicates strong agreement, and 1 denotes strong disagreement. We subjected the questionnaire to expert review (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25) and pilot testing to test its reliability and validity, and modified it as per the suggestions, and got re-evaluated by the experts, prior to finalization. Cronbach's alpha scores for all constructs in the final questionnaire were higher than the suggested cutoff of 0.7, indicating strong internal consistency. Following exploratory factor analysis, sample adequacy was validated by the Kaiser\u0026ndash;Meyer\u0026ndash;Olkin (KMO) test (values\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.75). The factorability of the correlation matrix was confirmed by the significant results of Bartlett's test of sphericity (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study team consisted of two of the co-authors (CT and RS) of the article. Since some informants were illiterate, face-to-face interviews (semi-structured interviews, SSI) were also conducted. To analyze the impact of socio-economic factors on people\u0026rsquo;s conservation behavior, we selected another set of students and staff (52 participants) of the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU), Amarkantak, a central university located in the study area. For them, the questionnaire was converted into a Google Form to collect their responses online via email and WhatsApp. For the selection of participants, random sampling was adopted. In total of 113 people participated in the study, including 61 villagers representing different strata of the population, from nine (09) villages, namely- Damgarh, Pharrisemar, Miriya, Harra tola, Bhamariya, Lalpur, Bijauri, Pamra, and Umargohan of the Pushparajgarh tehsil of the district, Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh, India) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). All the villages are located in the buffer zone of the Achanakmar-Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unesco.org/en/mab/achanakmar-amarkantak\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unesco.org/en/mab/achanakmar-amarkantak\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). Pushparajgarh is the largest division of the district, with its 96% population residing in rural areas. Approximately 77% of its total population are scheduled tribes (www.anuppur.nic.in\u003cspan address=\"http://www.anuppur.nic.in\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e), residing mainly in remote and isolated villages full of natural resources, and observe simple indigenous lifestyles. They survive primarily on agriculture and speak Hindi, Bagheli, Bundeli, Chhattisgarhi, and Gondi languages. \u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;1\u003c/b\u003e contains demographic details of the respondents.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStatistical analyses\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the informant\u0026rsquo;s gender (male/female), income (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Rs. 6000 per month/Rs. 6000 and above), children (no children/having children), age (25 years or less/more than 25 years), and place of residence (village/university campus), subgroups of respondents were formed. Descriptive statistics on standardized scores were used for each of the selected sub-groups. Regressions were conducted for estimating the effect of RP on PE, ER on PE, PE on AC, the interaction effect of ECC and PE on AC, and the interaction effect of ABS and PE on AC. The regressions were also conducted for each subgroup. The association between each pair of variables: RP, ER, PE, ECC, ABS, and AC was determined using Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlation coefficient. Finally, the conceptual model, Path Model I, that incorporates all the factors, was tested using path analysis with ECC and ABS as moderators. Path coefficients were estimated for the model. An alternative path model (i.e., Path Model II) was suggested as an alternative, and the path coefficients for this model were estimated. The R and JASP 0.95 software were used to perform the statistical analyses.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSample profile of the respondents and average scores\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 113 responses took our survey (henceforth referred to as the overall population), with 52 from the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU), Amarkantak, and 61 from the local villages. Respondents differ in demographic, educational, and socio-economic parameters. Out of the total respondents, 54% reside in the selected villages and 46% on the university campus. Among the respondents, 66.4% were male and 33.6% were female. About 49.6% of the respondents had children. Most of the respondents are above 25 years (57.5%). For the majority (69.9%), monthly income was found to be above Rs. 6000. The rest of the respondents belonged to relatively lower incomes \u003cb\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe mean standardized score for RP was found to be higher for males (0.140) compared to the females (-0.071). Similarly, the ECC and AC scores for males are 0.027 and 0.188, respectively, which are higher than the corresponding scores for females, -0.014 and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.095, respectively. However, the average standardized scores for ER, PE, and ABS for females are 0.134, 0.030, and 0.012, respectively \u003cb\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;2)\u003c/b\u003e, which are higher than those of the corresponding scores for males (-0.066, -0.059, and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.023, respectively. Respondents with children have higher scores for RP (0.003), ER (0.117), ECC (0.119), and ABS (0.120) than those without children (-0.003, -0.115, -0.117, and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.118 \u003cb\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;2)\u003c/b\u003e. However, PE for respondents with children (-0.001) is less than that of those without children (0.001). Similarly, the AC score for respondents with children (-0.092) is lower than that of those without children (0.091).