Hands cradling a diverse ecosystem, symbolizing prosocial incentives in biodiversity conservation.

Can Prosocial Incentives Save Biodiversity? The Unexpected Power of Doing Good

Kai Mendoza in Climate & Environment August 2025 • 4 min read.

"Discover how tapping into our desire to contribute can protect endangered species, and why sometimes, money isn't everything."

The relentless march of biodiversity loss poses an unprecedented threat to our planet's delicate ecosystems. In a world increasingly aware of environmental issues, innovative solutions are needed to protect our planet's flora and fauna. Traditional methods of biodiversity conservation often fall short, highlighting the need for more effective strategies. This has led researchers and conservationists to explore unconventional approaches, including behavioral incentives, to encourage citizen participation and data collection.

One promising avenue involves leveraging human behavior through prosocial and financial incentives. Understanding what motivates people to engage in conservation efforts can be a game-changer. While financial rewards have long been a staple, the power of prosocial motivations—the desire to contribute to the greater good—is gaining recognition. Can these incentives drive meaningful participation in conservation, and if so, which type is more effective?

Recent studies have begun to explore these questions, using field experiments to test the impact of different incentives on citizen engagement. By tapping into people's intrinsic desire to contribute and offering tangible rewards, these interventions aim to boost the collection of vital data on species distribution and habitat health. This approach turns everyday citizens into valuable contributors to scientific research and conservation efforts.

The Power of Prosocial Incentives: Encouraging Biodiversity Conservation

Hands cradling a diverse ecosystem, symbolizing prosocial incentives in biodiversity conservation.

Researchers Shusaku Sasaki, Takahiro Kubo, and Shodai Kitano conducted a fascinating field experiment using a smartphone app to explore the effectiveness of prosocial and financial incentives in biodiversity conservation. Their study, detailed in a research article, sheds light on how different motivations can drive citizen participation in environmental efforts. The key? Engaging people’s desire to contribute to something larger than themselves.

The study divided participants into three groups: a control group, a prosocial incentive group, and a financial incentive group. The control group was simply asked to post photos of plant, insect, or animal species on weekdays. The prosocial incentive group was informed that for each unique species photo they posted, a donation would be made to endangered species protection activities. The financial incentive group, on the other hand, received gift certificates for their posts.

Control Group: No incentives were provided.
Prosocial Incentive Group: Donations were made to conservation for each unique species photo.
Financial Incentive Group: Participants received gift certificates for their posts.

The results revealed some intriguing differences. While the prosocial incentive didn't increase the overall number of posts, it did change the type of content shared. Participants in this group were more likely to post photos of rare species. In contrast, the financial incentive significantly increased the number of posts, but these were often of less rare and even invasive species. This suggests that prosocial incentives tap into a different motivation, encouraging people to seek out and document species that are more ecologically valuable.

Balancing Incentives for a Healthier Ecosystem

The study underscores the importance of carefully designing incentive programs to achieve specific conservation goals. Financial incentives may boost participation, but they might not always lead to the desired ecological outcomes. Prosocial incentives, on the other hand, can be a powerful tool for engaging people's intrinsic values and driving more targeted conservation efforts. Combining both approaches could lead to more comprehensive and effective biodiversity information collection, balancing quantity with quality and ecological significance.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.18047,

Title: Prosocial And Financial Incentives For Biodiversity Conservation: A Field Experiment Using A Smartphone App

Subject: econ.gn q-fin.ec

Authors: Shusaku Sasaki, Takahiro Kubo, Shodai Kitano

Published: 27-02-2024

Everything You Need To Know

What are the key differences between prosocial and financial incentives in the context of biodiversity conservation?

The core difference lies in the motivation they tap into. Financial incentives, such as gift certificates, primarily motivate participation by offering tangible rewards, which can lead to an increase in the quantity of data collected, but not necessarily the quality. Prosocial incentives, like donating to endangered species protection, leverage the participants' intrinsic desire to contribute to a greater good. This can shift the focus towards documenting ecologically valuable and rare species, thus improving the quality of data and conservation efforts. The study by Shusaku Sasaki, Takahiro Kubo, and Shodai Kitano demonstrated this by comparing a financial incentive group with a prosocial incentive group and a control group.

How can prosocial incentives specifically improve biodiversity conservation outcomes?

Prosocial incentives can significantly improve conservation outcomes by encouraging a focus on ecologically important species. Participants motivated by the desire to contribute to the greater good are more likely to seek out and document rare species. This contrasts with financial incentives, which can lead to an increase in posts of common or even invasive species. By shifting the focus to documenting rare species, prosocial incentives help conservationists gather crucial data on species distribution and habitat health, thereby contributing to a more effective conservation strategy. This was highlighted by the study using a smartphone app.

What were the methodologies used by Shusaku Sasaki, Takahiro Kubo, and Shodai Kitano to evaluate different incentives?

The researchers conducted a field experiment using a smartphone app to explore the impacts of different incentives on citizen engagement. Participants were divided into three groups: a control group, a prosocial incentive group, and a financial incentive group. The control group was asked to post photos of plant, insect, or animal species without any incentives. The prosocial incentive group received a donation to endangered species protection activities for each unique species photo posted. The financial incentive group received gift certificates for their posts. By comparing the types and number of posts across the three groups, the researchers could assess the effectiveness of each incentive type.

Why is combining prosocial and financial incentives a potentially effective approach for biodiversity conservation?

Combining both approaches can create a balanced strategy for biodiversity information collection. Financial incentives can boost participation, ensuring a larger volume of data is collected. Prosocial incentives, on the other hand, ensure the quality and ecological significance of the data by encouraging the documentation of rare species. By integrating these two approaches, conservation efforts can benefit from both the quantity of data and its ecological value. This could lead to a more comprehensive and effective conservation program.

In the context of the research, what role did the control group play in the overall study?

The control group, which received no incentives, served as a baseline for comparison. By observing the behavior of this group, the researchers could determine the impact of the prosocial and financial incentives. Comparing the posts of the control group with the posts of the prosocial and financial incentive groups allowed the researchers to isolate the effects of each type of incentive on citizen engagement and the type of data collected. This group served as a reference point to understand the effects of the incentives. The control group was asked to post photos of plant, insect, or animal species on weekdays.