Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conservation priorities for elementary school students: Neotropical and European perspectives

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nature conservation can only be an efficient process if involving different society actors, especially those that have long-term and multiplying effects on how society relates with nature, such as children/students. To delineate nature conservation strategies, we need to understand the drivers that shape peoples’ behaviors and attitudes towards nature; for students this is mostly determined by their past experience and influence of their socio-economic and familiar context. To test these assumptions, we develop a study focused on elementary school students from Portugal and Brazil. In each country we selected two student’s groups representing two distinct socio-environmental contexts: rural and urban populations. Based on a written questionnaire, we aimed at understanding the effect of parental and socio-environmental contexts, gender, prior contact with nature and online news-associated environmental information, on how students prioritize taxa to be conserved. Furthermore, we analyzed how health, economic and touristic values constrain pro-conservation attitudes. Students from urban areas and from Portugal showed a lower probability of having a pro-conservation attitude. Brazilian and rural students may have a more frequent contact with nature and live in regions of higher biodiversity, two factors that may act synergistically to produce those patterns. Positive attitudes towards conservation seem to be over-ruled by health (i.e. self-preservation) and economical (i.e. financial subsistence) interests and values. Moreover, students prioritize for conservation species that are commonly mentioned in the online news, particularly mammals, and plants. Acknowledging that students rank higher health and economical values over conservation ones, as well as the perceptible importance of contacting with nature and the apparent relevance of online news as information vehicles, may increase the chances of improving the efficacy of nature conservation strategies. Furthermore, this information can lead to an improvement of environmental awareness and literacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrupamento de Escolas António Sérgio—AEAS (2013) Projeto Educativo 2013–17. Agrupamento de Escolas António Sérgio, Cacém. http://www2.agrupamentoantoniosergio.pt/images/documentos/mnudocumentos/aeas_projeto_educativo_2013_2017.pdf

  • Aoyagi-Usui M, Vinken H, Kuribayashi A (2003) Pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors: an international comparison. Hum Ecol Rev 10(1):23–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage P (1966) The Chi square test for heterogeneity of proportions, after adjustment for stratification. J R Stat Soc B Stat Methods 28(1):150–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K, Dierking L (2007) Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environ Educ Res 13(3):367–383. doi:10.1080/13504620701430604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barros RP, Foguel MN, Ulyssea G (2006) Desigualdade de renda no Brasil: uma análise da queda recente. Ipea, Brasília

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton K (2016) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.15.6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beletsky L (2006) Birds of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Berenguer J, Corraliza JA, Martín R (2005) Rural-urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions. Eur J Psychol Assess 21(2):128–138. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaiuto M, Carrus G, Martorella H, Bonnes M (2002) Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected areas. J Econ Psychol 23:631–653. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00121-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabral MJ, Almeida J, Almeida PR, Dellinger T, Ferrand de Almeida N, Oliveira ME, Palmeirim JM, Queiroz AI, Rogado L, Santos-Reis M (eds) (2005) Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza, Lisboa

  • Caetano M, Nunes V, Nunes A (2009) CORINE land cover 2006 for continental Portugal. Instituto Geográfico Português, Lisboa

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng JCH, Monroe MC (2012) Connection to nature: children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environ Behav 44(1):31–49. doi:10.1177/0013916510385082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clucas B, McHugh K, Caro T (2008) Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodivers Conserv 17:1517–1528. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9361-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corraliza JA, Collado S, Bethelmy L (2012) Nature as a moderator of stress in urban children. Procedia Soc Behav Sc 38:253–263. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottle S (2004) Producing nature(s): on the changing production ecology of natural history TV. Media Cult Soc 26:81–101. doi:10.1177/0163443704039494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davey GCL (1994) Self-reported fears to common indigenous animals in an adult UK population: the role of disgust sensitivity. Br J Psychol 85:541–554. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1994.tb02540.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis RF (2003) Scale development: theory and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson E (2013) The misdiagnosis: rethinking “nature-deficit disorder”. Environ Commun J Nat Cult 7(3):315–335. doi:10.1080/17524032.2013.802704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz JM, Dietz LA, Nagagata EY (1994) The effective use of flagship species for conservation of biodiversity: the example of lion tamarins in Brazil. In: Olney PJS, Mace GM, Feistner ATC (eds) Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 32–49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:335–372. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingwall R, Aldridge M (2006) Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: a case study of evolution. Publ Underst Sci 15:131–152. doi:10.1177/0963662506060588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falissard B (2012) psy: various procedures used in psychometry. R package version 1.1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psy

