Introduction

Biodiversity continues to face serious challenges and a global decline particularly with the loss of natural habitats, reduced species distributions and populations (Butchart et al. 2010). To tackle these problems, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) treaty was signed by over 150 contracting states (parties) at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992 (Rosendal 2013). The treaty was a significant conservation commitment towards the end of the last century. It provided important guidelines for conserving earth’s biological resources, with serious implications for the fate of humanity on the planet (Hambler and Canney 2013). The CBD focuses on biodiversity conservation and the equitable sharing of the various benefits (ecosystem services) derivable from biological diversity, with a strong emphasis on sustainable utilization of biological resources. It also aimed to ensure fairness and equitable distribution of benefits accruable from the use of genetic resources (Hambler and Canney 2013; Rosendal 2013; Tittensor et al. 2014). The treaty outlines guidelines and modalities for member states to set objectives that could be implemented locally or nationally (Glowka et al. 1994). Hence, countries produced biodiversity action plans (BAPs) and set national targets with specific timelines. Unfortunately, very little progress was made towards reaching the targets set in 2002. It was observed that not much was achieved in the quest to reduce the rate of global biodiversity loss; contribute to poverty alleviation and provide benefits for all living things (Adenle et al. 2015). To overcome these challenges, the contracting parties held a meeting in Nagoya Japan, in 2010, where they adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. The new plan had five strategic goals and 20 targets known as the ‘Aichi Biodiversity Targets’ (ABTs). These targets were to be achieved within a decade (2010–2020). The vision was to restore, value and conserve biodiversity for the benefit of humanity by 2050. The ABTs main goal was to increase the level of global success in biodiversity conservation while providing a workable guide for regions and nations to set their targets (CBD Secretariat 2010; Tittensor et al. 2014; O’Connor et al. 2015).

Like many developing nations in the Southern Hemisphere, Nigeria has a rich biodiversity reserve (Glowka et al. 1994). The country has over three hundred threatened species ranging from plants to invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (Sedghi 2013). The nation also has several conservation areas being managed at various levels of authority, e.g. sacred groves, forest reserves, game reserves, national parks, biosphere reserves, Ramsar sites, and World Heritage Sites (Federal Ministry of Environment 2015). Nigeria is also endowed with about 64 endemic animals, e.g. the lower Guinean damselfly (Pentaphlebia gamblesi) (Dijkstra 2021), West African worm lizard (Baikia africana), Ondo Forest gecko (Cnemaspis petrodroma), Ibadan Malimbe (Malimbus ibadanensis), the Niger Delta red colobus (Piliocolobus epieni), and Savanna swamp shrew (Crocidura longipes) (Uetz et al. 2018). Biodiversity plays a vital role in the livelihoods and survival of many Nigerians. It provides diverse ecosystem (provisioning, support, regulating and cultural) services, such as climate regulation, provision of food and medicine, raw materials, and aesthetic values (Lohbeck et al. 2016). It is believed that over 90% of rural dwellers in Nigeria depend on forest biodiversity resources for survival, while more than 70% rely on fuel wood for energy needs (NBSAP 2014–2020).

