Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Social value shift in favour of biodiversity conservation in the United States

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 16 December 2020

This article has been updated


Global biodiversity loss is indicative of the massive influence of human activity that defines the Anthropocene. Some scholars argue that changes in behaviour at the scale necessary to address this crisis will require wholesale change in cultural values. However, evidence is lacking on whether values are shifting. To better understand this phenomenon, we analysed long-term, large-scale trend data regarding wildlife values in the United States, collected through a 19-state survey in 2004 (n = 12,673) and 2017–2018 (n = 20,674). Findings confirmed an increased endorsement of mutualism values (seeing wildlife as part of one’s social community and deserving of rights like humans) accompanied by a decline in values emphasizing domination (treating wildlife as resources to be used for human benefit), a trend further visible in cross-generational cohort analysis. We also found strong associations between state-level values and trends in urbanization, connecting the shift to macro-level socioeconomic factors. Results suggest positive outcomes for conservation but the field’s ability to adapt will be critical to realizing those outcomes.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Changes in value scores among 19 western US states between 2004 and 2018.
Fig. 2: Changes in value types among among 19 western US states between 2004 and 2018.
Fig. 3: Changes in value types within and between generational cohorts among 19 western US states between 2004 and 2018.
Fig. 4: Percentages of hunters by percentages of mutualists across 19 western US states, 2004 and 2018.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Change history

  • 16 December 2020

    A Correction to this paper has been published:


  1. 1.

    Bell, D. The coming of the post-industrial society. Educ. Forum 40, 574–579 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Veenhoven, R. Life is getting better: societal evolution and fit with human nature. Soc. Indic. Res. 97, 105–122 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ripple, W. J. et al. World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. BioScience 67, 1026–1028 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ehrlich, P. R. & Kennedy, D. Millennium assessment of human behavior. Science 309, 562–563 (2005).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Crompton, T. Common Cause: The Case for Working with Our Cultural Values (World Wildlife Fund, 2010).

  9. 9.

    What is the Great Transition? Great Transition Initiative (2020).

  10. 10.

    Wilson, D. S. Intentional cultural change. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 8, 190–193 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Gelfand, M. J. et al. Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332, 1100–1104 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Oishi, S. & Graham, J. Social ecology: lost and found in psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5, 356–377 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mace, G. M. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Teel, T. L. & Manfredo, M. J. Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conserv. Biol. 24, 128–139 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L. & Dietsch, A. M. Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 30, 287–296 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Manfredo, M. J., Berl, R. E. W., Teel, T. L., & Brusktotter, J. T. Bringing social values to wildlife conservation decisions. Front. Ecol. Environ. (in the press).

  17. 17.

    Simberloff, D. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biol. Conserv. 83, 247–257 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Meine, C., Soulé, M. & Noss, R. F. “A mission‐driven discipline”: the growth of conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 20, 631–651 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ives, C. D. & Kendal, D. The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J. Environ. Manag. 144, 67–72 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Manfredo, M. J. et al. Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv. Biol. 31, 772–780 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Schwartz, S. H. A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 5, 136–182 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bruskotter, J. T. et al. Conservationists’ moral obligations toward wildlife: values and identity promote conservation conflict. Biol. Conserv. 240, 108296 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Smolicz, J. Core values and cultural identity. Ethn. Racial Stud. 4, 75–90 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Geels, F. W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Kitayama, S., Conway, L. G. III, Pietromonaco, P. R., Park, H. & Plaut, V. C. Ethos of independence across regions in the United States: the production-adoption model of cultural change. Am. Psychol. 65, 559–574 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Inglehart, R. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (Princeton Univ. Press, 2018).

  27. 27.

    Tormos, R. The Rhythm of Modernization: How Values Change Over Time (Brill, 2019).

  28. 28.

    Bardi, A., Lee, J. A., Hofmann-Towfigh, N. & Soutar, G. The structure of intraindividual value change. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 913–929 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Gouveia, V. V., Vione, K. C., Milfont, T. L. & Fischer, R. Patterns of value change during the life span: some evidence from a functional approach to values. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41, 1276–1290 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bardi, A. & Goodwin, R. The dual route to value change: individual processes and cultural moderators. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 42, 271–287 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hitlin, S. & Piliavin, J. A. Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30, 359–393 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Inglehart, R. Aggregate stability and individual-level flux in mass belief systems: the level of analysis paradox. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 79, 97–116 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Molloy, R., Smith, C. L. & Wozniak, A. Internal migration in the United States. J. Econ. Perspect. 25, 173–196 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Oishi, S., Trawalter, S. & Nosek, B. A. How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1–14 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kluckholn, C. in Toward a General Theory of Action (eds T. Parsons. T. & Shils, E. A.) 388–433 (Harvard Univ. Press, 1951).