  • Fiallo EA, Jacobson SK (1995) Local communities and protected areas: attitudes of rural residents towards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environ Conserv 22(3):241–249. doi:10.1017/S037689290001064X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford DJ, Brickhouse NW, Lottero-Perdue P, Kittleson J (2006) Elementary girls’ science reading at home and school. Sci Educ 90:270–288. doi:10.1002/sce.20139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler J, Cohen L, Jarvis P (1998) Practical statistics for field biology. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Frew K, Peterson MN, Stevenson K (2016) Are we working to save the species our children want to protect? Evaluating species attribute preferences among children. Oryx. doi:10.1017/S0030605315001477

    Google Scholar 

  • Garibaldi A, Turner N (2004) Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3):1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1

  • Gladwell VF, Brown DK, Wood CJ, Sandercock GR, Barton JL (2013) The great outdoors: how a green exercise environment can benefit all. Extrem Physiol Med 2:3. doi:10.1186/2046-7648-2-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon A, Glazko G, Qiu X, Yakovlev A (2007) Control of the mean number of false discoveries, Bonferroni and stability of multiple testing. Ann Appl Stat 1(1):179–190. doi:10.1214/07-AOAS102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gormsen E (1997) The impact of tourism on coastal areas. GeoJournal 42:39–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosling E, Williams KJH (2010) Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behavior: testing connectedness theory among farmers. J Environ Psychol 30(3):298–304. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking EB, Barratt R, Scott W (2007) Engaging children: research issues around participation and environmental learning. Environ Educ Res 13(4):529–544. doi:10.1080/13504620701600271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JE, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins BA, Porter EE, Diniz-Filho JAF (2003) Productivity and history as predictors of the latitudinal diversity gradient of terrestrial birds. Ecology 84:1608–1623. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[1608:PAHAPO]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollweg KS, Taylor JR, Bybee RW, Marcinkowski TJ, McBeth WC, Zoido P (2011) Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy. North American Association for Environmental Education, Washington, DC. http://www.naaee.net

  • IUCN (2016) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-2. <http://www.iucnredlist.org>

  • Karsten L (2005) It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s daily use of space. Child Geogr 3(3):275–290. doi:10.1080/14733280500352912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SR (1985) Attitudes toward animals: age-related development among children. J Environ Educ 16:29–39. doi:10.1080/00958964.1985.9942709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kideghesho JR, Røskaft E, Kaltenborn BP (2007) Factors influencing conservation attitudes of local people in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodivers Conserv 16:2213–2230. doi:10.1007/s10531-006-9132-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiven J, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP (2004) Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodivers Conserv 13:1647–1658. doi:10.1023/B:BIOC.0000029328.81255.38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klink CA, Machado RB (2005) Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserv Biol 19(3):707–713. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00702.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krüger O (2005) The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodivers Conserv 14:579–600. doi:10.1007/s10531-004-3917-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruuk H (2002) Hunter and hunted. Relationships between carnivores and people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lane PR (2012) The European sovereign debt crisis. J Econ Perspect 26(3):49–67. doi:10.1257/jep.26.3.49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legault L, Pelletier LG (2000) Impact of an environmental education program on students’ and parents’ attitudes, motivation, and behaviours. Can J Behav Sci 32:243–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann-Matthies P (2002) The influence of an educational program on children’s perception of biodiversity. J Environ Educ 33(2):22–31. doi:10.1080/00958960209600805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro A, Ferrand de Almeida N, Carretero MA, Paulo OS (eds) (2008) Atlas dos Anfíbios e Répteis de Portugal. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade, Lisboa

