Advertisement

To preserve, or not to preserve, that is the question: urban and rural student attitudes towards wild vertebrates

  • José Valberto de Oliveira
  • Sérgio de Faria Lopes
  • Raynner Rilke Duarte Barboza
  • Rômulo Romeu da Nóbrega Alves
Article

Abstract

Historically, human interactions with other animals have been marked by an attitudinal affinity–aversion polarization, depending on the animal involved and its local utilitarian value, as well as whether it is related to conflict situations or not. In this sense, the present study aimed to analyse the attitudes (affinity–aversion) of urban and rural students in relation to wild vertebrates and the factors that influence them. Data were obtained from three public schools, one urban and two rural, in the city of Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil. Questionnaires were given to 990 students (528 urban and 462 rural), distributed among all levels of basic education (students 6–17 years of age). We used the technique of “content analysis” to categorize the descriptive data and tests of significance and correlation for statistical analyses. No differences were observed in attitudes of affinity (preservation) and/or aversion (elimination) about vertebrates between urban and rural students. However, there was variation in preferences regarding animals as a function of these contexts. There was a common tendency between genders for aversion for snakes, followed by amphibians, mammals, turtles and birds, with slight differences in the specificities of the animals considered. Significant positive correlations (p < 0.05) between affinity (preservation) and curricular development, age and family income were observed. Attitudinal antagonism (affinity–aversion), expressed by the variation in preferences for certain animals and repulsion by others, has consequential implications for the conservation of wild fauna, thus demonstrating the relevance of incorporating this reality into the context of educational strategies.

Keywords

Ethnozoology Formal education Wild fauna Affinity–aversion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to give a special thanks to all interviewers, who kindly shared their knowledge with us and all school directors that allowed the carrying out of this research.

References

  1. Albuquerque, U. P., Araújo, E. D. L., El-Deir, A. C. A., Lima, A. L. A. D., Souto, A., Bezerra, B. M., et al. (2012). Caatinga revisited: Ecology and conservation of an important seasonal dry forest. Scientific World Journal, 2012(205182), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/205182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves, R. R. N. (2012). Relationships between fauna and people and the role of ethnozoology in animal conservation. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 1(2), 1–69.  https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2012-8-1.2-1-69.Google Scholar
  3. Alves, R. R. N., Feijó, A., Barboza, R. R. D., Souto, W. M. S., Fernandes-Ferreira, H., Cordeiro-Estrela, P., et al. (2016a). Game mammals of the Caatinga biome. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 5(5), 1–51.  https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2016-7-5.5-1-51.Google Scholar
  4. Alves, M. M., Lopes, S. F., & Alves, R. R. N. (2016b). Wild vertebrates kept as pets in the semiarid region of Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science, 9(1), 354–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alves, R. R. N., Pereira-Filho, G. A., Vieira, K. S., Santana, G. G., Vieira, W. L. S., & Almeida, W. O. (2010). Répteis e as populações humanas no Brasil: uma abordagem etnoherpetológica. In R. R. N. Alves & W. M. S. Souto (Eds.), A Etnozoologia no Brasil: Importância, Status Atual e Perspectivas Futuras (pp. 121–146). Recife: NUPEEA.Google Scholar
  6. Alves, R. R. N., Pereira-Filho, G. A., Vieira, K. S., Souto, W. M. S., Mendonça, L. E. T., Montenegro, P. F. G. P., et al. (2012a). A zoological catalogue of hunted reptiles in the semiarid region of Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8(27), 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-27.Google Scholar
  7. Alves, R. R. N., Silva, V. N., Trovão, D. M. B. M., Oliveira, J. V., Mourão, J. S., Dias, T. L. P., et al. (2014). Students’ attitudes toward and knowledge about snakes in the semiarid region of Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 10(30), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-30.Google Scholar
  8. Alves, R. R. N., & Souto, W. M. S. (2015). Ethnozoology: A brief introduction. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 4, 1–13.Google Scholar
  9. Alves, R. R. N., Vieira, K. S., Santana, G. G., Vieira, W. L. S., Almeida, W. O., Souto, W. M. S., et al. (2012b). A review on human attitudes towards reptiles in Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184(11), 6877–6901.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2465-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Anderson, M. J., Gorley, R. N., & Clarke, K. R. (2008). PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: Guide to software and statistical methods. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
  11. Ballouard, J. M., Ajtic, R., Balint, H., Brito, J. C., Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Desmonts, D., et al. (2013). Schoolchildren and one of the most unpopular animals: Are they ready to protect snakes? Anthrozoös, 26(1), 93–109.  https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713x13534238631560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ballouard, J. M., Provost, G., Barré, D., & Bonnet, X. (2012). Influence of a field trip on the attitude of schoolchildren toward unpopular organisms: An experience with snakes. Journal of Herpetology, 46(3), 423–428.  https://doi.org/10.1670/11-118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baquero, R. (2005). Vygotsky e a aprendizagem escolar. São Paulo: Artes Médicas.Google Scholar
  14. Barboza, R. R. D., Lopes, S. F., Souto, W. M. S., Fernandes-Ferreira, H., & Alves, R. R. N. (2016). The role of game mammals as bushmeat In the Caatinga, northeast Brazil. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08358-210202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de Conteúdo. São Paulo: Ediçoes 70 - Brasil.Google Scholar
  16. Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de Conteúdo. São Paulo: Ediçoes 70 - Brasil.Google Scholar
  17. Behrens, M. A. (2010). O Paradigma Emergente e a Prática Pedagógica. Petrópolis: Vozes.Google Scholar
  18. Benavides, P. (2013). Animal symbolism in folk narratives and human attitudes towards predators: An analysis of their mutual influences. The Folklore Society, 124(1), 64–80.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0015587X.2013.767484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Biesdorf, R. K. (2011). O papel da educação formal e informal: Educação na escola e na sociedade. Itinerarius Reflections, 1(10), 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.5216/rir.v1i10.1148.Google Scholar
  20. Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B. P., & Ødegårdstuen, T. S. (2001). Animal-related activities and appreciation of animals among children and adolescents. Anthrozoös, 14(2), 86–94.  https://doi.org/10.2752/089279301786999535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bjerke, T., & Østdahl, T. (2015). Animal-related attitudes and activities in an urban population. Anthrozoös, 17(2), 109–129.  https://doi.org/10.2752/089279304786991783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bradshaw, C. J. A., Giam, X., & Sodhi, N. S. (2010). Evaluating the relative environmental impact of countries. PLoS ONE, 5(5), 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Burghardt, G., Murphy, J. B., Chiszar, D., & Hutchins, M. (2009). Combating ophiophobia: Origins, treatment, education and conservation tools. In S. Mullin & R. Seigel (Eds.), Snakes: Ecology and conservation (pp. 262–280). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Campos, C. M., Greco, S., Ciarlante, J. J., Balangione, M., Bender, J. B., Nates, J., et al. (2012). Students’ familiarity and initial contact with species in the Monte desert (Mendoza, Argentina). Journal of Arid Environments, 82, 98–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.02.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ceríaco, L. M. P. (2012). Human attitudes towards herpetofauna: The influence of folklore and negative values on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8(8), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-8.Google Scholar
  26. Demo, P. (2007). Educar pela Pesquisa. São Paulo: Autores Associado.Google Scholar
  27. Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation, 13(5), 458–466.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fernandes-Ferreira, H., Mendonça, S. V., Albano, C., Ferreira, F. S., & Alves, R. R. N. (2012). Hunting, use and conservation of birds in Northeast Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21(1), 221–244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0179-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freire, P. (2001). Educação e mudança. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.Google Scholar
  30. Freire, P. (2002). Pedagogia da Autonomia: Saberes necessários à prática educativa. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.Google Scholar
  31. Gadotti, M. (2005). A questão da educação formal/não-formal. In Droit à l'éducation: solution à tous les problèmes ou problème sans solution? (Conference) (pp. 1–11). Sion: Institut International des Droits de L’enfant (IDE).Google Scholar
  32. Gramza, A., & Temple, S. (2010). Effect of education programs on the knowledge and attitudes about snakes in San Isidro de Upala, Costa Rica. Journal of Kansas Herpetology, 33, 12–18.Google Scholar
  33. Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 204–215.  https://doi.org/10.2752/089279301786999355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001). Past: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  35. Herzog, H. A., & Burghardt, G. M. (1988). Attitudes toward animals: Origins and diversity. Anthrozoös, 1(8), 214–222.  https://doi.org/10.2752/089279388787058317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoffmann, J. P. (2004). Social and environmental influences on endangered species: A cross-national study. Sociological Perspectives, 47(1), 79–107.  https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2004.47.1.79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holland, T. G., Peterson, G. D., & Gonzalez, A. (2009). Cross-national analysis of how economic inequality predicts biodiversity loss. Cnservation Biology, 23(5), 1304–1313.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01207.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. IBGE. (2010). Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. http://cidades.ibge.gov.br/xtras/perfil.php?codmun=250400. Accessed February 20, 2016.
  39. Kellert, S. R. (2010). Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. The Journal of Environmental Education, 16(3), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kellert, S. R., & Berry, J. K. (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 15(3), 363–371.Google Scholar
  41. Kleiven, J., Bjerke, T., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (2004). Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13(9), 1647–1658.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000029328.81255.38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knight, A. J. (2008). Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my! How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 94–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krasilchik, M. (1987). O Professor e o Currículo das Ciências. São Paulo: EPU.Google Scholar
  44. Krasilchik, M. (2004). Prática de Ensino de Biologia. São Paulo: EdUSP.Google Scholar
  45. Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260), 583–621.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2280779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). ‘Loveable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: How children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655–677.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mendonça, L. E. T., Souto, C. M., Andrelino, L. L., Souto, W. M. S., Vieira, W. L. S., & Alves, R. R. N. (2011). Conflitos entre pessoas e animais silvestres no semiárido paraibano e suas implicações para conservação. Sitientibus, 11(2), 186–199.Google Scholar
  48. Mesquita, G. P., & Barreto, G. P. (2015). Evaluation of mammals hunting in indigenous and rural localities in Eastern Brazilian Amazon. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 4, 1–14.Google Scholar
  49. Mizukami, M. G. N. (2007). Ensino: As Abordagens do Processo. Temas Básicos de Educação e Ensino. São Paulo: EPU.Google Scholar
  50. OCEM/Brasil. (2006). Orientações Curriculares Para O Ensino Médio/BRASIL Ciências da Natureza. Matemática e suas Tecnologias. Brasília: MEC/SEF.Google Scholar
  51. Oliveira, R. I. R., & Gastal, M. L. A. (2009). Educação formal fora da sala de aula—olhares sobre o ensino de ciências utilizando espaços não formais. In Encontro Nacional de Pesquisadores em Educação em Ciências (Conference) (Vol. 7, pp. 1–11). Florianópolis: ABRAPEC.Google Scholar
  52. Páramo, P., & Galvis, C. J. (2010). Conceptualizaciones acerca de los animales en niños de la sociedad mayoritaria y de La comunidad indígena Uitoto en Colombia. Fólios, 32, 111–124.Google Scholar
  53. PCNs/BRASIL. (1998). Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais. Terceiro e quarto ciclos do ensino fundamental: introdução aos parâmetros curriculares nacionais. Brasília: MEC/SEF.Google Scholar
  54. Pinheiro, L. T., Rodrigues, J. F. M., & Borges-Nojosa, D. M. (2016). Formal education, previous interaction and perception influence the attitudes of people toward the conservation of snakes in a large urban center of northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 12(25), 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-016-0096-9.Google Scholar
  55. Pinho, J. R., Grilo, C., Boone, R. B., Galvin, K. A., & Snodgrass, J. G. (2014). Influence of aesthetic appreciation of wildlife species on attitudes towards their conservation in kenyan agropastoralist communities. PLoS ONE, 9(2), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088842.Google Scholar
  56. Polaina, E., González-Suárez, M., & Revilla, E. (2015). Socioeconomic correlates of global mammalian conservation status. Ecosphere, 6(9), 1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00505.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pough, F. H., Heiser, J. B., & Janis, C. M. (2008). A Vida dos Vertebrados. São Paulo: Ateneu.Google Scholar
  58. Prokop, P., & Fančovičová, J. (2012). Tolerance of amphibians in slovakian people: A comparison of pond owners and non-owners. Anthrozoös, 25(3), 277–288.  https://doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13403555186136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Prokop, P., & Fančovičová, J. (2013). Does colour matter? The influence of animal warning coloration on human emotions and willingness to protect them. Animal Conservation, 16(4), 458–466.  https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Prokop, P., & Fančovičová, J. (2017a). Animals in dangerous postures enhance learning, but decrease willingness to protect animals. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(9), 6069–6077.  https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01000a.Google Scholar
  61. Prokop, P., & Fančovičová, J. (2017b). The effect of hands-on activities on children’s knowledge and disgust for animals. Journal of Biological Education, 51(3), 305–314.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1217910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prokop, P., Fančovičová, J., & Kubiatko, M. (2009a). Vampires are still alive: Slovakian students’ attitudes toward bats. Anthrozoös, 22(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Prokop, P., Medina-Jerez, W., Coleman, J., Fančovičová, J., Özel, M., & Fedor, P. (2016). Tolerance of frogs among high school students: Influences of disgust and culture. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(6), 1499–1505.  https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.1241a.Google Scholar
  64. Prokop, P., Özel, M., & Uşak, M. (2009b). Cross-cultural comparison of student attitudes toward snakes. Society and Animals, 17, 224–240.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853009X445398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prokop, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2010). Effects of having pets at home on children’s attitudes toward popular and unpopular animals. Anthrozoös, 23(1), 21–34.  https://doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12627079939107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prokop, P., Usak, M., & Erdogan, M. (2011). Good predators in bad stories: Cross-cultural comparison of children’s attitudes towards wolves. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(4), 229–242.Google Scholar
  67. Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Prokop, P. (2012). Practical work at school reduces disgust and fear of unpopular animals. Society & Animals, 20(1), 61–74.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853012X614369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Wüst-Ackermann, P. (2013). The influence of perceived disgust on students’ motivation and achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2839–2856.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.654518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Randler, C., Ilg, A., & Kern, J. (2005). Cognitive and emotional evaluation of an amphibian conservation program for elementary school students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(1), 43–52.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.37.1.43-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Renoux, F., & de Thoisy, B. (2016). Hunting management: the need to adjust predictive models to field observations. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 5, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sabino, J., & Prado, P. I. (2003). Avaliação do Estado. Brasília: COBIO/MMA.Google Scholar
  72. Schlegel, J., & Rupf, R. (2010). Attitudes towards potential animal flagship species in nature conservation: A survey among students of different educational institutions. Journal for Nature Conservation, 18(4), 278–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2009.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tarrant, J., Kruger, D., & Preez, L. H. (2016). Do public attitudes affect conservation effort? Using a questionnaire-based survey to assess perceptions, beliefs and superstitions associated with frogs in South Africa. African Zoology, 51(1), 13–20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15627020.2015.1122554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Torres, D. F., Oliveira, E. S., & Alves, R. R. N. (2018). Understanding Human-Wildlife Conflicts and Their Implications. In R. R. N. Alves & U. P. Albuquerque (Eds.), Ethnozoology: animals in our lives (pp. 421–445). London: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Trombulak, S. C., Omland, K. S., Robinson, J. A., Lusk, J. J., Fleischner, T. L., Brown, G., et al. (2004). Principles of conservation biology: Recommended guidelines for conservation literacy from the education committee of the society for conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 18(5), 1180–1190.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.01851.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. van Vliet, N., Schulte-Herbruggen, B., Vanegas, L., Cuesta, E. Y., Sandrin, F., & Nasi, R. (2018). What role do wild animals (fish and wildmeat) play in the food security of urban teenagers living in poverty and conflict-the case of Quibdó, Colombia. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 7, 1–15.Google Scholar
  77. Yorek, N. (2009). The only good snake is a dead snake: Secondary school students’ attitudes toward snakes. Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment, 23(1), 31–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2009.10818358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zhang, W., Goodale, E., & Chen, J. (2014). How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biological Conservation, 177, 109–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de BiologiaUniversidade Estadual da ParaíbaCampina GrandeBrazil

Personalised recommendations