Ecological knowledge and attitudes toward environmental protection

Awareness of environmental issues “includes not only formal but also non-formal education” (UNESCO, 2019). However, a study of more than 25,000 citizens from 27 countries concluded that despite coordinated awareness programs directed at citizens of these countries over the past 30 years to protect biodiversity, 65% of respondents did not know what was meant (Navarro-Perrez & Titball, Reference Navarro-Perez and Titball2012). In addition, research (Prescott, Reference Prescott2016) shows that school curricula are characterized by the organization of school knowledge into individual school subjects. This traditional approach leads to fragmented and abstract school knowledge that makes it difficult for children to perceive the world as a system in order to develop a more ecologically sustainable worldview.

However, previous research (Littledyke, Reference Littledyke2004; Perkins & Salomon, Reference Perkins and Salomon1992) suggests that understanding a topic means that the learner can perform a variety of tasks related to the topic, including in contexts outside the original learning context, i.e., recognizing where and when that knowledge is useful. Indeed, limited research shows that ecological knowledge required to understand an environmental topic has a strong positive effect on attitudes toward that topic (Bayati, Reference Bayati2012; Giefer, Peterson, Chen, Gotwals & Songer Reference Giefer, Peterson and Chen2019; Navarro-Perez & Tittbol, Reference Navarro-Perez and Titball2012). Furthermore, it is argued that while students can learn to engage in certain behaviors to meet teacher expectations, in order for these behaviors to have a solid foundation and be applicable outside of school, the development of values must be linked to an understanding of the complex issues surrounding environmental problems (Broom, Reference Broom2017).

According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model or ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, Reference Petty, Cacioppo and Berkowitz1986), how the receiver processes information or a message influences the ability to change an attitude. People with knowledge and skills are more likely to process the arguments of a message in a systematic and detailed way and draw conclusions that influence their attitude toward the issue at hand. People with low skills in processing the arguments of a message are more likely to have their attitudes influenced by factors related to the message, such as the reliability of the source, the attractiveness of the source, etc. The attitude change that occurs as a result of detailed processing of the content of the message is more substantial, lasting and more likely to resist further attempts to influence it.

Ecological knowledge – food webs

A good curriculum includes many important concepts, such as the topic of food webs, which represents the food relationships within a community (Smith & Smith, Reference Smith and Smith2009). The Greek students between the ages of 14 and 16 who participated in the survey learned the concepts of food webs, food pyramids, energy flows in ecosystems, etc. in elementary and secondary school mainly through traditional teaching methods.

The interactions among populations represented in a food web can range from very simple to particularly complex. As relevant studies have shown (Bayati, Reference Bayati2014; Gotwals & Songer, Reference Gotwals and Songer2010), students generally perceived the food chains in a food web as disconnected and used a food chain of their choice each time to convey the effects of changing one population on another. Populations that are not part of the same food chain or more distant populations are not perceived to be affected by each other, and the percentage of students who can make a correct prediction is lower.

Griffiths and Grant (Reference Griffiths and Grant1985) ranked the interactions among populations in a food web from simple to complex, and in each case assessed the hierarchy of skills required for students to make a correct prediction. Therefore, for each specific skill that students need to acquire to understand an ecological problem resulting from anthropogenic interventions in food webs, we were able to examine the relationship between this presupposed ecological knowledge and students’ attitudes toward the corresponding ecological problem. For example, the more complex the interactions between populations in a food web, the lower the proportion of students who are able to understand the scientific aspect of the ecological problem in question (Bayati, Reference Bayati2014; Gotwals & Songer, Reference Gotwals and Songer2010), and they may not be able to adopt an environmentally friendly attitude.

According to Heberlein and Black (Reference Heberlein and Black1976), the more specific the indicator is to the behavior being studied, the better the predictive power. Typically, most researchers study general environmental knowledge that does not relate to the behaviors being studied (O’Flaherty & Liddy, Reference O’Flaherty and Liddy2018). This study shows that the food web is an appropriate tool to examine the relationship between ecological knowledge and attitudes toward environmental protection.

