4.6 Article

Can Environmental Education Actions Change Public Attitudes? An Example Using the Pond Habitat and Associated Biodiversity

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154440

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ciencia Viva (Projecto Escolher Ciencia - Investigadores na Escola) [PEC99]
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/73943/2010, SFRH/BPD/27173/2006, CESAM RU: UID/AMB/50017/2013]
  3. FEDER
  4. [UID/AMB/50017/2013]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/27173/2006, UID/AMB/50017/2013] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ponds provide vital ecological services. They are biodiversity hotspots and important breading sites for rare and endangered species, including amphibians and dragonflies. Nevertheless, their number is decreasing due to habitat degradation caused by human activities. The Ponds with Life environmental education project was developed to raise public awareness and engagement in the study of ponds by promoting the direct contact between the public and nature, researchers and pedagogical hands-on exploration activities. A pre-post-project survey was set-up to assess the effects of the project on the environmental consciousness, knowledge and attitude changes towards ponds and the associated biodiversity of school students aged 15 to 18. The survey questions were based on Likert scales and their pre-post project comparisons used an innovative multivariate hypothesis testing approach. The results showed that the project improved the students' knowledge and attitudes towards ponds and associated biodiversity, especially the amphibians. Ponds can be found or constructed in urban areas and despite small sized, they proved to be interesting model habitats and living laboratories to foster environmental education, by encompassing a high number of species and a fast ecological succession.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available