Ironically, biodiversity is one of the most undervalued and unappreciated natural resources in Nigeria. These biological resources are continually threatened by increasing rates of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss (Akindele et al. 2020). The situation is exacerbated by the exponential growth rate of the human population in Nigeria, which increased from 38 million (in 1950) to 200 million (in 2019). The population is also projected to be over 400 million and the third-largest in the world by 2050 (UN DESA 2019). The manifestations of this exponential human population growth include urbanisation, deforestation, desertification, land degradation, conflicts and all kinds of pollution (Olajuyigbe 2018; Anwadike 2020). Moreover, it is well documented that there is a strong relationship between human population growth and biodiversity loss (Williams 2013; Paradis 2018). As the human population increases, there is usually a corresponding decrease in plant and animal species, abundance, richness, and density, with an eventual extinction of vulnerable species if no action is taken (Luck 2007; Jantz et al. 2015). Hence, anthropogenic activities such as indiscriminate timber harvesting, illegal wildlife trade, increased exploitation of biological resources, land-use changes, and corruption have all taken their toll on biodiversity in Nigeria. For instance, over 1.4 million logs of Rosewood (Pterocarpus erinaceus) were illegally exported to China from Nigeria between 2012 and 2016 (Environmental Investigation Agency 2017). This exploitation has destroyed vast amounts of forest cover, causing a reduction in both plant and animal diversity (Ahmed et al. 2016). Also, the socio-economic conditions of people have been identified as some of the key factors that determine the attainment of conservation success (Boersema et al. 2009). Hence, various governments have intensified efforts in recent years to improve the socioeconomic status of their citizens. For instance, in 2015, world leaders committed themselves to end extreme poverty by 2030 in the historic Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 1) agreed by many countries (UN DESA 2015). Currently, about 40.1% of the Nigerian population is classified as poor (National Bureau of Statistics 2020), and this high poverty rate has had a negative impact on biodiversity conservation. For example, Chukwu (2008) asserted that there was an indirect relationship between poverty and biodiversity loss and environmental degradation in Nigeria. Furthermore, some social implications such as insecurity have been reported as consequences of poverty and one of those factors that stall biodiversity conservation in Nigeria. Thus, armed bandits and terrorism have hindered the growth of ecotourism and caused wanton destruction of some conservation areas in the country (Shittu 2013).

Nigeria became a party to the CBD in 1994 (Federal Ministry of Environment 2015). As a contracting party, the country developed its first National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) which was to run from 2001–2010 (Anwadike 2020). However, the first NBSAP was reviewed to conform to the ABTs in 2015. The revised version covered the period 2016–2020. The revised NBSAP had 14 National Targets with 21 impact indicators and 67 Actions; aimed at ensuring that the CBD’s broad objectives were achieved by 2020. First among these targets is ‘raising the level of awareness on the importance of biodiversity among Nigerians’ (Federal Ministry of Environment 2015). This was important because; the level of awareness and participation of citizens, to a large extent, will determine the actualization of BAPs (Berkes 2004; Halpern et al. 2013). To this end, Ola-Adams (2001) advocated the importance of education, awareness building and training among Nigerians on the need for conservation of natural areas such as Omo Biosphere Reserve. Ijeomah and Abazi (2014) and Akande et al. (2019) also reported that increased environmental education and citizen enlightenment were paramount to achieving conservation objectives at the Kainji Lake National Park, Niger State Nigeria. In a bid to actualize the NBSAP, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published a Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for the Niger-Delta region of the country in 2018. The policy document focused on the biodiversity potentials of the region, threats to its biodiversity and proposed conservation plans that would ensure the attainment of the ABTs/NBSAP (IUCN 2018). However, it did not focus on awareness creation among the local populace on the importance of biodiversity or NBSAP. Also, there is limited empirical data, at a national scale, on the level of awareness of biodiversity conservation or NBSAP among Nigerians. To fill this knowledge gap, this study appraised the level of success achieved by the first ABT and the first target of Nigeria’s NBSAP among Nigerians. The study compared the level of biodiversity conservation awareness among the professionals (those with tertiary education) and non-professionals (those with basic education or no formal training), with the assumption that the two groups have different levels of exposure to educational information. It was hypothesized that the first Aichi and national targets are critical to the overall realization of the NBSAP by 2020; since social understanding among the populace is very important in the quest to actualize conservation objectives (Berkes 2004; Halpern et al. 2013).