    Google Scholar 

  • Louv R (2005) Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukas K, Ross S (2005) Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes toward gorillas and chimpanzees. J Environ Educ 36(4):33–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Machado ABM, Martins CS, Drummond JM (eds) (2005) Lista da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção: Incluindo as Espécies Quase Ameaçadas e Deficientes em Dados. Fundação Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte

    Google Scholar 

  • Manel S, Williams HC, Ormerod SJ (2001) Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. J App Ecol 38:921–931. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00647.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manfredo M, Teel T, Bright A (2003) Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Hum Dimens Wildl 8(4):287–306. doi:10.1080/716100425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason P (2016) Tourism impacts, planning and management. Routledge, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride BB, Brewer CA, Berkowitz AR, Borrie WT (2013) Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: what do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere 4:1–20. doi:10.1890/ES13-00075.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Measham TG (2006) Learning about environments: the significance of primal landscapes. Environ Manag 38:426–434. doi:10.1007/s00267-005-0205-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mordi R (1987) Public attitudes toward wildlife in Botswana. PhD thesis, Yale University, New Haven

  • Morris PA (1987) Changing attitudes towards British mammals. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 32:225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb00429.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. doi:10.1038/35002501

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Negev M, Sagy G, Garb Y, Salzberg A, Tal A (2008) Evaluating the environmental literacy of Israeli elementary and high school students. J Environ Educ 39:3–20. doi:10.3200/JOEE.39.2.3-20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neiman Z, Ades C (2014) Contact with nature: effects of field trips on pro-environmental knowledge, intentions and attitudes. Ciência & Educação (Bauru) 20:889–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive A (2015) Urban and rural attitudes toward endangered species conservation in the Canadian prairies: drawing lessons from the American ESA. Hum Dimens Wildl 20:189–205. doi:10.1080/10871209.2015.1004207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paraskevopoulos S, Padeliadu S, Zafiropoulos K (1998) Environmental knowledge of elementary school students in Greece. J Environ Educ 29:55–60. doi:10.1080/00958969809599119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira HM, Domingos T, Vicente L, Proença V (2009) Ecossistemas e bem-estar humano: avaliação para Portugal do Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Escolar Editora, Lisboa

    Google Scholar 

  • Porfírio G, Sarmento P, Fonseca C (2014) Schoolchildren’s knowledge and perceptions of jaguars, pumas, and smaller cats around a mosaic of protected areas in the Western Brazilian Pantanal. Appl Environ Educ Commun 13(4):241–249. doi:10.1080/1533015X.2014.978047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porfírio G, Sarmento P, Leal S, Fonseca C (2016) How is the jaguar Panthera onca perceived by local communities along the Paraguai River in the Brazilian Pantanal? Oryx 50(1):163–168. doi:10.1017/S0030605314000349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/

  • Ribeiro MC, Martensen AC, Metzger JP, Tabarelli M, Scarano F, Fortin M-J (2011) The Brazilian Atlantic forest: a shrinking biodiversity hotspot. In: Zachos FE, Habel JC (eds) Biodiversity hotspots. Springer, Berlin, pp 405–434

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez J-C, Müller M (2011) pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinform 12:77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosalino LM, Grilo C (2011) What drives visitors to protected areas in Portugal? J Tour Sustain 1(1):3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosalino LM, Rosalino C (2012) Nature conservation from a Junior High School perspective. J Nat Conserv 20:153–161. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2012.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross SR, Vreeman VM, Lonsdorf EV (2011) Specific image characteristics influence attitudes about chimpanzee conservation and use as pets. PLoS ONE 6(7):e22050. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022050

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ruschmann DM (2000) A experiência do turismo ecológico no Brasil: um novo nicho de mercado ou um esforço para atingir a sustentabilidade. Turismo-Visão e Ação 2(5):81–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalfi GAM, Barata GF (2014) Fauna brasileira retratada na literatura infantil: instrumento para a divulgação científica. Revista do EDICC 2:63–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegel J, Rupf R (2010) Attitudes towards potential animal flagship species in nature conservation: a survey among students of different educational institutions. J Nat Conserv 18:278–290. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2009.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21:327–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford R, Hart AG, Collins L, Kirkhope CL, Williams RL, Rees SG, Lloyd JR, Goodenough AE (2010) Eu-social science: the role of internet social networks in the collection of bee biodiversity data. PLoS ONE 5(12):e14381. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014381

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson KT, Peterson MN, Bondell HD, Mertig AG, Moore SE (2013) Environmental, institutional, and demographic predictors of environmental literacy among middle school children. PLoS ONE 8:e59519. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059519

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2:53–55. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tomićević J, Shannon MA, Milovanović M (2010) Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: case study from Serbia. For Pol Econ 12:157–162. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuncer G, Ertepinar H, Tekkaya C, Sungur S (2005) Environmental attitudes of young people in Turkey: effects of school type and gender. Environ Educ Res 11:215–233. doi:10.1080/1350462042000338379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Erkel AR, Pattynama PMT (1998) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis: basic principles and applications in radiology. Eur J Radiol 27:88–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vodouhê FG, Coulibaly O, Adégbidi A, Sinsin B (2010) Community perception of biodiversity conservation within protected areas in Benin. For Pol Econ 12:505–512. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.06.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz O, Boone WJ, Andersen HO (2004) Views of elementary and middle school Turkish students toward environmental issues. Int J Sci Educ 26(12):1527–1546. doi:10.1080/0950069042000177280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zar JH (2010) Biostatistical analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Goodale E, Chen J (2014) How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biol Conserv 177:109–116. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

LMR and CF were financial supported by University of Aveiro (Department of Biology), CESAM (UID/AMB/50017), FCT/MEC through national funds, and the co-funding by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020. AIL was supported by FCT grant SFRH/BPD/88056/2012. We also would like to thanks all the support given by the Pederneira County, in Brazil, and by the Directors of D. Maria II (Cacém) and Alto dos Moinhos (Terrugem) Schools Grouping. Moreover, a special thanks is due to Profª Maria João Faria (D. Maria II Schools Grouping), and Profª Mafalda Mendonça (Alto dos Moinhos Schools Grouping) for their logistical support in implementing the questionnaires in the schools they supervised.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CESAM & Departamento de Biologia, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

    L. M. Rosalino, M. T. Gonçalves & C. Fonseca

  2. Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação, Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-graduação, Universidade do Sagrado Coração, Rua Irmã Arminda, 10-50, Bauru, SP, 17011-160, Brazil

    C. Gheler-Costa & G. Santos

  3. cE3c- Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016, Lisbon, Portugal

    A. I. Leal

  4. CEABN/InBIO Associate Laboratory, School of Agronomy, University of Lisbon Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017, Lisbon, Portugal

    A. I. Leal

Authors
  1. L. M. Rosalino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Gheler-Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. T. Gonçalves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Fonseca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. I. Leal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. M. Rosalino.

Additional information

Communicated by Astrid van Teeffelen.

Appendices

Appendix: Questionnaire

Header

This questionnaire aims to obtain information about nature conservation in general, and conservation of plants and animals in particular. The questionnaire is anonymous and all the collected information is confidential. The requested personal data will only be used to help the interpretation of the given answers. Please give honest answers because there are no right or wrong responses. Your opinion is very important! Thank you so much for your collaboration!

I: Choose (using an X) two taxa that you think should be protected

1

Plants

2

Fishes

3

Amphibians and Reptiles

4

Birds

5

Mammals

For each of the two taxa that you chose in the previous question, please select (using an X) two species that you think should be protected.

I-a: Plants

1a

Iris boissieri (PT); Euterpe edulis (BR)

1b

Armeria pseudarmeria (PT); Dicksonia sellowiana (BR)

1c

Ilex aquifolium (PT); Bertholletia excelsa (BR)

1d

Marsilea quadrifolia (PT); Araucaria angustifolia (BR)

1e

Bertholletia excelsa (PT); Cedrus atlantica (BR)

1f

Adansonia grandidieri

1g

Araucaria angustifolia (PT); Sequoiadendron giganteum (BR)

1h

Caesalpinia echinata (PT); Nastus elongatus (BR)

I-b: Fishes

2a

Iberochondrostoma almacai (PT); Squatina californica (BR)

2b

Anguilla anguilla (PT); Pristis pectinata (BR)

2c

Anaecypris hispanica (PT); Pimelodella kronei (BR)

2d

Lampetra fluviatilis (PT); Arapaima gigas (BR)

2e

Acipenser gueldenstaedtii

2f

Scarus hypselopterus

2g

Carcharodon carcharias

2h

Hippocampus kelloggi

I-c: Amphibians and reptiles

3a

Rana iberica (PT); Eretmochelys imbricata (BR)

3b

Chalcides bedriagai (PT); Liolaemus lutzae (BR)

3c

Emys orbicularis (PT); Proceratophrys moratoi (BR)

3d

Lacerta schreiberi (PT); Melanophryniscus macrogranulosus (BR)

3e

Heloderma suspectum

3f

Phytotriades auratus

3g

Ophiophagus hannah

3h

Varanus komodoensis

I-d: Birds

4a

Coracias garrulus (PT); Mitu mitu (BR)

4b

Larus audouinii (PT); Crypturellus noctivagus (BR)

4c

Aquila adalberti (PT); Harpia harpyja (BR)

4d

Otis tarda (PT); Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus (BR)

4e

Emberiza cineracea

4f

Vanellus gregarius

4g

Aptenodytes forsteri

4h

Pyrrhula murina

I-e: Mammals

5a

Microtus cabrerae (PT); Pteronura brasiliensis (BR)

5b

Galemys pyrenaicus (PT); Kerodon rupestris (BR)

5c

Lynx pardinus (PT); Panthera onca (BR)

5d

Balaenoptera musculus (PT); Chrysocyon brachyurus (BR)

5e

Sapajus flavius (PT); Procolobus rufomitratus (BR)

5f

Apodemus gurkha

5g

Ailuropoda melanoleuca

5h

Pan troglodytes

  1. In the original version of the questionnaire (in Portuguese) all species names were in Portuguese to facilitate their identification by students; here we changed it to the scientific names because some species don´t have an English version of their name or the name varies between regions. Species included only in the Brazilian version of the questionnaire for each category (WU, WK, NU, NK) are as marked as “BR”, and those used only in the Portuguese version as “PT”. When no BR or PT symbol is showed, the species was used on both countries in the same category

II: Choose (using an X) two reasons why you think a species should be protected

7

Species that only exist in one region, country or habitat (e.g. mountain meadow)

8

Species that are poisonous

9

Species that only few individuals remain in the wild and have been disappearing

10

Species that are eatable

11

Species that are pretty

12

Species that can coexist with Humans without harming them

III: For each of the sentences bellow please state if you AGREE or DISAGREE

  

AGREE

DISAGREE

10

Trees from a forest where rare animals live can be cut down for the construction of a ski resort

  

11

If the bite of a poisonous snake can be dangerous to Humans, the elimination of all the individuals of that species can be authorized even if it drives that species to extinction

  

12

Shepherds should be allowed to kill wolves since they can eat their sheep and therefore make them loose money

  

13

Hotels can be constructed in beaches to allow the easy access of people to the beach, even if it destroys plant species that only exist there

  

14

Fisherman should continue to capture codfish, a threatened species, so they can have a job and earn a salary

  

15

Scientists discovered that a species of snail produces a natural remedy against flu so, for that reason, it is now possible for Man to capture all those animals from nature

  
  1. Answers were coded as 0 when students selected “Agree” (i.e. they were prioritizing the tested values) and 1 if they disagreed (i.e. they were prioritizing the conservation values)

IV: Personal data (all variables were coded from 0 (first option) to n (last option)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosalino, L.M., Gheler-Costa, C., Santos, G. et al. Conservation priorities for elementary school students: Neotropical and European perspectives. Biodivers Conserv 26, 2675–2697 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1380-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1380-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation