Keywords

1 Introduction

In this chapter we present and discuss which factors primary students take into account when they think of the biodiversity of particular environments. This study is part of a larger research project with the main goal of understanding how primary students conceptualize biodiversity, the main factors of biodiversity loss and which collective and individual actions could promote an improvement of biodiversity. Specifically, our research questions are: Which factors do primary school children take into account when we discuss the biodiversity of a particular environment? and What kind of factors do they consider as biodiversity enhancers or limiters?

Furthermore, this study is framed in an educational innovation project called Patis Biodivers, with two major goals. On the one hand, it endeavours to promote processes of authentic inquiry practices among kindergarten, primary and secondary students, such as: collecting empirical data of their schoolyard, drawing conclusions, and promoting actions to improve the diversity of the species. On the other hand, it aims to use this empirical data from schoolyards to do scientific research. Last year, in a pilot project, the materials of the project were created collaboratively from an interdisciplinary team of researchers from the authors’ university, with the support of more than 40 teachers, from 13 different primary and high schools.

2 Rationale Behind the Research

After the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity (2011–2020), the Convention on Biological Diversity published a first draft framing the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Strategy. The document, which is aligned with 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, sets out a plan to implement numerous actions to transform society’s relationship with biodiversity (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021).

In this respect, learning about biodiversity is seen as a key element of this strategy, which is based on four main arguments: (a) emotional, creating personal meanings through discovery and experiencing biodiversity; (b) ecological, understanding the global interdependencies between the different elements of the ecosystem; (c) ethical, dealing with values and taking a moral stance on environmental issues; (d) political, making choices and developing action competence (Van Weelie & Wals, 2002).

Thus, learning about biodiversity is not only related to learning facts from different sources of information, but also it should be regarded as experiential learning, involving participants in a community, hands-on activities, and contact with nature. For this reason, Patis Biodivers focuses on how to help teachers to sustain authentic inquiry to learn about biodiversity. According to Afkin and Black (2003), authentic scientific inquiry involves “doing science” resembling the actual practice of scientific communities. Roth and Lee (2004) also pointed out that authentic inquiry in school settings ought to be motivated by the same goals within the scientific or local community where the inquiry is taking place.

Understanding the environmental factors influencing biodiversity is crucial to promoting informed actions for its preservation. In this respect, in a previous study where primary students were asked to consider niche variables to estimate the likelihood that wolf populations become established in the Pyrenees, the results showed that 10-to 11-year-old students only took into account few variables (Jiménez et al., 2023). Before any kind of instruction, primary students considered shelter and water as the most important abiotic factors, while availability of primary consumers was seen as the key biotic element. Anthropic factors were also considered by students, thus contemplating how human beings could disturb a wolf population settlement. The study reports sophistication of students’ ideas after three weeks of engagement in an authentic inquiry project, therefore demonstrating the potential of this kind of instruction.

As reported by Kilinc et al. (2013), the students pointed to some human factors as one of the main factors in the loss of biodiversity, whether through hunting or through the imbalance of nature. However, vegetation is mentioned as an enhancer of biodiversity. In their study, 245 students were interviewed with the aim of identifying students’ conceptions of biodiversity loss.

Moreover, regarding how young children make sense of the living beings, it is important to highlight personification as a common thinking strategy. According to Inagaki and Hatano (2002), when children do not have enough knowledge of a particular animate object, they tend to construct an explanation using the person analogy in a constrained way. As children are familiar with humans they use this knowledge as the source to predict the reactions of less familiar animate objects.

3 Methodology

This study is situated within the frame of an interpretative paradigm, since its aim is to show how primary students consider factors to explain biodiversity in specific environments. In this way, the main objective is explored through the use of different questions that start from the subjective experiences of the students.

In this study, data was obtained from 49 primary school students (8–12 years old), from three urban schools which participated in the Patis Biodivers project. For students participating in the study it was the first time that they were conducting inquiries and learning about biodiversity. Each school decided to carry out a biodiversity inquiry of one group of living beings according to their curriculum requirements. Two of these schools worked on birds, while the other one worked on invertebrates. Just before starting the inquiry-based learning project with the children, 13 focus groups, with the participation of four or five children for each group, were conducted to collect data regarding the aim of the research. One of the main aims was to identify the key factors that children mention constraining or promoting the biodiversity of specific environments. The same focus group also aimed to identify children’s perceptions of the definition of biodiversity and what actions they choose to deal with biodiversity loss.

During the focus groups discussions, students were provided with some depictions of different environments. After looking at them, they were required to discuss which one of them sustained more biodiversity. Specifically, they were asked: Which of these environments do you think is the most biodiverse? Which of these environments do you think is the least biodiverse? And why do you choose these ones? The depictions of the environments presented are described below:

  • Desert: an arid region with a large amount of sand and dunes, where precipitation is not common.

  • Jungle: an area covered with dense vegetation.

  • Forest: an area where trees predominate.

  • Polar areas: an area which is mostly covered by frozen landscape.

  • Savannah: an ecosystem characterized by trees being widely separated.