Materials and methods

Study area

Nigeria has a land area covering 923,768 km2 with 13.6% rainforest, 78.7% savanna, and 7.7% in the derived savanna zones. A large proportion of the country is on a plateau, which is divided into three parts by the Niger and Benue Rivers, both of which flow into the country from the North-West and North-East regions respectively. The two rivers form a confluence at Lokoja and flow southwards as the Niger River which in turn forms a delta and ultimately flows into the Gulf of Guinea. The annual temperature in Nigeria is typical of a tropical climate and varies from 22–36 °C. There are two major seasons of the year, the rainy season which spans from April to October and the dry season which lasts from November to March. The country has a rich cultural diversity and is endowed with more than 250 ethnic groups (Federal Ministry of Environment 2015).

Data collection

A structured questionnaire was used to interview Nigerians, who were resident in Nigeria from 4th June 2020 to 12th July 2020 (Appendices 1 and 2). The country was stratified into six administrative/geopolitical zones (North-East, North-West, North-Central, South-East, South-West and South-South), covering the 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory (Fig. 1). The respondents were further stratified into two groups: professionals (those with tertiary level educational training) and non-professionals (those with primary or secondary educational training or no formal education). Data for professionals were collected randomly and electronically through an online survey using Google Forms. A link to the Google form was sent to Nigerians who were resident in each author’s state/region through social media platforms such as WhatsApp and Facebook. The administration of the forms was non-discriminatory as it was sent to all the social contacts of the 16 authors, irrespective of their educational backgrounds. The authors interviewed the non-professionals and also submitted the Google form on their behalf. A great number of non-professionals were first educated on the term ‘biodiversity’ before further questioning. In all, about 5000 Nigerians were invited to participate in this survey. All the questions (A1-A5 and B1-B17) were meant to assess the respondents’ understanding of biodiversity and its importance to the ecology and economy of the nation, in conformity with the first ABT and NBSAP. All responses were automatically transmitted to a central database in Google Drive, once submitted. The central database had responses to all the questions indicated in Appendices 1 and 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

(Source: Ekong et al. 2012)

Map of Nigeria showing the geopolitical zones

Full size image

Data analysis

Data were analysed for both professional and non-professional categories based on (a) their understanding of the term ‘biodiversity’ (indicated as A1-A5) and (b) their perception of biodiversity conservation (indicated as B1-B17). The data set was not normally distributed, and generalized linear models (GLM) were used to determine significant differences between the level of awareness among professionals and non-professionals, as well as across the geo-political zones of the country. The overdispersion within each of the models was tested using the “AER” package in R, while the quasi-likelihood estimation method was used to account for overdispersion, and the data were fitted to Poisson distribution (Bolker et al. 2009). All statistical tests were conducted using R (R Development Core Team 2017).

Results

Demographics of the participants

A total of 1124 respondents participated in the survey. These included 839 professionals (74.64%) and 285 non-professionals (25.36%). There were 667 males (59.34%) and 457 females (40.66%) in the survey. The highest number of respondents was from the South West (24%) geo-political zone while the lowest was from the North Central (7%) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Relative distribution of the respondents among the geo-political zones

Full size image

Respondents understanding of biodiversity (A1-A5)

Professionals had a higher level of understanding of biodiversity with a higher number of responses being “yes” (p < 0.0001) in the five survey questions (Fig. 3 and Table 1). The lowest value (48.0 ± 8.6%) recorded by the professionals in this category was in their level of participation in community-based conservation activities (A5), while the highest (88.8 ± 3.4%) was on their awareness of the term ‘biodiversity’ (A1) (Appendix 3). The non-professionals recorded the lowest value (4.9 ± 1.7%) in A5 and the highest (20.5 ± 3.4%) in A1. The levels of respondents’ understanding of biodiversity across the geo-political zones were fairly the same, except in the South-east where relatively low values were recorded. The general linear model, however, indicated significant differences (p < 0.05) among the zones for only two questions, i.e. small organisms as an integral component of biodiversity, and participation of the respondents in community-based conservation activities (Table 1).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of respondents’ awareness of the term “biodiversity” among Geo-political zones and between professionals and non-professionals. Different shades of stacked bars indicate the levels of awareness among 100% respondents at each geo-political zone. (A1P/A1N: Have you ever heard the term ‘biodiversity? A2P/A2N: Do you understand the meaning of the word’ biodiversity? A3P/A3N: Do you know that biodiversity includes small organisms? A4P/A4N: Do you know that human beings are also part of biodiversity? A5P/A5N: Do you participate in any community-based conservation activities?)

