Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 461–478 | Cite as

Positive sentiment and knowledge increase tolerance towards conservation actions

Original Paper
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)

References

  1. Aanensen D, Huntley D, Feil E, Al-Own F, Spratt B, Hay S (2009) EpiCollect: linking smartphones to web applications for epidemiology, ecology and community data collection. PLoS One 4:e6968CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 84:888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvard MS (1998) Evolutionary ecology and resource conservation. Evol Anthropol Issues News Rev 7:62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballouard J-M, Brischoux FO, Bonnet X (2011) Children prioritize virtual exotic biodiversity over local biodiversity. PLoS One 6:e23152CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. J Herpetol 46:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballouard J-M, Ajtic R, Balint H, Brito JC, Crnobrnja-Isailovic J, Desmonts D, ElMouden EH, Erdogan M, Feriche MN, Pleguezuelos JM (2013) Schoolchildren and one of the most unpopular animals: Are they ready to protect snakes? Anthrozos 26:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger L, Speare R, Hyatt A (1999) Chytrid fungi and amphibian declines: overview, implications and future directions. In: Campbell A (ed) Declines and disappearances of australian frogs. Environment Australia, Canberra, pp 23–33Google Scholar
  8. Blocker TJ, Eckberg DL (1997) Gender and environmentalism: results from the 1993 general social survey. Soc Sci Q 78(4):841–858Google Scholar
  9. Bosch J, Fernández-Beaskoetxea F, Martín-Beyer B (2010) Time for chytridiomycosis mitigation in Spain. Aliens Invas Species Bull 54–58. (IUCN/SSC invasive species specialist group)Google Scholar
  10. Buijs AE (2009a) Lay people’s images of nature: comprehensive frameworks of values, beliefs, and value orientations. Soc Nat Resour 22:417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buijs AE (2009b) Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents’ support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. J Environ Manage 90:2680–2689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Buijs AE, Pedroli B, Luginbühl Y (2006) From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: changing social perceptions of the European landscape. Landsc Ecol 21:375–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buijs AE, Fischer A, Rink D, Young JC (2008) Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: understanding public representations of biodiversity. Int J Biodivers Sci Manag 4:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buijs AE, Arts BJ, Elands BH, Lengkeek J (2011) Beyond environmental frames: the social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum 42:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cadiou N, Luginbühl Y (1995) Modéles paysagers et représentations du paysage en Normandie-Maine. In: Voisenat LC(ed), Paysage au pluriel. Pour une approche ethnologique des paysages, pp 19–34. Èditions de la Maison de Sciences de l’Homme, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Czech B, Krausman PR (2001) The endangered species act: history, conservation biology, and public policy. JHU Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  17. Czech B, Krausman PR, Borkhataria R (1998) Social construction, political power, and the allocation of benefits to endangered species. Conserv Biol 12:1103–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeKay ML, McClelland GH (1996) Probability and utility of endangered species preservation programs. J Exp Psychol Appl 2:60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denny SJ, Milfont TL, Utter J, Robinson EM, Ameratunga SN, Merry SN, Fleming TM, Watson PD (2008) Hand-held internet tablets for school-based data collection. BMC Res Notes 1:52CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Dietz T, Kalof L, Stern PC (2002) Gender, values, and environmentalism. Soc Sci Q 83:353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Douglas LR, Veríssimo D (2013) Flagships or battleships: deconstructing the relationship between social conflict and conservation flagship species. Environ Soc Adv Res 4:98–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eder K, Ritter MT (1996) The social construction of nature: A sociology of ecological enlightenment. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer AP, Bliss JC (2006) Mental and biophysical terrains of biodiversity: conserving oak on family forests. Soc Nat Resour 19:625–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer A, Young JC (2007) Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biol Conserv 136:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garamszegi LZ, Calhim S, Dochtermann N, Hegyi G, Hurd PL, Jørgensen C, Kutsukake N, Lajeunesse MJ, Pollard KA, Schielzeth H, Symonds MRE, Nakagawa S (2009) Changing philosophies and tools for statistical inferences in behavioral ecology. Behav Ecol 20:1363–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Halpenny EA, Caissie LT (2003) Volunteering on nature conservation projects: volunteer experience, attitudes and values. Tour Recreat Res 28:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanski I (2005) Landscape fragmentation, biodiversity loss and the societal response. EMBO Rep 6:388–392CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Hocking DJ, Babbitt KJ (2014) Amphibian contributions to ecosystem services. Herpetol Conser Biol 9:1–17Google Scholar
  29. Hunter LM, Brehm J (2003) Brief comment: qualitative insight into public knowledge of, and concern with, biodiversity. Hum Ecol 31:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hunter LM, Brehm JM (2004) A qualitative examination of value orientations toward wildlife and biodiversity by rural residents of the intermountain region. Hum Ecol Rev 11:13–26Google Scholar
  31. Kellert SR (1993) The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. Kellert SR (1997) The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Kellert SR (2006) Building for life: designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Renew Resour J 24:8Google Scholar
  34. Kellert SR, Berry JK (1982) Knowledge, affection and basic attitudes toward animals in American society. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife ServiceGoogle Scholar