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe respondents with higher income (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;Rs. 6000 pm) are found to have higher scores for RP (0.086), ER (0.053), PE (0.056), ECC (0.032), and AC (0.130) than those with lower monthly income. Their corresponding scores for RP, ER, PE, ECC, and AC are \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.199, -0.123, -0.131, -0.075, and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.302, respectively \u003cb\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;2)\u003c/b\u003e. However, ABS scores for respondents with lower monthly income (0.279) are higher than those with higher monthly income (-0.120). Younger respondents (\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;25 years of age) have higher scores for RP (0.389), PE (0.028), ECC (0.172), and AC (0.325) compared to the older respondents. Whereas the older respondents (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;25 years of age) have higher scores for ER (0.052) and ABS (0.335) compared to the younger respondents \u003cb\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;2)\u003c/b\u003e. Likewise, respondents residing in villages have higher scores for RP (0.333), ECC (0.195), and AC (0.421) compared to those residing on the university campus, who have higher scores for ER (0.137), PE (0.021), and ABS (0.416).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCorrelation Analysis outcomes\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe effect of different variables on each other has been presented in Tables\u0026nbsp;3\u0026ndash;9. The correlation between RP and ER (0.258), RP and PE (0.379), PR and ECC (0.360), and RP and AC (0.288) is significant and positive \u003cb\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;3)\u003c/b\u003e. ER exhibits significant positive correlation with PE (0.524), ECC (0.174), and AC (0.175), apart from being correlated with RP. PE and ECC are positively correlated (0.190). ECC and AC show a positive correlation (0.259). ABS and AC show a negative correlation (-0.188).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eH1 Hypothesis: Effect of RP on PE\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe regression analysis between RP and PE showed an R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e of 0.143 \u003cb\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;4)\u003c/b\u003e. The effect of RP on PE was significant and positive on the overall population as well as on the subgroups. Hypothesis H1 is thus validated. However, this effect was found to be greater for the villagers (0.429) and females (0.501) than for the university residents (0.423) and males (0.339). Likewise, this effect on people with children (0.299) was less than those without children (0.474). The respective scores for lower and higher income groups were 0.365 (less) and 0.378 (more), respectively. The effect of RP on PE was stronger among elderly people (0.476) than among the younger generation (0.344).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eH2 Hypothesis: Effect of ER on PE\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings validate hypothesis H2 (\u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;5)\u003c/b\u003e. The effect of ER on PE was significant and positive for the overall population and the subgroups. The regression R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e was 0.275 for the populations, whereas for the subgroups it ranged from 0.141 to 0.458. The respective scores for villagers and university residents are 0.497 and 0.596, respectively. For males and females, it was 0.528 and 0.535, respectively. For people without children, the score was 0.755, greater than that of those with children (0.340). Similarly, emotion for conservation was highly affected by ER among the higher income group (0.549) than that of the lower income group (0.449). Age-wise, the effect was more pronounced among the elderly people (0.552) than the younger generation (0.500).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eH3 Hypothesis: Effect of PE on AC\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe effect of PE on AC was not significant for the overall population, but for some subgroups (\u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;6\u003c/b\u003e). Such as, villagers (0.298), females (0.03), those without children (0.236), and the younger group (0.306), where PE has a positive effect on conservation attitude. Thus, H3 stands validated for these subgroups only. For the university residents, males, people with children, and the higher income group, the score was zero (0).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eH4 Hypothesis: Moderating effect of ECC on PE and on AC\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of the interaction model depicting the moderating effect of ECC on PE, which in turn affects AC, are given in \u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;7\u003c/b\u003e. ECC did not have a significant effect on PE either for the overall group and subgroups, including age and gender. However, it was significant for villagers (-0.263, negative), lower (-0.485, negative) and higher income groups (0.285, positive), people with (-0.461, negative) and without children (0.300, positive). Thus, the hypothesis H4 is valid for those without children and the higher income group only.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eH5 Hypothesis: Moderating effect of ABS on PE and on AC\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of the interaction model depicting the effect of ABS on PE and consequently on AC are provided in \u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;8\u003c/b\u003e. The interaction was not found to be significant for the overall group and most of the subgroups, except females (-0.292, negative) and the higher income group (0.121, positive). Thus, H5 is validated for the higher-income subgroup only.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eValidation of the proposed path model and an alternative path model\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the conceptual model (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), we hypothesize a positive effect of RP and ER on PE. Accordingly, the Path Model I (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) validates H1 and H2 for the overall population (or, survey group); however, it validates the proposed H3, H4, and H5 hypotheses for only certain subgroups. It indicates that PE has no significant effect on AC for the overall population when ECC and ABS act as moderators (Tables\u0026nbsp;6,7,8, and 9). Alternatively, we proposed another plausible model, the Path Model II (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), for the population under consideration. In this model, AC is impacted by ER with ECC and ABS as moderators (\u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;9\u003c/b\u003e). ER is impacted by PE, which is further impacted by RP.