The Social Side of Biodiversity Loss: A Review of Individual, Collective, and Structural Drivers in Coastal Regions

Abstract

This literature review investigates how social, cultural, political, and psychological factors contribute to biodiversity loss in coastal ecosystems. While biodiversity decline is often analyzed from ecological or economic perspectives, this review focuses on the societal dimensions that shape environmental attitudes and behaviors. Using a semi-structured approach, we searched Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed studies that address social influences on biodiversity, particularly in coastal contexts. Boolean logic and targeted keywords guided the selection, complemented by snowballing techniques to identify additional relevant literature. From over 600 initial results, 57 studies were included in the final synthesis. The literature spans diverse disciplines, including sociology, political science, environmental psychology, and cultural studies. Although many studies do not explicitly focus on coastal areas, they provide transferable insights into conservation-related behavior and structural drivers of biodiversity pressure. The review identifies thematic clusters and theoretical gaps, particularly regarding underexplored social variables and insufficient attention to multi-level dynamics. Our findings underline the need for stronger integration of societal dimensions into biodiversity research and policy, especially in coastal regions facing complex socio-ecological challenges.

1. Introduction

The rapid decline in biodiversity in coastal ecosystems constitutes a critical aspect of the global ecological crisis. Coastal regions are ecologically diverse, economically valuable, and socially dynamic spaces that have long been shaped by intensive human–nature interactions [1,2]. Historically, coastlines have served as hubs of settlement, trade, and cultural exchange [3]. Today, these areas are increasingly threatened by anthropogenic pressures such as pollution, overfishing, land use change, and climate-induced transformations [4]. These pressures have intensified over recent decades, posing significant challenges to the conservation and governance of coastal biodiversity.

In response, international frameworks such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the IPBES Global Assessment, the Nature Futures Framework, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 14 and 15) have elevated coastal biodiversity to a global policy concern [5]. Simultaneously, both scientific and political discourses have expanded their scope: ecological degradation is now recognized not only as a biophysical phenomenon but also as an outcome of historical, economic, political, and sociocultural dynamics. Concepts such as the Social–Ecological Systems (SES) framework by Elinor Ostrom emphasize these interdependencies, and participatory approaches—including stakeholder engagement and co-creation strategies—are increasingly considered vital for designing inclusive and adaptive conservation policies [6].

Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss in Coastal Regions

Our considerations and research on the social dimension of biodiversity loss in coastal regions are rooted in the fundamental issue of climate change [7]. Within the scope of this article, we can only provide an overview of the underlying interconnections (see Figure 1). We define climate change broadly as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” [8]. This transformation of the global atmosphere particularly affects coastal regions. Global warming, sea level rise, salinization of groundwater in coastal areas, and the loss of coastal land and infrastructure due to flooding and coastal erosion—all are consequences derived from climate change that impact coastal areas in a significant way [9].

Coastal regions are also particularly vulnerable areas of biodiversity, as marine and terrestrial ecosystems converge there [1]. Coastal areas, therefore, possess a high level of biodiversity, although they are not automatically considered biodiversity hotspots. The concept of biodiversity hotspots, initiated by Myers in the 1980s, is based on strict criteria for designation, aiming to prioritize conservation efforts in the most critical areas [10,11,12]. However, the hotspot concept has also faced criticism, particularly because it primarily focuses on plant species, paying less attention to animal species and largely neglecting ecosystem services. In addition, it hardly addresses the genetic or functional dimensions of biodiversity [13].

When we speak of biodiversity, we understand it as follows: “The variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part. This includes variation in genetic, phenotypic, phylogenetic, and functional attributes, as well as changes in abundance and distribution over time and space within and among species, biological communities and ecosystems” [14]. Biodiversity loss is accordingly defined as “the reduction of any aspect of biological diversity (i.e., diversity at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels) (…) lost in a particular area through death (including extinction), destruction or manual removal; it can refer to many scales, from global extinctions to population extinctions, resulting in decreased total diversity at the same scale” [15].