Full size image
Table 1 GLM test (F-values) for the respondents’ understanding of the term ‘biodiversity
Full size table

Awareness of biodiversity conservation promotion and biodiversity action plan (B1-B6)

The general linear model test revealed that higher percentages of professional respondents agreed and strongly agreed (p < 0.0001) that biodiversity conservation was being promoted in the electronic media, social media and print media, as against the non-professionals (Fig. 4a and Table 2). In this category, biodiversity conservation promotion through social media (B2P) recorded the highest value (70.5 ± 7.5%) for professionals, while electronic media promotion (B1N) recorded the highest (20.3 ± 4.3%) for non-professionals (Appendix 3). The percentages of the professionals and non-professionals that agreed to the awareness and understanding of Nigeria’s Biodiversity Action Plan (B4N/P and B5N/P) were comparatively lower than those recorded for media promotion awareness. In both groups, B4N and B4P recorded 12.1 ± 3.7% and 43.8 ± 7.2%, while B5N and B5P recorded 11.0 ± 3.3% and 40.0 ± 8.0%, respectively. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) among the geopolitical zones concerning biodiversity conservation promotion (B1-B3), and understanding of Nigeria’s biodiversity richness (B6). However, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in respondents’ awareness and understanding of Nigeria’s Biodiversity Action Plan (B4 & B5).

Fig. 4
figure 4

source of food or income; B15P/B15N: Biodiversity conservation can provide job opportunities to Nigerians; B16P/B16N: Biodiversity conservation can serve as a source of revenues to governments; B17P/B17N: Government often promotes ecotourism in my state of residence or a state close by)

Comparison of respondents’ awareness of conservation promotion and action plan, as well as their perception to the importance of biodiversity to ecology and economy among the geo-political zones and between professionals and non-professionals. Different shades of stacked bars indicate the levels of awareness among 100% respondents at each geo-political zone. (B1P/BIN: Biodiversity conservation promotion on the electronic media; B2P/B2N: Biodiversity conservation promotion on the social media; B3P/B3N: Biodiversity conservation promotion in the print media; B4P/B4N: Awareness of Nigeria’s biodiversity action plan; B5P/B5N: Understanding of Nigeria’s biodiversity action plan; B6P/B6N: Nigeria is rich in biodiversity; B7P/B7N: Biodiversity is important to me in many ways; B8P/B8N: Healthy forests, rivers, streams and lakes are important for biodiversity; B9P/B9N: I do visit in situ conservation areas; B10P/B10N: It is important to conserve endangered wildlife; B11P/B11N: I am aware of wildlife species that should not be killed or traded; B12P/B12N: I do visit ex situ conservation areas; B13P/B13N: I do monitor biodiversity conservation programmes in the media; B14P/B14N: Endangered wild animals can serve as a

Full size image
Table 2 GLM test (F – values) for the respondents’ views on varied question
Full size table

Perception of Nigerians on the role of biodiversity conservation in Nigeria’s ecology and economy