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe majority of our current environmental problems are anthropogenic. Thus, it is contingent upon us to involve people in finding their solution. Ironically, we are over-reliant on natural sciences and scientists for this job. Ignoring the important role social sciences may play in solving these problems. For instance, many studies highlight the role psychology can play in promoting environmental sustainability (Wallen and Landon \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, for this, psychologists need to focus more on empowering people to make appropriate choices. Promoting an understanding of human-nature experiences, encouraging people to care about the natural world, and to act in more environmentally friendly ways (Saunders \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Pro-environmental behavior includes a number of dimensions. Each is associated with different causal factors. We need to develop appropriate strategies, a more powerful vocabulary for influencing the public discourse for enduring behavior change (Saunders \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). And, the resulting insights may then be applied to develop new exhibits and programs. The mental and emotional processes (i.e., a positive emotional connection with nature) may determine the individuals\u0026rsquo; attitude toward conservation, which is a predictor and can be used as a tool to promote a sustained pro-environment behavior change. Mischel and Shoda (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) suggest that knowledge, emotional experience, and equitable engagement are essential components to promote positive conservation attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the present study, we used the model proposed by Long et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) to examine water saving behavior of the people, which was based on the Cognitive-Affective System hypothesis and the Attitude-Context-Behavior theory. We found that the conservation behavior of two socio-economically and educationally different groups was variably affected by the chosen psychological variables. The conservation behavior of villagers is shaped by their direct reliance on forest resources and traditional ecological knowledge. Whereas the viewpoint of the University respondents is influenced by their education, financial well-being, and environmental awareness initiatives. Although both groups show emotional and cultural attachments to local flora, the nature and basis of their pro-conservation behavior are different. The University respondents valued ecological, academic, and global environmental concerns more. Village folk\u0026rsquo;s conservation behavior is significantly affected by RP, ECC, and AC, while the University population was more affected by ER, PE, and ABC. RP, PE, ECC, and AC have a more pronounced effect on young people than on the elderly, who are affected by ER and ABS. Similarly, RP, ER, PE, ECC, and AC have a better effect on the high-income group than the low-income group (ABC). Those with children are more affected by RP, ER, ECC, and ABS; nonetheless, PE is important for people without children. Females are more affected by ER, PE, and ABS, while males are affected by RP, ECC, and AC.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults show that risk perception and environmental responsibility positively affect the conservation behavior of people (H1 and H2). The long-term successful conservation depends on how these components interact. RP is one of the fundamental cognitive components that determines the behavioral reactions to environmental dangers. As and when people perceive a greater ecological risk, they take more decisive action (Slovic \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Among subgroups, the effect of RP has been more on village folks, young males, high-income group people, and people with children. Local people are emotionally and behaviorally more inclined toward conservation when they become aware of threats to their natural resources (Zhu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental responsibility has a strong emotional effect on people. It manifests people's innate sense to preserve and maintain biodiversity, and is a major motivating factor for pro-environmental activity (Catton and Dunlap \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). ER may inspire people to save species if they are made aware of their environmental significance (e.g., species with medicinal and spiritual importance) (Miller \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), which improves the chances of their long-term conservation Nie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Positive conservation feelings like pride, happiness, and contentment are crucial for the long-term conservation commitment. It has been observed that social activists promoting conservation have positive conservation emotions. We found that females, people with children, the higher income group, older, and educated people have a strong sense of ER. Women have always been sensitive towards local natural resources (Gadgil et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). This may be because they are most likely to be affected by their shortage. Efforts based on a species' emotional, cultural, and ethical aspects are more likely to win over the public (Kollmuss and Agyeman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). However, with the current model, we found that PE has no significant effect on people\u0026rsquo;s conservation attitude (AC) (H3 rejected), but did have a positive impact on villagers, females, and people without children. Possibly, as this group is more emotionally volatile.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe impact of RP and ER on PE can further be enhanced through meaningful environmental activities (Guagnano et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Zelenski et al. 2021). Awareness campaigns highlighting the threat and importance of biodiversity may trigger a sense of responsibility, facilitating people to take action, especially when designed and developed in active collaboration with the community. Structured outreach initiatives (e.g., workshops, visual aids, storytelling, school programs, etc.) may improve people\u0026rsquo;s conservation awareness. Nowadays, social media has penetrated every walk of life; its wise use may strengthen people\u0026rsquo;s involvement in conservation, which can be greatly enhanced through emotional connections (Gifford \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). For example, letting people know about the negative effects of invasive species, deforestation, and climate change on the environment may enhance their support