The impacts of climate change in coastal regions thus manifest as loss of habitat for plants and animals, extinction of various species due to warming and salinization of soil and water, or the colonization by neophytes and non-endemic invasive species [16,17]. These processes are characterized by circular feedback effects—for instance, the loss of dune-stabilizing plants can further accelerate coastal erosion, which is already intensified by climate change.

All these changing influences have a wide range of consequences for coastal inhabitants. To name just a few, these include the reduction in ecosystem services, such as a loss of living and recreational space and a loss of income sources like tourism, and the depletion of natural resources. At the same time, there is an existential threat posed by flooding and heatwaves [16].

Human behavior is, of course, also a root cause of climate change and biodiversity loss. Increased CO₂ emissions, overfishing of the oceans, overexploitation of coastal areas for tourism, and a lack of education regarding the sustainable use and protection of natural environments are just a few examples that can be mentioned here [3]. For precisely this reason, it is of particular importance to systematically integrate sociological analyses into the ecological study of climate change and biodiversity loss. In the best-case scenario, nuanced knowledge of human and societal behavior could lead to the development of more specific and better-targeted approaches to behavioral change.

In this context, we understand biodiversity-related outcomes to include a wide array of individual and collective responses to biodiversity loss. These encompass public concern for biodiversity—such as attitudes toward marine and forest species, invasive species, and ecosystem protection—as well as climate- and conservation-related behaviors. Examples include willingness to donate or pay for conservation, participation in community-based or ecological restoration initiatives, the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, and engagement in residential conservation strategies. Collectively, such variables help capture the diverse ways in which people perceive, value, and act in relation to biodiversity.

The societal dimensions of biodiversity loss—particularly in coastal settings—remain insufficiently explored in much of the empirical literature. There is limited systematic knowledge about how social factors such as demographic variables, institutional arrangements, cultural values, or political attitudes influence biodiversity-related behaviors and perceptions. This gap is particularly pronounced in European coastal regions, where socio-ecological interdependencies are dense and conservation efforts often confront political and institutional complexity [18].

This article presents a systematic literature review of empirical studies that investigate the societal drivers of biodiversity loss in (coastal) ecosystems. It synthesizes research from multiple disciplines, with a particular focus on how human behavior, cognition, social structures, and institutional dynamics are addressed. The review aims to identify dominant research perspectives, methodological patterns, and conceptual blind spots. In doing so, it provides a comprehensive overview of the state of the art and offers a foundation for more integrative, theory-informed, and socially grounded biodiversity research.

2. Materials and Methods

This literature review was designed to synthesize interdisciplinary knowledge on the societal drivers of biodiversity loss in coastal ecosystems. It aims to uncover how social, cultural, political, and psychological factors contribute to pressures on coastal biodiversity—beyond purely ecological or economic explanations. Our approach followed a structured, though not fully standardized, method for identifying, selecting, and analyzing relevant literature across several scientific fields, which we carried out in February 2024.

We conducted our primary literature search in three major academic databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. These databases were chosen due to their comprehensive coverage of peer-reviewed publications across the natural and social sciences. Our search strategy employed Boolean logic to combine key concepts, including terms related to biodiversity and coastal systems with societal and psychological dimensions. The following core string guided our searches:

((biodiversity OR “coastal biodiversity”) AND ((“socio-demographic characteristics” OR sociodemographic* OR education OR gender OR age) OR (religion OR “religious communities”) OR (conspiracy OR anti-science OR personality) OR (barrier*) OR (“political context*” OR “social-ecological transformation” OR organisation* OR discrimination)))

The wildcard operator (*) was used to capture variations in root terms (e.g., “organization” and “organisational”). By selecting relevant research fields, the search was further narrowed down. The initial query in Web of Science yielded 245 publications. These were independently screened by at least two reviewers based on title and abstract. A total of 86 articles were retained for full-text analysis. The Scopus search returned 205 hits, of which 35 publications were deemed relevant after abstract screening. In Google Scholar, we reviewed only the first 150 results due to the platform’s relevance ranking algorithm and limited filtering options. From these, we included 19 additional studies.

To capture further relevant literature not identified via direct keyword searches, we used a snowballing technique following the citation trails of initially selected articles. This ensured the inclusion of foundational and highly cited works that may use different terminologies or indexing.

We applied no restrictions regarding publication date or geographic scope in order to reflect the diverse and evolving nature of biodiversity research in coastal contexts. Our inclusion criteria focused on studies that (1) addressed societal influences on biodiversity or conservation behavior; (2) were peer-reviewed or from credible academic publishers; and (3) offered conceptual, theoretical, or empirical insights relevant to coastal biodiversity, even if not explicitly focused on it. In a two-step process, the selection of papers was further refined. In the first step, the relevance to the topic was assessed based on the abstracts (n = 140). Based on full-text screening of the retained articles, we selected 57 studies and reviews that we found to be relevant to fit our criteria (see Figure 2).

Importantly, while many studies addressed biodiversity in general terms, only a limited number specifically focused on coastal ecosystems. This reflects a broader gap in the literature—one that our review seeks to illuminate. Studies that offered relevant theoretical or empirical insights despite a more general ecological scope were, nonetheless, included.

Overall, this semi-structured but transparent method allowed us to compile a diverse, interdisciplinary literature base spanning sociology, environmental psychology, political science, cultural studies, and environmental governance. The synthesis of these perspectives lays the foundation for our subsequent analysis of key thematic fields and theoretical blind spots.

3. Results

3.1. Analytical Framing of the Results

To structure the findings of our review in a coherent and analytically meaningful way, we distinguish between micro-, meso-, and macro-level perspectives on biodiversity conservation. This heuristic follows established approaches in the social sciences and allows us to better capture the multi-level nature of societal engagement with biodiversity, including coastal ecosystems.

What do these terms refer to in sociology? As described by Henecka, the micro-level of society focuses on individual or small group interactions and social processes [19]. It examines the behaviors, perceptions, and actions of individuals within their immediate social contexts. This level often explores interpersonal relationships, communication patterns, attitudes, and individual identity formation within small settings such as families, workplaces, or friendship circles. Studies at the micro-level might investigate topics like socialization, personal identity development, or the dynamics of small group interactions. The micro-level encompasses not only the micropolitical dynamics and power plays within organizations that can impede goal achievement but also the critical relationships with key stakeholders and the nuances of internal governance. The meso-level refers to the following aspects: it bridges the gap between the micro- and macro-levels, focusing on intermediate-sized units such as communities, organizations, institutions, and subcultures. This level examines how these units organize social interactions and how they influence, and are influenced by, individuals and larger societal forces. Meso-level analysis might explore the roles of educational institutions, religious organizations, small businesses, and community groups in shaping social norms, values, and behaviors. In the end, the macro-level of society looks at the largest-scale social processes and structures that transcend individual and local contexts. This level includes the examination of societal-wide trends; wider governance structure; societal climate; political culture and global crises; institutions; and systems such as the economy, political systems, education systems, and cultural norms. Macro-level analysis seeks to understand how these large-scale phenomena influence individuals, groups, and smaller social units. Topics of interest at this level might include the study of social stratification, global economic trends, political revolutions, cultural shifts, and crises [20].

The focus of our research question is accordingly on the relationship between social dynamics and biodiversity (primarily but not only in coastal regions) (see Figure 3).

Most empirical studies identified in our review focus on micro-level factors, such as sociodemographic variables (e.g., age, gender, education, and socioeconomic status), personality traits, and individual attitudes or behaviors. This is likely due to the predominance of quantitative methods and psychological or natural science paradigms in biodiversity research, which typically target individual-level predictors of environmental concern and action.

Meso-level factors are less frequently addressed, but they play a central role in shaping collective responses to biodiversity loss. These include the actions of municipalities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), tourism operators, religious institutions, and educational systems. At this level, questions of governance, cooperation, participation, and value conflicts become particularly salient.

Finally, macro-level factors, though least represented in the reviewed literature, are essential for understanding structural constraints and enabling conditions for biodiversity conservation. Relevant themes include global inequalities in biodiversity data availability, cross-national variation in personality traits related to environmental engagement, and systemic approaches to fostering nature connectedness at the societal level.

