Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 461–478

Positive sentiment and knowledge increase tolerance towards conservation actions

Original Paper

DOI: 10.1007/s10531-016-1253-0

Cite this article as:
Loyau, A. & Schmeller, D.S. Biodivers Conserv (2017) 26: 461. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1253-0
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity appreciation and engagement

Abstract

People generally possess certain basic ideas and values towards biodiversity, influencing their personal evaluation of a conservation situation or action and their attitude towards nature and its conservation. Here, we apply knowledge on human attitudes to an interesting socio-ecological system, the case of mitigating the devastating infectious amphibian disease chytridiomycosis in the Pyrenean Mountains, a touristic region. We conducted a questionnaire survey directly in mountain areas (n = 418) and on the internet (n = 868) to investigate whether attitudes towards amphibians influenced support of five possible conservation actions. We further analyzed whether attitudes were influenced by peoples’ use of the mountains, their socio-economic backgrounds, and their general knowledge of amphibians. Our study shows that all but one conservation measure were well accepted by the public. Importantly, the restrictions people would accept were linked to the attitudes the respondents had towards amphibians and how informed they were regarding the current status of amphibians. Our study highlights the importance of ensuring sufficient education and information for the public and suggests that it is necessary to explore and discuss several conservation options with the public before implementing conservation measures that may not be perceived equally.

Keywords

Policy support Biodiversity monitoring Prioritization Resource allocations Conservation efficiency School experiment 

Supplementary material

10531_2016_1253_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (264 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 264 kb)
10531_2016_1253_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (204 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 203 kb)
10531_2016_1253_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (290 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 289 kb)
10531_2016_1253_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (512 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 511 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EcoLab, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INPT, UPSToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Conservation BiologyLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of System EcotoxicologyLeipzigGermany