  • Grassland: an area dominated by vegetation. Most of the land is covered by grass. Sedge and rush can also be found.

  • Marine ecosystems: an area covered by water.

Even though the Patis Biodivers project is based on studying the living beings of their schoolyard, children’s explanations of why they considered a specific environment more or less biodiverse elicited their ideas about factors responsible for the gain or loss of biodiversity.

In addition, children’s discussions were recorded and transcribed. A qualitative content analysis approach, using an inductive category development strategy, was conducted (Mayring, 2000). Firstly, the transcription was divided into significant discourse units, considering only those quotes that provide meaningful information. After that, each significant unit was labeled using an emergent code family system (as shown in Table 17.1) to make sense of the data collected.

Table 17.1 Codes from the view of primary students about the enhancers and limiters they identify in a certain environment
Full size table

Having defined the code families, each environment was analysed using a system network (Bliss et al., 1983) as presented below (Table 17.2). ​The system network was organized in two dimensions: On the one hand, the enhancers represent key factors that improve the biodiversity of particular environments; on the other hand, the limiters as key factors are associated with the lack of biodiversity. For each of these two dimensions, there were also three categories: abiotic, biotic, and anthropic. The first category refers to the elements that are part of the biotope of the environment, such as environmental conditions. The second category refers to living organisms, such as trees as nesting sites. Finally, the anthropic category refers to all elements that are concerned with humans.

Table 17.2 System network of jungle environment with enhancers and limiter limiting factors of biodiversity
Full size table

4 Results

As shown in Fig. 17.1, children mainly chose the forest and the jungle as the most biodiverse environments, identifying vegetation as a key factor to enhance biodiversity. Most of the enhancer factors are identified in these two areas, considering them as suitable places where animals can find the necessary requirements, from environmental to vital conditions (e.g., “I think the jungle is one of the places I chose because there are many animals and no people. Also, it is humid there and, in some areas, there is even sunlight. There are a lot of flowers and plants. They feel better in the absence of people, in peace, and with the food they need”). On the other hand, polar areas and deserts are considered the least biodiverse environments because of the lack of vegetation and the environmental conditions (e.g., “Because there aren’t any plants”). Having said that, it is important to remark that only one student mentioned savannah as an environment with biodiversity, without specifying any factor (e.g., “Because there are a lot of animals”). It is also relevant to state that children considered marine environments as non-biodiverse environments, since they did not take into account the presence of vegetation in their discussions. Just one student referred to the presence of vegetation underwater (e.g., “I choose marine environment because there are a lot of fish and there is vegetation underwater”).

Fig. 17.1
A bar chart of the number of significant discourse units mentioned by students. It plots number versus environment. The data is for enhancing factors and limiting factors. The proportion of enhancing factors is the highest for jungle. The proportion of limiting factors is the highest for desert.

Number of significant discourse units mentioned by students as enhancing or limiting biodiversity factors in relation to a particular environment

Full size image

In the group discussion, factors promoting biodiversity were more salient than factors with negative effects on biodiversity. In total, 151 significant discourse units were identified: while 94 of them were related to enhancing factors, only 57 were related to negative factors. Most of these units were described in the jungle environment (see Fig. 17.1).

Regarding the enhancers, as it can be seen in Fig. 17.2, biotic factors topped all other categories. Within this category, a total number of 69 significant discourse units were identified. It is noteworthy that children mostly chose these factors as enhancers for animal biodiversity, not as enhancers for biodiversity in general. Some of the most important factors to explain the biodiversity in particular environments are related to welfare and vital requirements (e.g., “I have chosen the forest because there are many birds there, because it is calm and quiet”), but also the absence of carnivores in certain places.

Fig. 17.2
A diagram of predominance of each dimension and categories. Enhancing factors have biotic factors with 69 units, abiotic factors with 18 units, and anthropic factors with 7 units. Limiting factors have biotic factors with 27 units, abiotic factors with 26 units, and anthropic factors with 5 units.

Representation of the predominance of each dimension and categories. The larger the circle, the more significant discourse units are mentioned by the children

Full size image

However, vegetation is considered the most influential factor to promote the biodiversity of the specific area, which was mentioned in 31 significant discourse units, (e.g., “Because it’s calm and there is a lot of vegetation”). Consequently, the absence of these elements in a specific environment is defined as an unsuitable place for animals or plants to survive. It should also be noted that the children acknowledged diverse roles of vegetation as enhancers of biodiversity. The children mentioned trees as an important element from different perspectives: on the one hand, trees were seen as structural elements of the habitat that provide shelter for animals in general or a place to nest for birds (e.g., “I think that there is a great diversity of species in the forest and jungle. The birds can build their nests in the trees); on the other hand, vegetation was considered as a dynamic element that provides food for animals.

Regarding abiotic factors, in the group discussions, primary students took into account environmental factors that promoted biodiversity, such as humidity, shadow, sunlight, environmental temperature and the presence of rivers. Among them, humidity was the most important factor to promote biodiversity in the focus group (e.g., “The jungle, because there is moisture and there are many insects, a great diversity of species, water...”).