The professionals strongly agreed and agreed, with higher percentages than the non-professionals, concerning the following items: biodiversity is important to me in many ways (B7); I understand that healthy forests, rivers, streams and lakes are very important requirements for rich biodiversity in Nigeria (B8) (Fig. 4a); I do visit in-situ conservation areas (e.g. national parks, game reserves, forest reserves, waterfalls, sacred groves) (B9); and, it is important to conserve endangered wildlife’ (B10). Other items include: I am aware of some wildlife species that should not be killed or traded (B11); I do visit ex-situ conservation areas (e.g. botanical garden, zoological garden, aquarium, seed bank) in my state of residence or zone) (B12); I do monitor biodiversity conservation programmes in the media (B13); endangered wild animals can as well serve as a source of food or income to Nigerians (B14); biodiversity conservation can provide job opportunities for Nigerians (B15); biodiversity or nature conservation can serve as a source of revenue to the federal and state governments in Nigeria (B16); and, the government often promotes eco-tourism in my state of residence or a state close by (B17) (Fig. 4b). All the aforementioned items were significantly different (p < 0.0001) between the professionals and non-professionals (Table 2). The professionals recorded their highest value (87.4 ± 6.0%) in B10, while the lowest value (49.3 ± 8.2) was recorded in B17. The non-professionals recorded the highest value in B10 (35.2 ± 2.5%), while the lowest value was in B13 (13.1 ± 2.7%) (Fig. 4a and b, and Appendix 3). There were only two responses that significantly differed (p < 0.05) among the zones (i.e. B11 and B17), with the southern zones (South-east in particular) recording the lowest values. A high proportion (~ 61%) of the additional feedback comments from the respondents indicated a low level of awareness of biodiversity, conservation and ecotourism in different parts of Nigeria (Table 3).

Table 3 Some feedback comments from our respondents
Full size table

Discussion

Findings from this study showed that the professionals were more acquainted with the concept of biodiversity than the non-professionals. An appreciable percentage of the respondents (especially the professionals) understood the meaning of the word ‘biodiversity’ and the fact that it includes small organisms. A good number of professionals and some non-professionals also subscribed to most of the terms that relate biodiversity to the ecology and economy of Nigeria. Leiserowitz et al. (2005) reported that the high level of concern among citizens on the state of environmental protection around the world was not usually translated into corresponding actions. For example, in a 2011 poll of British adults, 94% were bothered about biodiversity conservation, but only 15% took action to conserve biodiversity (Hambler and Canney 2013). The findings of this study, where many respondents agreed that endangered wildlife could also serve as sources of food, despite their understanding of biodiversity were similar to those from the British poll (Hambler and Canney 2013), and the report of Leiserowitz et al. (2005). It is also worth emphasizing that some respondents (particularly from the South-east zone) did not know that, small organisms were an integral part of biodiversity. The current level of awareness raises a red flag and highlights the need for increased enlightenment on the importance of biodiversity conservation in developing countries such as Nigeria (Adenle et al. 2015).

The level of awareness or understanding of the NBSAP among the respondents was very low since a significant percentage of the non-professionals and the professionals did neither know nor understand the NBSAP. The additional comments provided by some respondents suggest that topical issues such as biodiversity conservation, NBSAP or ABTs were not being discussed or promoted adequately in Nigeria. For instance, some respondents had neither heard of the term ‘biodiversity conservation’ nor had a full understanding of its concept and importance until after this survey. Some respondents also rated the state and federal governments low in the promotion of biodiversity conservation. Perhaps the best way to address this problem is through environmental or biodiversity education which has been recognized as a good approach for solving the current biodiversity crises and creating environmentally conscious individuals (Tuncer and Erol 1992; Uzun et al. 2006). Several studies (e.g. Cosquer et al. 2012; Adenle et al. 2015) suggested that awareness creation depends largely on the high involvement of the media (social media, print, radio and television), and it can shape public opinion and perception of biodiversity conservation. Findings from this survey revealed that social media was a very suitable platform for reaching professionals, followed by electronic media. The reverse was however the case for non-professionals who got informed about biodiversity conservation mostly through the electronic media, followed by the social media. One of the basic concepts of environmental and biodiversity education is the improvement of the quality of life for the present generation without handing over an impaired environment to future generations (Erkal and Gürsoy 2013; Hambler and Canney 2013). This approach needs to be introduced early enough in the life of an individual, beginning at the pre-school stage up to the university level and for the rest of the individual’s life. This has been suggested as a way of increasing interaction with nature among people and developing a pro-conservation attitude in both developed and developing countries (Cosquer et al. 2012). Thus, environmental or conservation education could help Nigeria realize its NBSAP and Aichi targets. This is because it approaches biodiversity conservation from a broader point of view (i.e. quality of life/ecosystem services), and not just because each species has a fundamental right to exist (i.e. intrinsic value). This anthropocentric approach has been suggested as one way of getting the attention of the relevant stakeholders, most especially political office holders who are involved in policy and decision-making related to biodiversity conservation (Hambler and Canney 2013; Adenle et al. 2015). Environmental education could also make the populace appreciate the concept of payment for ecosystem/environmental services (PES) which has been introduced in some countries. In Tanzania, for instance, PES has drastically reduced the conflicts between parks and people (Nelson et al. 2010). In the same vein, the introduction of PES in the Wolong Nature Reserve of China made the people consider cooking gas an alternative to firewood, thereby reducing deforestation and increasing the forest cover in the Panda Reserve (Liu et al. 2001).