The following sections present the reviewed findings according to this tripartite framework. Attached is an overview table containing all the mentioned studies and reviews. They are organized according to influencing factors (see Appendix A). Since several studies examined multiple factors, they are sometimes mentioned more than once in relation to the different sociological levels.

3.2. Micro-Level Factors That Contribute to the Protection of Biodiversity, Including Coastal Biodiversity

3.2.1. Age

A study by Davison et al. investigates factors influencing concern over marine biodiversity loss and support for further research on marine biodiversity protection among European citizens [21]. Based on a large-scale survey comprising 14,167 participants across 14 European countries, the authors employed hierarchical multi-level regression models to predict both concern and support through sociodemographic variables. Their analysis revealed an age effect: older adults expressed greater concern about marine biodiversity loss and showed stronger support for additional research compared to younger individuals.

This pattern is corroborated by Liu et al., who conducted three nationwide surveys in the United States between 2004 and 2013, encompassing approximately 3000 respondents in total [22]. Their study, which examined general environmental concern and issue-specific concerns such as pollution and climate change, found no significant age effects in 2004. However, in 2007 and 2013, older respondents reported higher levels of environmental concern.

Attitudes toward conservation strategies may also differ by age. Bremner and Park, in a study of public attitudes towards the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland (n = 248), found generally high support for eradication programs [23]. Regression analyses indicated that individuals aged 45–54 were particularly supportive.

In Congo, Lucungu et al. examined perceptions of community forestry programs among 138 households in three villages. Participants aged between 20 and 50 tended to hold more favorable views of these programs than younger and older respondents (p < 0.10) [24]. Conversely, Datta et al., in a study on attitudes toward predators such as tigers and leopards in India (n = 345 households), found no significant age-related differences [25].

With respect to environmental behavior, Bronfman et al. analyzed data from a Chilean community and reported that younger individuals exhibited lower levels of pro-environmental behavior [26]. Similarly, Thaller et al., studying climate-friendly behaviors in Australia, found a positive correlation between age and environmentally conscious action [27].

However, some studies suggest the opposite trend. Lucrezi, investigating coastal recreational users in Italy (n = 202), found younger participants more engaged in conservation activities [28]. Sakurai et al. similarly reported greater willingness among younger residents in Japan to make financial sacrifices for coastal conservation [29]. By contrast, Ressurreição et al., in surveys conducted in Portuguese islands and the Baltic Sea Gulf in Poland (n = 747), found no significant association between age and willingness to pay for the protection of marine species [30].

Sociodemographic factors, including age, could also influence donation behavior. Eylering et al., using the Protection Motivation Theory and an online survey of 579 German participants, found no significant differences in willingness to donate towards bird conservation or actual donations between age groups [31]. Dörge et al., applying the same methodology to insect conservation (n = 515), similarly found age to be non-significant for willingness to donate, although older participants donated less on average [32]. These differing results may suggest an intention–behavior gap concerning willingness to donate and donations. The differences between Eyerling et al. and Dörge et al. could also be due to the fact that insects and birds are perceived differently by the study participants. Veríssimo et al., examining 25 conservation campaigns in Australia, also found no age effects on donation behavior [33]. Musa and Nadarajah, in a study on willingness to pay for green tourism in Malaysia (n = 250), likewise reported no significant age effect [34].

Participation in conservation initiatives was studied by Méndez-López et al. across six rural communities in southeastern Mexico (n = 670) [35]. They found lower participation rates among younger adults (aged 17–45), potentially due to lower community embeddedness or rural-to-urban migration.

In the agricultural domain, Kouassi et al. studied willingness to adopt cocoa agroforestry in southwestern Côte d’Ivoire and found that older farmers (aged 40+) were more likely to adopt sustainable practices [36]. However, Page and Bellotti, analyzing Australian farmers’ valuation of ecosystem services (n = 91), did not observe age-related differences [37].

Finally, residential conservation strategies were addressed by Bowman et al. in the U.S. (n = 777), who found that older residents were more willing to pay for measures such as stream buffer protection and low-impact development [38].