Beliefs, values and attitudes toward environmental protection

Previous studies in the field of environmental education (EE) (Ampuero et al., Reference Ampuero, Miranda, Delgado, Goyen and Weaver2015; Navarro-Perez & Titball, Reference Navarro-Perez and Titball2012; Tuncay et al., Reference Tuncay, Yılmaz-Tüzün and Teksoz2012) indicate that students who are concerned with environmental issues and seek ecologically sound solutions are motivated not only by the domain of knowledge but also by an environmental awareness that requires respect, empathy and compassion for nature and all living things. It is therefore necessary to add a moral element to critical thinking, namely the role of morality (Nasibulina, Reference Nasibulina2015; Navarro-Perez & Titball, Reference Navarro-Perez and Titball2012). However, even when altruistic and social values are considered as primary motivations, people who care about the environment do not seem to be willing to make major sacrifices in their lifestyle. Thus, they engage in activities such as recycling, but not necessarily activities that impose a greater burden, such as driving less (Diekmann & Preseindoerfer, Reference Diekmann and Preisendörfer1992; Herman, Reference Herman2015). As described in cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, Reference Festinger1957), it is commonly believed that we tend to avoid environmental issues because they conflict with or threaten some of our basic material needs.

Therefore, this study also examined whether people’s perceptions of their interactions with the natural world (e.g., anthropocentric, biocentric, etc.) have an impact on students’ responses to various ecological issues arising from human interventions in food webs.

Students’ attitudes toward environmental protection: Research question 1

The statistical analysis of the closed questions shows, above all, that the students have a very positive attitude toward environmental protection (see Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of students who have a positive attitude toward environmental protection (Relative frequencies)

Finally, the lowest percentage of positive attitudes toward environmental protection (see Table 1) is toward road construction, even if it means destroying part of the forest (62.4%, question 3).

Students’ perception of the relationship between humans and nature: Research question 2

Responses regarding the relationship between humans and nature were classified based on ethical theories (see Table 2) and ranged from extremely anthropocentric to biocentric (Kopnina & Cherniak, Reference Kopnina and Cherniak2015). Specifically, students held the following perceptions: i) Extremely anthropocentric: they asserted that humans can destroy the environment to satisfy their own needs and desires ii) Moderately technocentric: they seem to vacillate between the view that the planet and the creatures inhabiting it are of value to humanity and the view that they have intrinsic value iii) Ecocentric: They support that it is not right to destroy the ecosystem. However, they do not provide a sophisticated scientific explanation. iv) Biocentric: They state that all organisms should be protected regardless of their usefulness to humans.

Table 2. Students’ perceptions of the natural world (indicative responses)

It was also deemed necessary to introduce a new category, “Scientific ecosystemic,” to capture perceptions based on detailed scientific explanations. In particular, the effects of human intervention on ecosystems are explained in scientific detail because all elements of the biosphere are interdependent and interact with each other. Students with a “Scientific ecosystemic” perception also understand that the environment is in a delicate balance that can be irrevocably disturbed by human activities and that it is not an inexhaustible resource for the satisfaction of human interests.

We have also included in the “Tautological” category those responses in which respondents simply express their ignorance without further interpretation (Table 2).

From the analysis of students’ responses to the open-ended questions, it appears that the majority of the sample holds the scientific ecosystemic perception on most environmental issues (see Table 3).

Table 3. Students’ perceptions of the relationship between humans and nature (relative frequencies)

In contrast, scientific ecosystem perceptions have the lowest percentages (see Table 3) in the cases of habitat fragmentation (4.3%, question 3) and hunting (11.1%, question 7). Thus, in the above ecological questions, students use a low percentage of their ecological knowledge to justify their choice of an ecologically acceptable solution. This result was to be expected. In fact, for the ecological knowledge questions, only 15.4% of the sample understands the impact of complete deforestation and only 10.3% recognizes the impact of a decline in the population of a superior predator on other organisms in the food web because most of these populations are not part of the same food chain, so they are not assumed to affect each other (Bayati, Reference Bayati2014).

Deeply held beliefs that contradict scientific data accepted by students in the study: Research question 3

From the analysis of students’ responses to the open-ended questions, it appears that the most common belief that contradicts scientific data about the natural world (see Table 4) is that organisms are characterized as useful or harmful to humans. For example, “Too bad, because all the other animals I detest will reproduce, so we should not kill the hawks, we should kill everyone else” (145th student, question 7). This prevents students from showing a positive attitude toward conservation, especially when it comes to eradicating a “dangerous” species (41%, question 1) and hunting birds of prey (23.5%, question 7).

Table 4. Deeply held beliefs of students that contradict scientific data about the natural world (Relative frequencies)

In second place is a belief that contradicts scientific data about nature being used to promote human welfare (see Table 4), especially in the cases of road construction (31.8%, question 3) and overfishing (15.8%, question 4). For example, “I agree because we need to make our lives easier” (151th student, question 3) and “I agree because fishermen can no longer feed their families” (178th student, question 4).