Findings from this study also showed that governments need to step up campaigns on eco-tourism as many of our respondents disagreed with the idea that there was enough awareness in this regard. A good number of the rare natural sites in the country (e.g. Mambilla Plateau, Sankwala Mountains, Oowu Waterfalls) are yet to be fully explored for their eco-tourism potentials due to lack of good access roads, inadequate security and poor accommodation facilities for would-be tourists. Visits to some of these natural sites and areas of outstanding ecological or cultural interest have been recognized as a mainstay of the economy for many developing nations (Okello 2014; Anwadike 2020). Perhaps, this is one way by which the Federal and State Governments in Nigeria can boost their revenue base, and diversify the economy while conserving biodiversity and improving the economies of local communities (Chiutsi et al. 2011). Moreover, visit and contact with nature and wildlife via sustainable ecotourism has been reported to produce the following health benefits: reduced stress, improved mental health and capacity, faster recovery from surgery, faster reduction of blood pressure, reduced anger and anxiety, and happiness (Hartig et al. 2003; Mitchell and Pophan 2008; Zari 2018; Campbell-Arvai 2019; Mills et al. 2019). The economic and health benefits of eco-tourism are doubtlessly enormous. However, such visits should be done in a sustainable manner, e.g. small numbers of tourists, eco-marketing activities, and little impact on the natural environment and wildlife, as well as reduced development of tourism facilities (Dorobantu and Nistoreanu 2012; Samia et al. 2017).

Perhaps this study would have recorded a greater level of participation in terms of the number of respondents if most of our social contacts responded to the call, especially the professionals who were interviewed through the Google forms. The global COVID-19 pandemic and social restrictions also limited the extent to which we could reach out to non-professionals. Nonetheless, this study allowed us to enlighten the populace in general, especially the non-professionals, on the subject of biodiversity conservation. Some professionals also had a better understanding of biodiversity conservation and the NBSAP as captured in their additional comments after the survey. The additional comments underscore the assertion that it is important to evaluate the knowledge of people on biodiversity and understand their attitudes, perception and convictions (Teel and Manfredo 2009; Schultz 2011). The educative approach employed in this study could thus foster biodiversity conservation in Nigeria and help the country actualize its NBSAP and ABTs.

Conclusion and recommendations

The study revealed some areas of deficiency and how crucial the first national target is to biodiversity conservation in Nigeria. With an appreciable level of awareness on NBSAP among the populace, the task of biodiversity conservation by individuals, local communities, government agencies and other stakeholders could be easily implemented. It is recommended that current topical issues related to biodiversity conservation, NBSAP and ABTs be incorporated into the curricula of the different levels of education. Partnership with the media and the use of local languages could also increase the scale of national and public discourse. Among other services to the nation, governments should engage the services of graduates of Biology-related disciplines (e.g. Botany, Forestry, Wildlife Management and Zoology among others) to sensitize the public on the multifarious ecosystem services of biological diversity and the need to conserve it.