In sum, the relationship between age and biodiversity-related attitudes and behaviors is complex and context-dependent. While several studies find that older individuals express greater concern and exhibit more environmentally conscious behavior [21,22,23], others show stronger engagement among younger individuals [28,29]. Findings on donation behavior and willingness to pay remain inconclusive. This variability suggests that age effects should be interpreted with caution and further explored in future research.

3.2.2. Gender

Examining the determinants of concern about marine biodiversity loss and the desire for further research into marine biodiversity protection among European citizens, Davison et al. also assessed gender as a predictor. Gender emerged as a significant factor: women showed greater concern regarding marine biodiversity loss and stronger support for additional research than men [21].

Liu et al. similarly found that women expressed consistently higher levels of environmental concern across three U.S. surveys conducted between 2004 and 2013 [22]. In contrast, Bremner and Park observed the opposite trend in their study on attitudes toward invasive species management [23]. In a representative Scottish sample, men were more supportive of control and eradication programs. This gender-specific pattern was echoed in the study by Datta et al., who found more positive conservation attitudes toward tigers and leopards among Indian men [25].

Other studies reported no gender differences. Lucungu et al. found no significant gender effects in local perceptions of community forestry programs in Congo [24]. Bronfman et al., studying a Chilean community, also found no gender effect in various pro-environmental behaviors, including biodiversity protection [26]. However, Lucrezi noted that in an Italian sample of coastal recreational users, women were more likely to engage in pollution reduction activities [28].

Thaller et al. identified nuanced gendered patterns in environmental engagement in Australia: women were more involved in conservation behaviors, whereas men were more engaged in climate citizenship [27]. The authors attributed this divergence to gender roles, where women may gravitate toward private conservation actions and men toward public political engagement.

Concerning economic willingness, Boeri et al. found that women showed the strongest preferences and highest willingness to pay for improvements in UK coastal bird biodiversity [39]. Sakurai et al. similarly found that women in Japan are more likely to express a willingness to make financial sacrifices for coastal conservation [29]. However, Ressurreição et al., surveying respondents in Portuguese islands and the Polish Baltic Sea Gulf, did not find gender to significantly influence willingness to pay for marine species protection [30].

Donation behavior has also been examined. Eylering et al., using the Protection Motivation Theory, found that women were more likely to make actual donations toward endangered bird species conservation in Germany, though this gender effect did not apply to donation intentions [31]. Dörge et al., applying the same theoretical model to insect conservation, reported similar findings: women donated more, but willingness to donate showed no gender differences [32]. In contrast, Veríssimo et al., analyzing real-life donation campaigns in Australia, found no association between gender and donation behavior [33].

Méndez-López et al., surveying six rural Mexican communities, observed that men participated more in conservation initiatives than women [35]. The authors attributed this disparity to structural barriers, including time constraints and community-specific gender roles.

James et al., drawing on a staff survey within The Nature Conservancy (n = 904), investigated gendered disparities in conservation careers [40]. The results revealed systemic disadvantages for women in research, decision-making, and career progression. Women reported higher incidences of discrimination, sexual harassment, and fear of retaliation. Men, by contrast, were more likely to overestimate gender equity in the field. Intersectional barriers were particularly pronounced for non-U.S. women and those from marginalized backgrounds.

Sylvester and Little documented gender-specific barriers in agroecology in Costa Rica [41]. Based on interviews with nine women, the study highlighted the prevalence of machismo and microaggressions. Many participants reported a “triple burden” involving productive, reproductive, and community work—coupled with economic disadvantage and undervaluation of women’s labor. Perceptions of what constituted barriers varied by context, reflecting complex intersectional dynamics.

Not all studies found gender to be influential. Page and Bellotti, using an Australian farmer survey, found no gender differences in the valuation of ecosystem services [37]. Bowman et al., however, reported that women in the U.S. showed greater willingness to pay for clustered housing—an element of conservation subdivision design [38].

In summary, gender plays a differentiated role in biodiversity-related attitudes and behaviors. Women tend to express more concern about biodiversity loss and tend to donate or pay more for conservation measures [21,29,31,39]. However, there are no differences in the willingness to donate. Men show stronger support for specific control strategies and are more likely to participate in some conservation initiatives [23,35]. Research also reveals systemic gender-based obstacles in conservation careers [40,41]. However, several studies found no significant gender effects, highlighting the context-dependent nature of gender’s role in biodiversity conservation [24,26,33,37].

3.2.3. Socioeconomic Status

In their large-scale survey across 14 European countries (n = 14,167), Davison et al. explored socioeconomic status (SES) as a potential predictor of concern about marine biodiversity loss and support for further research into marine biodiversity protection [21]. Interestingly, SES emerged as a significant factor: individuals with lower incomes expressed more concern and greater support for biodiversity research compared to middle-income respondents. This finding contradicts the authors’ initial hypothesis, which anticipated a positive correlation between higher SES and concern for environmental issues.

In contrast, Liu et al. found SES to be only weakly linked to general environmental concern in the United States [22]. While SES predicted concern about global warming in their 2007 data, this effect disappeared once other predictors were included in the regression model, suggesting that SES might not be a robust standalone predictor of environmental concern.

Datta et al. assessed attitudes toward predator conservation in India and found that higher income levels were associated with more favorable attitudes toward tiger conservation, although this pattern did not extend to leopard conservation [25]. Meanwhile, Page and Bellotti, examining Australian farmers’ valuation of ecosystem services, reported no significant impact of income on the perceived importance of such services [37].

Bronfman et al. observed that SES was negatively associated with environmental behavior in a Chilean community [26]. Individuals from the lowest SES group displayed the lowest levels of pro-environmental behavior. Interestingly, the authors found an inverted U-shaped relationship, whereby individuals with the highest SES also scored low on environmental behavior, while those with middle SES showed the highest scores.

Boeri et al., investigating willingness to pay or coastal bird diversity enhancements in the UK, identified a clear positive association between income and willingness to pay: respondents with higher incomes were more willing to financially support biodiversity improvements [39]. Similarly, Ressurreição et al., analyzing survey data from Portuguese islands and the Baltic Sea Gulf in Poland, found a highly significant positive effect of income on willingness to pay for the prevention of marine species loss [30]. Sakurai et al. also reported that household income positively influenced residents’ willingness to make financial sacrifices for coastal conservation efforts in Japan [29].

Donation behavior studies yielded mixed results regarding SES. Eylering et al., who incorporated SES into the Protection Motivation Theory framework in their study on bird conservation in Germany, found no significant influence of income on willingness to donate once theoretical constructs were accounted for [31]. This was contrary to their expectations that higher income would correspond to increased donation propensity. However, Dörge et al., in their parallel study on insect conservation using the same theoretical framework and methodology, reported a positive association between SES and willingness to donate [32]. Still, the authors cautioned about the limited generalizability of their findings due to constraints on the donation range and sample structure.

Veríssimo et al. explored real-world donation behavior in Australian conservation campaigns and found an unexpected trend: donation revenue per donor was higher in lower-income areas, though the effect size was relatively small [33]. Conversely, in the Malaysian case study by Musa and Nadarajah, income did not significantly predict willingness to pay for green tourism [34].

From a residential planning perspective, Bowman et al. discovered that higher household incomes in the U.S. were positively associated with willingness to pay for certain environmentally beneficial urban features such as pervious pavers and rain gardens [38]. However, the generalizability of these results is limited due to the high-income skew of the sampled population.

In summary, socioeconomic status exhibits a multifaceted relationship with biodiversity-related attitudes, behaviors, and financial support. Some studies [21] highlight greater concern among lower-income individuals, while others [25,26] reveal a tendency for higher SES to align with pro-environmental behavior and positive conservation attitudes. Willingness to pay for biodiversity enhancements is generally higher among wealthier individuals [29,30,39] (although exceptions exist [33]). The influence of SES on donation behavior remains inconclusive [31,32].