  36. 36.

    Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L. & Henry, K. L. Linking society and environment: a multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Soc. Sci. Quart. 90, 407–427 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bruskotter, J. T. et al. Modernization, risk, and conservation of the world’s largest carnivores. BioScience 67, 646–655 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Manfredo, M. J., Urquiza-Haas, E. G., Carlos, A. W. D., Bruskotter, J. T. & Dietsch, A. M. How anthropomorphism is changing the social context of modern wildlife conservation. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108297 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Inglehart, R. & Welzel, C. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

  40. 40.

    Jacobson, C. A. & Decker, D. J. Governance of state wildlife management: reform and revive or resist and retrench? Soc. Nat. Resour. 21, 441–448 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences 2nd edn (Routledge, 1988).

  42. 42.

    Fisher, P. A political outlier: the distinct politics of the millennial generation. Society 55, 35–40 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Tormos, R., Vauclair, C. M. & Dobewall, H. Does contextual change affect basic human values? A dynamic comparative multilevel analysis across 32 European countries. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 48, 490–510 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Schuster, C., Pinkowski, L. & Fischer, D. Intra-individual value change in adulthood: a systematic literature review of longitudinal studies assessing Schwartz’s value orientations. Z. Psychol. 227, 42–52 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A. & Nelson, M. P. Animal rights and wildlife conservation: conflicting or compatible. Wildl. Prof. 11, 40–43 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Wildes, F. T. Recent themes in conservation philosophy and policy in the United States. Environ. Conserv. 22, 143–150 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Manfredo, M. J. et al. America’s Wildlife Values: The Social Context of Wildlife Management in the U.S. (Colorado State Univ., 2018).

  48. 48.

    Duffin, E. Forecast on Urbanization in the U.S., 2000-2050 (Statistica, 2019).

  49. 49.

    Oishi, S. et al. Does a major earthquake change job preferences and human values? Eur. J. Pers. 31, 258–265 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Diamond, J. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (Penguin, 2011).

  51. 51.

    Kenter, J. O. et al. Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1439–1461 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D. & Christian L. M. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (John Wiley & Sons, 2014).

  53. 53.

    Scheaffer, R. L., Mendenhall, W. & Ott, L. Elementary Survey Sampling 5th edn (Duxbury, 1996).

  54. 54.

    Keeter, S. et al. What Low Response Rates Mean for Telephone Surveys (Pew Research Center, 2017).

  55. 55.

    Stedman, R. C. et al. The end of the (research) world as we know it? Understanding and coping with declining response rates to mail surveys. Soc. Nat. Resour. 32, 1139–1154 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    American Community Survey 2016 5-Year Estimates (US Census Bureau, 2017).

  57. 57.

    National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (US Census Bureau, 2011).

  58. 58.

    Urban and Rural (US Census Bureau, 2018);

  59. 59.

    SAGDP2S: Annual Gross Domestic Product by State (US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010);

  60. 60.

    Kerlinger, F. N. & Lee, H. B. Foundations of Behavioral Research 4th edn (Wadsworth, 2000).

  61. 61.

    Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the Western and Midwest Associations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for their sponsorship of this study, which was funded by state agency contributions and a grant awarded through the 2015 Multistate Conservation Grants Program (grant no. F15AP00726). We also thank the following individuals for their contributions to the project: A. Don Carlos, A. Dietsch, L. Sullivan, A. Bright, D. Fulton, D. Smith, L. Kruckenberg, D. VonDeBur, C. Campbell, C. Boyd, L. Cornicelli, M. Duda, A. Criscione and A. Lanier.

Author information




M.J.M. wrote the manuscript with input from all of the authors. M.J.M. and T.L.T. conceptualized and designed the project, secured funding and collected the data. J.T.B. and S.K. contributed to conceptual development. R.E.W.B. conducted data analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Manfredo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Sarah Bekessy, Joern Fischer and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and Tables 1–4.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manfredo, M.J., Teel, T.L., Berl, R.E.W. et al. Social value shift in favour of biodiversity conservation in the United States. Nat Sustain (2020).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing