IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v109y2021ics0264837721004269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are biodiversity perception and attitudes context dependent? A comparative study using a mixed-method approach

Author

Listed:
  • Bernardo, Fátima
  • Loupa-Ramos, Isabel
  • Carvalheiro, Joana

Abstract

Urbanization and other human activities have led to habitat destruction and the extinction of a large number of species globally. Despite general acknowledgement that the involvement of citizens in conservation is pivotal to halting the loss of biodiversity, there is still relatively little understanding of the knowledge lay people have of the concept of biodiversity as well as their overall perception of what biodiversity is about. As the majority of the global population is urban or urbanized, this study aims to contribute to the understanding of how the biodiversity value of the place people live in shapes their perceptions, attitudes, preferences, and social representations of biodiversity. Methodologically it engages in a comparative study of two areas in a peri-urban setting, showing a similar composition of artificial and natural land covers. Both areas show the presence of the same range of biodiversity values but a contrasting all-over biodiversity value. A multi-method approach is used combining attitudinal scales, visual methods, and open questions in a questionnaire. The results show that context matters, meaning that experiencing a landscape of higher biodiversity value can shape positively people’s knowledge, perception, and attitudes; and that using mixed methods in a complementary way enhances the understanding of people’s relationship with biodiversity. These results allowed for the conclusion that not only the presence of biodiversity values is relevant, but above all that the promotion and communication of biodiversity values in people’s surroundings through public policies that enhance the social status of biodiversity can contribute to their overall understanding of biodiversity and well as their attitudes. Ultimately, this study shows that novel approaches to green infrastructure planning have to be developed, so as to make biodiversity visible in ways that make it more accessible physically and cognitively.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernardo, Fátima & Loupa-Ramos, Isabel & Carvalheiro, Joana, 2021. "Are biodiversity perception and attitudes context dependent? A comparative study using a mixed-method approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:109:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004269
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721004269
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105703?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    3. Sauer, Uta & Fischer, Anke, 2010. "Willingness to pay, attitudes and fundamental values -- On the cognitive context of public preferences for diversity in agricultural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-9, November.
    4. Anne M. van Valkengoed & Linda Steg, 2019. "Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 158-163, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mattia Iannella & Walter De Simone & Francesco Cerasoli & Paola D’Alessandro & Maurizio Biondi, 2021. "A Continental-Scale Connectivity Analysis to Predict Current and Future Colonization Trends of Biofuel Plant’s Pests for Sub-Saharan African Countries," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-10, November.
    2. D’Adamo, Idiano & Gastaldi, Massimo & Ioppolo, Giuseppe & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2022. "An analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in Italian cities: Performance measurements and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bardsley, Douglas K. & Palazzo, Elisa & Stringer, Randy, 2019. "What should we conserve? Farmer narratives on biodiversity values in the McLaren Vale, South Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 594-605.
    2. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    3. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    5. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    6. Joel C. Creed & Laura Sol Aranda & Júlia Gomes de Sousa & Caio Barros Brito do Bem & Beatriz Sant’Anna Vasconcelos Marafiga Dutra & Marianna Lanari & Virgínia Eduarda de Sousa & Karine M. Magalhães & , 2023. "A Synthesis of Provision and Impact in Seagrass Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Southwest Atlantic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    7. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. Hilary Byerly Flint & Paul Cada & Patricia A. Champ & Jamie Gomez & Danny Margoles & James R. Meldrum & Hannah Brenkert-Smith, 2022. "You vs. us: framing adaptation behavior in terms of private or social benefits," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    10. Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Zheng, Hua & Yang, Yanzheng & Yang, Zihan & Peng, Chenchen, 2023. "Can sedentarization decrease the dependence of pastoral livelihoods on ecosystem services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    11. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Making Intangibles Tangible: Identifying Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cultural Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Pierre E. Galand & Hans-Joachim Ruscheweyh & Guillem Salazar & Corentin Hochart & Nicolas Henry & Benjamin C. C. Hume & Pedro H. Oliveira & Aude Perdereau & Karine Labadie & Caroline Belser & Emilie B, 2023. "Diversity of the Pacific Ocean coral reef microbiome," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Anna M. Hansson & Eja Pedersen & Niklas P. E. Karlsson & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2023. "Barriers and drivers for sustainable business model innovation based on a radical farmland change scenario," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8083-8106, August.
    14. Lili Zhang & Baoqing Hu & Ze Zhang & Gaodou Liang & Simin Huang, 2023. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Ecological-Economic Value of Guangxi Based on Land Consolidation," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, March.
    15. Bell-James, Justine & Boardman, Tessa & Foster, Rose, 2020. "Can’t see the (mangrove) forest for the trees: Trends in the legal and policy recognition of mangrove and coastal wetland ecosystem services in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    17. Arturo Sanchez-Porras & María Guadalupe Tenorio-Arvide & Ricardo Darío Peña-Moreno & María Laura Sampedro-Rosas & Sonia Emilia Silva-Gómez, 2018. "Evaluation of the Potential Change to the Ecosystem Service Provision Due to Industrialization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    19. Yahui Wang & Erfu Dai & Yue Qi & Yao Fan, 2023. "Study on the Ecosystem Service Supply–Demand Relationship and Development Strategies in Mountains in Southwest China Based on Different Spatial Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Michael Getzner & Barbara Färber & Claudia Yamu, 2016. "2D Versus 3D: The Relevance of the Mode of Presentation for the Economic Valuation of an Alpine Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-16, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:109:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004269. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.