3.2.4. Education

The impact of education on fostering positive attitudes and behaviors towards environmental conservation is widely acknowledged, and numerous studies have explored the influence of formal education levels on biodiversity-related perceptions and behaviors. Across various contexts, a general consensus emerges that higher levels of education are associated with more favorable attitudes and behavioral intentions toward biodiversity conservation [24,42,43]. However, some contradictory evidence exists, suggesting a more nuanced relationship and the need for further empirical clarification [21].

Canavari et al. investigated determinants of conventional farmers’ intentions to adopt organic farming in the Pesaro-Urbino province of Italy [43]. Their questionnaire-based study, encompassing 202 respondents, found that 40% held a university degree, 8% had completed high school, 9% held a middle school diploma, and 42% held only a primary school diploma. Higher educational attainment was positively associated with farmers’ intention to switch to organic farming. This finding aligns with earlier studies that emphasized that education plays a pivotal role in shaping farmers’ sustainable decision-making [44].

Similarly, Bravo-Monroy et al. examined Colombian coffee farmers’ choices (n = 134) between organic and conventional practices employing ethnographic and quantitative methods [42]. The study found that higher levels of formal education significantly increased the likelihood of adopting organic management practices, suggesting that educational attainment influences sustainability-related decisions.

Lucungu et al., in a study assessing community perceptions of Local Community Forest Concessions (LCFCs) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (n = 138 households), likewise found education to be a significant predictor [24]. Respondents with primary, secondary, or tertiary education held more favorable attitudes toward LCFCs than those without formal education. The authors concluded that educational attainment facilitates a deeper understanding of the potential benefits and governance aspects of community forestry, enhancing local acceptance of such initiatives.

In contrast, Davison et al. reported opposing findings. Their large-scale survey (n = 14,167) on marine biodiversity loss and support for research across 14 European countries revealed that individuals with university degrees expressed lower concern about marine species loss and reduced support for biodiversity protection research [21]. This outcome diverged from prior results reported by the European Commission and Gifford and Nilsson, both of which concluded that educational attainment has a positive influence on environmental conservation [45,46]. Davison et al. call for more research focused specifically on marine biodiversity and its relation to human health to resolve these discrepancies [21].

Educational level is also explored in studies investigating willingness to donate to biodiversity-related causes or to pay for ecosystem services. The findings in this domain are mixed. While some research identifies a positive relationship between education and willingness to donate [34,47,48], other studies do not confirm such effects [31], and some differentiate between willingness to donate and actual donation behavior [32,33].

Carlesi et al. used a discrete choice experiment to assess Italian households’ preferences (n = 800) regarding deep-sea ecosystem services in the Mediterranean [48]. Respondents with less than a high school education were less likely to support global temperature-limiting policies, while those with university-level education expressed stronger preferences in favor of such interventions.

In a Malaysian case study (n = 250), Musa and Nadarajah explored visitors’ willingness to pay for green tourism conservation at Bukit Larut [34]. They categorized educational level into four groups: no formal education, primary school, secondary school, and higher education. A clear positive association emerged: higher educational attainment significantly increased respondents’ likelihood to support conservation through financial contributions.

Bhandari and Heshmati examined tourists’ willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation in Sikkim, India [47]. Analyzing survey data (n = 375) with logistic and Tobit models, they found that higher educational levels significantly increased willingness to financially support conservation activities. The authors concluded that targeting more educated tourists may enhance conservation funding mechanisms.

In contrast, Eylering et al. assessed willingness to donate and actual donations toward bird conservation in Germany using the Protection Motivation Theory, complemented by sociodemographic variables including education (n = 579) [31]. Education was categorized according to the standardized scheme of the German Federal Statistical Office. No significant associations were found between education level and either willingness to donate or actual donations. The authors note that these results differ from earlier studies, which had identified higher education as a positive predictor [49,50]. One possible reason offered is that earlier studies more explicitly included respondents with advanced academic qualifications.

Using the same methodology as Eylering et al., Dörge et al. applied the Protection Motivation Theory to insect conservation in Germany (n = 515) [31,32]. Like Eylering et al. [31], they found no effect of education on actual donations. However, education did significantly influence willingness to donate, suggesting an intention–behavior gap. The authors speculate that social desirability bias may have inflated stated intentions, especially as respondents did not initially expect a follow-up question about actual donations.