In addition, students believe that natural resources are inexhaustible (see Table 4) if an alien species is introduced (10.7%, question 2). For example, “I agree because weeds grow all the time so there is food for both animals” (37th student, question 2). Students do not seem to have enough information about the problem of overgrazing, although it is a common phenomenon in Greek ecosystems.

The aforementioned deeply held beliefs that contradict scientific data about the natural world were the arguments of students who hold anthropocentric or technocentric perceptions. For example, the environmental myth that a species is considered dangerous was adopted by a student who expressed a moderate technocentric perception: “I’m not sure because on the one hand snakes are dangerous to humans, on the other hand they eat mice that feed on wheat” (90th student, question 1).

Finally, there is a nonobjective belief about the natural world – that any human intervention destroys the ecosystem (see Table 4) – in the case of biological control of insects (4.7%, question 6), as in: “I disagree because they destroy the chain in nature” (student 129). The above-mentioned nonobjective belief about the natural world were the argument of students holding an ecocentric or even biocentric view (see Table 6).

Students’ perceptions of the relationship between humans and nature and ecological knowledge as possible determinants that can influence responsible decision-making and students’ attitudes toward environmental protection: Research question 4

A negative attitude toward environmental protection is held by those who express an extremely anthropocentric perception in the corresponding open question.

However, there are also students who take an extremely anthropocentric view, but take a seemingly positive stance on the corresponding closed question. Thus, it can be seen (Table 1) that 192 students (82.1%) have a positive attitude and do not approve of hunting birds of prey. However, 42 students (17.9%) who hold the extreme anthropocentric view that snakes or mice are harmful take a positive stance on the corresponding closed question (see Table 5). For example, ‘I do not agree, because if the hawks disappear, mice and snakes will grow’ (140th student, question 7).

Table 5. Distribution of students’ perceptions of the natural world (absolute frequencies) and their attitudes toward environmental protection

If we also take into account that students may have answered randomly (especially the tautological answers), it is possible that students’ positive attitudes belong to somewhat lower percentages than those listed in Table 1.

In the case of forest fragmentation, to justify their negative attitudes toward environmental protection (Festinger, Reference Festinger1957), students also argue that only part of the forest is being destroyed, for example: “I agree because it will be easier for me to move. Besides, only part of the forest will be destroyed” (28th student). The Bayati (Reference Bayati2012) pointed out that the variables specific ecological knowledge and attitude were independent only in the case of habitat fragmentation for the construction of a road. However, we recall that only 15.4% of the students in the sample understood the impact of complete deforestation in the corresponding knowledge question (Bayati, Reference Bayati2014).

The results show that students with moderate technocentric perceptions (see Table 3) expressed neutral attitudes on the corresponding closed question (see Table 5), while they had conflicting views on their attitudes. These students seem to be undecided, for example: “I am not sure because in theory it is wrong and we have no right to destroy the natural environment. However, if I lived in this area and there was a problem with the road network, I would probably agree” (84th student, question 3).

Students who have an ecocentric or biocentric perception do not always take a positive attitude toward environmental protection (see Table 6) because their insufficient knowledge does not help them find ecologically sound solutions. For example, six of the fourteen students who fall into the two categories above are against biological control because they believe that any human intervention in nature is destructive, e.g., “I disagree because eventually there will be no more caterpillars” (73rd student – biocentric perception). The other seven students took a neutral stance toward environmentalism, e.g., “I do not know. I think caterpillars should be fed in some way, so caterpillars probably should not be eaten by lilacs for natural balance reasons” (160th student- ecocentric perception). Only one student had a positive attitude toward environmental protection when asked about the related question. In addition, two students who held an ecocentric perception took a neutral stance on environmental protection in the case of pesticide use (see Table 6) because they believed that the birds starved after the pesticides wiped out the insects.

Table 6. Distribution of students’ perceptions of the natural world (absolute frequencies) and their attitudes toward environmental protection

Finally, without exception, all students who have a scientific-ecosystemic perception (see Table 3), and thus have sophisticated ecological knowledge, have a positive attitude toward environmental protection (see Table 6). In fact, statistical analysis (Bayati, Reference Bayati2012) revealed a positive correlation – at a statistical significance level α = 0.001 – between the ability of students in the sample to determine the impact of a sudden change in the size of a food web population and students’ attitudes toward the resulting environmental problem.