IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i3p807-d136235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Knowledge of Monarchs and Support for Butterfly Conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Jerrod Penn

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University and AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA)

  • Hannah Penn

    (Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University and AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA)

  • Wuyang Hu

    (Department of Agricultural Environmental and Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA)

Abstract

Pollinator populations in North America are in decline, including the iconic monarch butterfly. In order to determine if public knowledge of monarchs informs opinions on butterfly conservation, we surveyed the public to assess their knowledge of monarchs. We also asked participants about their attitudes towards general butterfly conservation and if they believe that butterfly gardens contribute to conservation. Respondents generally had some knowledge of monarchs but were unaware of monarch population declines and the necessity of milkweed to their life cycle. Respondent knowledge was correlated with more positive attitudes about butterfly conservation. Furthermore, membership in an environmental organization increased the likelihood that the participant had prior knowledge of monarchs and cared about monarch conservation. Respondent socioeconomic factors of age and sex were also significantly correlated with conservation attitudes—older and female participants had more positive attitudes towards general butterfly conservation. Interestingly, females were also less likely than males to admit having prior knowledge of monarchs, indicating that gender may also play an important role in conservation outreach efforts. Our study indicates that educational efforts need to be directed more toward individuals not already associated with an environmental organization as these individuals are predisposed to regard conservation positively.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerrod Penn & Hannah Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Public Knowledge of Monarchs and Support for Butterfly Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:3:p:807-:d:136235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/3/807/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/3/807/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian W. Gould & William E. Saupe & Richard M. Klemme, 1989. "Conservation Tillage: The Role of Farm and Operator Characteristics and the Perception of Soil Erosion," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(2), pages 167-185.
    2. Benno Torgler & María A.García-Valiñas & Alison Macintyre, 2007. "Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect," CREMA Working Paper Series 2008-01, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    3. Primmer, Eeva & Karppinen, Heimo, 2010. "Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: Forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 136-146, February.
    4. Denise L. Stanley, 2005. "Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness‐to‐pay for Endangered Species," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 165-179, April.
    5. Geoffrey P. Lomax, 2000. "From Breeder Reactors to Butterflies: Risk, Culture, and Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 747-754, October.
    6. Namatié Traoré & Réjean Landry & Nabil Amara, 1998. "On-Farm Adoption of Conservation Practices: The Role of Farm and Farmer Characteristics, Perceptions, and Health Hazards," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 114-127.
    7. Wanki Moon & Siva K. Balasubramanian, 2004. "Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: The Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 186-208.
    8. Benno Torgler & María A.García-Valiñas & Alison Macintyre, 2007. "Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect," CREMA Working Paper Series 2008-01, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    9. Allen M. Featherstone & Barry K. Goodwin, 1993. "Factors Influencing a Farmer's Decision to Invest in Long-Term Conservation Improvements," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(1), pages 67-81.
    10. Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
    11. Dupont, Diane P., 2004. "Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 273-286, July.
    12. Wanki Moon & Siva K. Balasubramanian, 2004. "Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: The Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 186-208.
    13. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    14. Torsten Richter & Antje Rendigs & Claudette Patricia Maminirina, 2015. "Conservation Messages in Speech Bubbles–Evaluation of an Environmental Education Comic Distributed in Elementary Schools in Madagascar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-26, July.
    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. Anne-Kathrin Sieg & Daniel Dreesmann, 2021. "Promoting Pro-Environmental BEEhavior in School. Factors Leading to Eco-Friendly Student Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.

    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. Bayard, Budry & Jolly, Curtis, 2007. "Environmental behavior structure and socio-economic conditions of hillside farmers: A multiple-group structural equation modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 433-440, May.
    2. Mills, Bradford & Schleich, Joachim, 2012. "Residential energy-efficient technology adoption, energy conservation, knowledge, and attitudes: An analysis of European countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 616-628.
    3. Bayard, Budry & Jolly, Curtis M. & Shannon, Dennis A., 2006. "The Adoption and Management of Soil Conservation Practices in Haiti: The Case of Rock Walls," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Benno Torgler & Maria A. Garcia-Valinas & Alison Macintyre, 2012. "Justifiability of Littering: An Empirical Investigation," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 21(2), pages 209-231, May.
    5. Dardanoni, Valentino & Guerriero, Carla, 2021. "Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    6. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    7. Benno Torgler & Maria A. Garcia-Valinas & Alison Macintyre, 2012. "Justifiability of Littering: An Empirical Investigation," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 21(2), pages 209-231, May.
    8. Saadun, Norzanalia & Lim, Evelyn Ai Lin & Esa, Shakinah Mohd & Ngu, Freddy & Awang, Fatihah & Gimin, Akram & Johari, Izzah Hafizah & Firdaus, Muhammad Abrisam & Wagimin, Nurul Izati & Azhar, Badrul, 2018. "Socio-ecological perspectives of engaging smallholders in environmental-friendly palm oil certification schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 333-340.
    9. Moon, Wanki & Griffith, Jacob Wayne, 2011. "Assessing holistic economic value for multifunctional agriculture in the US," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 455-465, August.
    10. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    11. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    12. Bergtold, Jason S. & Duffy, Patricia A. & Hite, Diane & Raper, Randy L., 2008. "Demographic and Management Factors Affecting the Perceived Benefit of Winter Cover Crops in the Southeast," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6424, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
    14. Simon Chege Kimenju & Hugo De Groote, 2008. "Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 35-46, January.
    15. Bergtold, Jason S. & Duffy, Patricia A. & Hite, Diane & Raper, Randy L., 2012. "Demographic and Management Factors Affecting the Adoption and Perceived Yield Benefit of Winter Cover Crops in the Southeast," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-18, February.
    16. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    17. Jae-Hwan Han & R. Wes Harrison, 2007. "Factors Influencing Urban Consumers' Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4), pages 700-719.
    18. Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K. & Rimal, Arbindra, 2006. "WTP and WTA for Non-GM and GM Food: UK Consumers," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21057, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & Lyssenko, Nikita, 2011. "Correcting for the endogeneity of pro-environment behavioral choices in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1435-1439, June.
    20. Alemayehu, B. & Hagos, Fitsum & Haileslassie, A. & Mapedza, Everisto & Awulachew, Seleshi Bekele & Peden, D. & Tafesse, T., 2009. "Prospect of payments for environmental services in the Blue Nile Basin: examples from Koga and Gumera watersheds, Ethiopia," Conference Papers h042521, International Water Management Institute.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:3:p:807-:d:136235. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.