for conservation laws and programs (O'Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Further, local people possess the best knowledge about the local species and their applications. Hence, they may play a greater role in increasing awareness. The outside agencies, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), facilitate spreading the relevant knowledge to a wider audience, creating a sense of urgency about conservation (Kark et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). However, in our model, ECC has no moderating effect on people\u0026rsquo;s positive emotion, hence, on their conservation behavior. Rather, it has a negative effect on conservation emotion and attitude of village folks, and people with lower income and with children. This is a worrisome aspect for conservationists and policymakers, as people representing the lower strata of society and more vulnerable are getting immune to such campaigns. Which is found to be effective for higher-income groups, and also for people without children. People without children may see caring nature as an alternative and positive way to express their love. There are many instances where educated and well-to-do elders with (old and independent children) or without children have devoted themselves to nature conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess and Benefit Sharing (ABS) is a framework that ensures local populations gain from the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources. The advantages could be financial or non-financial (e.g., technology transfer, capacity building, recognition). ABS can promote a more equitable and inclusive system and increase the emotional value of conservation (Sheng et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, our model suggests that ABS has no significant effect on PE, hence on AC, for the population and all but one subgroup, i.e., positive for people in the higher income group.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis difference in viewpoints highlights the necessity for finding an alternative model in order to develop an integrative conservation approach. Accordingly, we proposed another alternative model, the Path Model II (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), for the population under consideration. In this model, risk perception (RP) has a positive effect on positive conservation emotion (PE), which positively affects people\u0026rsquo;s environmental responsibility (ER). ER is positively moderated by ECC and ABS to affect people\u0026rsquo;s conservation attitude.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eConflict of interest:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflict of interest among themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contributions:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSanjeev Bakshi - Modeling, statistical analyses, and data interpretation; Roshan Sahu - Survey and collected data; Chintamani Tandiya - Data collection; Aprana Singh - Writing; Naveen K Sharma- Conceptualization, writing, supervision, editing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgment:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Authors thank the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, for financial support to the Department of Botany, IGNTU, Amarkantak, in the form of FIST (SR/FST/LS-I/2018/132(C). NKS thanks the Nalanda University, Rajgir, for the fellowship in the form of AINU-FEP 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData availability:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData has been provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAjzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179\u0026ndash;211\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerkes F (2008) Sacred Ecology. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCatton WR, Dunlap RE (1978) Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. Am Sociologist 13:41\u0026ndash;49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCBD (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCBD (2011) \u003cem\u003eNagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing.\u003c/em\u003e Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChawla L (1999) Life paths into effective environmental action. J Environ Educ 31(1):15\u0026ndash;26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClayton S (2012) Environment and identity. In: Clayton S (ed) Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, Oxford, New York, pp. 164\u0026ndash;180\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiamond S (2019) Addressing the imagination gap through STEAMM\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;D and indigenous knowledge. PNAS 116(6):1851\u0026ndash;1856\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C (1993) Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2/3):151\u0026ndash;156\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGifford R (2013) The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 66(4):290\u0026ndash;302\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGore A, Ballantyne R (2005) The impact of conservation education on conservation behavior. Australian J Environ Educ 21:41\u0026ndash;52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuagnano GA, Stern PC, Dietz T (1995) Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ Behav 27(5):699\u0026ndash;718\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalskov K, Christensen BT (2018) Designing across cultures. CoDesign 14:75\u0026ndash;78\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe H (2013) Risk perception and behavior: Towards an integrated cognitive-affective framework. J Risk Res 16(2):141\u0026ndash;158\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKark S, Tulloch A, Gordon A, Mazor T, Bunnefeld N, Levin N (2015) Cross-boundary collaboration: Key to the conservation puzzle. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:12\u0026ndash;24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKellert SR (1996) The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239\u0026ndash;260\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLong X, Liu Y, Cheng W, Zhang J, Jin C, Tao S (2025) Environmental responsibility, emotion and public water saving behavior. Environ Dev Sustain 27:8935\u0026ndash;8950\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManu A (2006) The Imagination Challenge: Strategic Foresight and Innovation in the Global Economy. Pearson Education, Chicago\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiller TR (2005) The role of spiritual and cultural values in conservation. Ecol Appl 15(5):1456\u0026ndash;1461\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMischel W, Shoda Y (1995) A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol Rev 102(2):246\u0026ndash;268\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNaess A (1973) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry 16(1\u0026ndash;4):95\u0026ndash;100\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNash R (2000) Loving nature: Ecological integrity and the ethics of responsibility. Island\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNie W (2016) Environmental responsibility and ecological behavior: A moral foundation perspective. Chin J Appl Psychol 22(4):321\u0026ndash;329\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorton BG (1987) Why preserve natural variety? Princeton University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO'Riordan T, Stoll-Kleemann S (2002) Biodiversity, sustainability and human communities: Protecting beyond the protected. Cambridge University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOrr DW (1992) Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. SUNY\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePimm SL, Jenkins CN, Abell R, Brooks TM, Gittleman JL, Joppa LN, Raven PH, Roberts CM, Sexton JO (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344(6187):1246752\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ et al (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287(5459):1770\u0026ndash;1774\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaunders CD (2003) The Emerging Field of Conservation Psychology. Hum Ecol Rev 10(2):137\u0026ndash;149\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaunders CD, Myers OE Jr (2001) Using conservation biology as a model for thinking about conservation psychology. Popul Environ Psychol Bull 27(2):7\u0026ndash;8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaunders CD, Myers OE Jr (2003) Exploring the potential of conservation psychology. Hum Ecol Rev 10(2):iii\u0026ndash;v\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21(4):327\u0026ndash;339\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSheng J, Shen L, Qi G (2018) Equity and sustainability in benefit-sharing mechanisms of biodiversity resources. Ecol Econ 148:11\u0026ndash;18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShrivastava RJ, Heinen JT, Kishore D (2019) Local communities\u0026rsquo; participation in biodiversity conservation: A case study from the Indian Himalayas. Environ Manage 64(3):303\u0026ndash;313\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1982) Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In: Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, pp 463\u0026ndash;489\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurvey ST, Crees JJ (2019) Extinction in the Anthropocene. Curr Biol 29:R982\u0026ndash;R986\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVogt JM, Grove JM, Ascher WL, Pickett ST, Dale VH (2009) Demographic change, human agency, and resilience in social-ecological systems. Environ Res Lett 4(4):045003\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWallen KE, Landon AC (2020) Systematic map of conservation psychology. Conserv Biol 34(6):1339\u0026ndash;1352\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWei XY, Yu GT (2021) How do mentoring motivate innovative behavior of prot\u0026eacute;g\u0026eacute;: Dual path study based on cognition and affect. Bus Manage J 43(02):123\u0026ndash;138\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZelenski JM, Dopko RL, Capaldi CA (2015) Cooperation is in our nature: Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. J Environ Psychol 42:24\u0026ndash;31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu X, Li H, Pan W (2016) The influence of perceived risk on behavioral intention in environmental conservation. J Clean Prod 134:177\u0026ndash;184\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 9 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Behavior, Conservation psychology, Emotion, Modeling, Responsibility, Sustainability","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7580107/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7580107/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePeople's participation is one of the most fundamental inputs required for any conservation effort to succeed. However, due to socio-economic reasons, such as diffused benefits, indiscriminate use of resources offers better economic returns than conservation, lack of trust in conservation programs, and perception that such programs are the government\u0026rsquo;s oversight in their lives, many of these initiatives do not interest people. All this requires a positive change in their behavior. Here, we used the model proposed by Long et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) to analyze the effect of some psychometric variables on people\u0026rsquo;s conservation behavior. We found that environmental responsibility and risk perception have a positive impact on people\u0026rsquo;s conservation emotion. However, the effect of positive emotion on people\u0026rsquo;s conservation attitude does not hold for the entire population but for certain subgroups. Neither the awareness campaign nor the Access and Benefits Sharing (ABS) had a moderating effect on the positive emotions and conservation attitude, except for certain subgroups. This suggests that for different sections of society, approaches that can be used to modify their conservation behavior vary. To develop an effective integrative conservation approach, we need different path models for different strata of society. In our case, risk perception (RP) resulted in positive conservation emotion (PE), which positively affected people\u0026rsquo;s environmental responsibility (ER). And, which in its turn, is positively moderated by ECC and ABS to modify people\u0026rsquo;s conservation attitude.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effect of cognitive-affective factors on people’s conservation behavior: A case study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-17 08:45:49","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7580107/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d7184ee7-a471-40c0-8241-c6ade035c5d1","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":54485161,"name":"Terrestrial Ecology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-17T08:45:49+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-17 08:45:49","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7580107","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7580107","identity":"rs-7580107","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}