  35. Keulartz J, van der Windt H, Swart J (2004) Concepts of nature as communicative devices: the case of Dutch nature policy. Environ Values 13:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knight AJ (2008) Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my! How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. J Environ Psychol 28:94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindemann-Matthies P, Bose E (2008) How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Hum Ecol 36:731–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lorimer J (2007) Nonhuman charisma. Environ Plann D Soc Space 25:911–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Low BS (1996) Behavioral ecology of conservation in traditional societies. Hum Nat 7:353–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Macdonald E, Burnham D, Hinks A, Dickman A, Malhi Y, Macdonald D (2015) Conservation inequality and the charismatic cat: Felis felicis. Glob Ecol Conserv 3:851–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Macnaghten P, Urry J (1998) Contested natures. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  42. Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J (2007) The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 139:67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1998) Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation. J Econ Perspect 12(3):21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Milfont TL, Duckitt J (2010) The environmental attitudes inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. J Environ Psychol 30:80–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moscovici S, Duveen G (2000) Social representations: explorations in social psychology. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Myers Jr OE, Saunders CD, Bexell SM (2009) Fostering empathy with wildlife: Factors affecting free-choice learning for conservation concern and behavior. Free-Choice Learn Environ 39–56Google Scholar
  47. Nakagawa S, Freckleton RP (2011) Model averaging, missing data and multiple imputation: a case study for behavioural ecology. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Novacek MJ (2008) Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:11571–11578CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Røskaft E, Händel B, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP (2007) Human attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildl Biol 13:172–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmeller DS, Blooi M, Martel A, Garner TWJ, Fisher MC, Azemar F, Clare FC, Leclerc C, Jäger L, Guevara-Nieto M, Loyau A, Pasmans F (2014) Microscopic aquatic predators strongly affect infection dynamics of a globally emerged pathogen. Curr Biol 24:176–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Schultz PW (2000) Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues-statis. J Soc Issues 56:391–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Serpell JA (2004) Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Anim Welf 13:S145–S152Google Scholar
  53. Sevillano VN, Aragonés JI, Schultz PW (2007) Perspective taking, environmental concern, and the moderating role of dispositional empathy. Environ Behav 39:685–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Skogen K (2001) Who’s afraid of the big, bad wolf? Young people’s responses to the conflicts over large carnivores in eastern Norway. Rural Sociol 66:203–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spash CL (2009) The new environmental pragmatists, pluralism and sustainability. Environ Values 18:253–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spash CL, Urama K, Burton R, Kenyon W, Shannon P, Hill G (2009) Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol Econ 68:955–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stoll-Kleemann S (2001a) Opposition to the designation of protected areas in Germany. J Environ Plann Manage 44:109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stoll-Kleemann S (2001b) Reconciling opposition to protected areas management in Europe: the German experience. Environ: Sci Policy Sust Dev 43:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stoll-Kleemann S (2010) Evaluation of management effectiveness in protected areas: methodologies and results. Basic Appl Ecol 11:377–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stoll-Kleemann S, O’Riordan T (2002) From participation to partnership in biodiversity protection: experience from Germany and South Africa. Soc Nat Resour 15:161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stuart S, Chanson J, Cox N, Young B, Rodrigues A, Fischman D, Waller R (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Sutherland WJ, Dicks LV, Ockendon N, Smith RK (2015) What works in conservation: 2015, vol 1. Open Book Publishers, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Swaisgood RR, Sheppard JK (2010) The culture of conservation biologists: show me the hope! Bioscience 60:626–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Symonds MR, Moussalli A (2011) A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tarrant MA, Green GT (1999) Outdoor recreation and the predictive validity of environmental attitudes. Leisure Sci 21:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Turnhout E, Hisschemoller M, Eijsackers H (2004) The role of views of nature in Dutch nature conservation: the case of the creation of a drift sand area in the Hoge Veluwe National Park. Environ Values 13:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Walker SF, Bosch J, Gomez V, Garner TWJ, Cunningham AA, Schmeller DS, Ninyerola M, Henk DA, Ginestet C, Arthur CP, Fisher MC (2010) Factors driving pathogenicity vs. prevalence of amphibian panzootic chytridiomycosis in Iberia. Ecol Lett 13:372–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. White R, Heerwagen J (1998) Nature and mental health: Biophilia and biophobia. Environment Ment Health: Guide Clin 175–192Google Scholar
  69. Woodhams D, Bosch J, Briggs C, Cashins S, Davis L, Lauer A, Muths E, Puschendorf R, Schmidt B, Sheafor B, Voyles J (2011) Mitigating amphibian disease: strategies to maintain wild populations and control chytridiomycosis. Front Zool 8:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zerubavel E (1999) Social mindscapes: An invitation to cognitive sociology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

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

Personalised recommendations