As far as limiting factors are concerned, abiotic factors are the most important ones that account for the lack of biodiversity in some environments. Children understood extreme temperatures as a key factor that constrains the biodiversity of deserts and polar environments. They acknowledged that animals cannot survive in such extreme conditions (e.g., “I think in the desert the temperatures are very high and it is one of the places where it is very hot. An animal cannot survive there” or “Because it is very cold there”). In addition, the lack of vegetation was also mentioned as a limiting biotic factor, together with the absence of trees. Mostly, they brought it up when discussing desert, polar and marine environments (e.g., “I believe that the polar environment is not very rich in species due to low temperatures and lack of vegetation.”).

Apart from abiotic and biotic factors, the children also took into account anthropic factors as limiters of biodiversity. In particular, the mere presence of humans, which affects animals’ tranquillity, or the anthropic impact, which unbalances ecosystems, were important factors to justify the limitation of biodiversity in certain places. In fact, this last factor was relevant to explain why students considered the marine environment as one of the least biodiverse. Students claimed that humans pollute the ocean, thus causing a decline in biodiversity (e.g., “I think the problem is that there is a lot of plastic in the marine environment, so there are fewer animals”).

Results also reveal that students sometimes used personification to explain the biodiversity in a particular environment. They considered those factors by taking human needs as a reference point (e.g., “Because it is a quiet place”). Mostly, they identified human needs with animal and plant needs.

5 Conclusions

In this paper, the focus of attention was on what kind of factors primary students take into account in terms of enhancing or limiting the biodiversity of a specific environment. The results show that students identified above all, the presence of vegetation as an important element that allows the specific area to be diverse, mainly in terms of animal diversity. It is important to note that children tended to exclude humans as a living organis. This narrow view is reflected in their discourses, where, in most of the cases, they identified the enhancing or limiting factors in terms of animal biodiversity, rather than using a broader term, such as biodiversity in general. In consonance with other studies (Morón et al., 2021), these findings suggest the need to look for spaces where children can acquire the necessary tools to avoid this blind view, and consider biodiversity in a more comprehensive sense. Consequently, a more comprehensive and holistic education about biodiversity and ecosystem functioning should be taught.

To a lesser extent, the need for vegetation as some source of food was also included. Moreover, variables from abiotic factors, such as a suitable weather, were also considered to promote biodiversity, whereas too low/high temperatures were seen as a limiting factor. Similar results were found in a previous study on the wolf population requirements (Jiménez et al., 2023), in which the children also considered the weather as a limiting factor for the wolf.

In addition, the lack of space in natural habitats was also cited as an indirect limiting factor that made students concerned about the loss of biodiversity. This concern could be seen when they identified the presence of trees as an important element, especially when the students described the trees for nesting. A similar outcome was also observed in other studies (Kilinc et al., 2013), since the lack of habitat is one of the factors that children identify as an important element to consider.

Furthermore, welfare factors were the elements that children considered the most. Students usually mentioned them in the group discussions to argue that animals cannot survive without these factors. Most of the time, they put themselves in the situation and spoke from their own perspective. In accordance with Inagaki and Hatano (2002), these ideas reflect the way of reasoning of children using a person analogy. Since the children did not have a good knowledge of how an ecosystem works, they tended to map the factors taking into account their own experiences as humans.

Besides, the answers referred to limiting and enhancers factors were really simple. According to the study carried out by Jiménezt et al. (2023), they also found that all the factors considered by children as necessity for the wolf to be established were straightforward because in the course of their explanations they mostly developed a linear cause-effect relationship. Students mentioned a certain factor, negative or positive, and connected it with its respective effect in the environment, without including other variables.

It is also important to note that the children took into account animals, mostly among the other living beings of the ecosystem, to describe how species-rich a particular environment was. In this regard, the elements that they did not mention would suggest that students focused only on particular groups of living beings of the environment, ignoring a broad range of possible ecological relationships. These results are consistent with other studies which have shown that young children count animals first, and then plants and other living beings, when describing the elements of a particular ecosystem (Kilinc et al., 2013).

Regarding the human factors, participants were really concerned and referred to humans only as one of the main limiting factors to enhance biodiversity, by only describing factors such as a subsequent environmental pollution, deforestation and other negative impacts. Moreover, since they never included themselves as an active agent in the discussions, we can conclude that conservation actions were not taken into account. In this respect, other studies (Kilinc et al., 2013) pointed out that conservation education needs to be taught in schools to change this view and give children the tools they need to act.

In light of the results obtained and discussed with the related literature in this study, it seems clear that there is a need to promote science teaching practices to assist children’s development of a more comprehensive meaning of biodiversity. The anthropocentric and simplistic view observed in this and similar studies should be taken into account to review current teaching practices. Students’ early experiences are of great importance for the development of their ability to discern biodiversity. Therefore, understanding misunderstandings and incompletions that occur when children try to acknowledge such a complex concept should help us bring a wider concept of biodiversity into formal education in order to empower students to decide on current sociocientific issues.