Veríssimo et al. also addressed this distinction in their study on donation behavior across real-world conservation campaigns in Australia (n = 850 campaigns) [33]. They operationalized education via the Index of Education and Occupation, derived from census data. Contrary to their expectations, no significant relationship emerged between education levels and actual donation amounts. This further underscores the complexity of predicting donation behavior and suggests that educational level may be more predictive of stated intentions than real financial contributions.

In summary, the role of education in shaping biodiversity-related attitudes and behaviors is substantial but context-dependent. Education appears to facilitate pro-environmental attitudes [24,42,43], but specific findings [21] complicate this general trend. The relationship between education and conservation-related donations is particularly ambivalent: while some studies support a positive link [47,48], others find no effect or only partial correlations [31,33]. Overall, education remains a key but multifaceted factor in biodiversity conservation, and further research is needed to explore the nuances of its impact across different forms of engagement and contexts.

3.2.5. Personality

Personality traits are increasingly recognized as relevant psychological variables shaping attitudes and behaviors related to biodiversity. Individual differences have been shown to influence how people perceive, value, and engage with the natural world [51,52,53], including their willingness to support biodiversity protection [21].

In their previously discussed study, Davison et al. examined the variation in concern and support for marine biodiversity research across Europe in relation to personality traits (n = 14,167) [21]. Among the Big Five dimensions, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness emerged as significant positive predictors of concern about marine species loss and support for biodiversity research, even though the effect was minor. Individuals scoring higher on these traits expressed greater concern and stronger support. No significant effects were found for extraversion or neuroticism. The authors emphasized the relevance of targeting individuals low in openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness through communication strategies to improve public engagement with marine biodiversity issues.

Similar findings were reported by Milfont and Sibley, who investigated the role of personality in environmental engagement at both the individual and national level across three studies [52]. In a New Zealand sample (n = 3864 in Study 1; n = 377 in Study 2), they found that agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness predicted stronger pro-environmental values and self-reported behavior (Studies 1 and 2). Study 3 extended this analysis to the country level using aggregated personality scores and environmental engagement indicators from cross-cultural data. The results are presented in Section 3.4.2.

However, results from other studies differ in their assessment of which personality traits matter most. Soliño and Farizo examined how the Big Five traits affect preferences for a forest management program in Spain using a discrete choice experiment (n = 2224) [54]. They found that openness and extraversion were positively associated with support for the environmental program, while agreeableness and neuroticism had negative effects. These findings diverge partially from those of Davison et al. and Milfont and Sibley, indicating that personality effects may vary depending on context and methodology [21,52].

A broader perspective was provided by Monteiro et al., who examined both the Big Five and the Dark Triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy), as well as the mediating role of social dominance orientation in predicting environmentalism [55]. Their analysis of 305 participants showed no significant associations between any of the Big Five traits and environmentalism—contrary to earlier findings. However, psychopathy (one of the Dark Triad traits) was significantly negatively correlated with environmentalism. Additionally, social dominance orientation also showed a moderate negative association with environmental attitudes. Importantly, the negative effect of psychopathy disappeared when controlling for social dominance orientation, suggesting full mediation. This implies that individuals with high psychopathy scores are less environmentally engaged largely because of their greater endorsement of social dominance ideologies.

Martín et al. explored additional psychological variables, such as empathy with nature, empathy with people, and psychopathy traits, in relation to bystander reactions to animal abuse [51]. In their study involving 409 participants from the Canary Islands, empathy with nature was a stronger predictor of protective reactions to animal abuse than either empathy with people or psychopathy. This finding emphasizes the distinct role of emotional connectedness to nature in shaping conservation-relevant behaviors.

The significance of emotional connections to the natural world was further underlined by Soga et al., who examined the factors influencing children’s direct experiences with nature [53]. Drawing on data from 5801 children in Japan, they found that nature-relatedness and family attitudes toward nature were positive predictors of time spent in nature, while urbanization exerted a negative influence. Time pressure and school grade had no significant effect. These findings highlight the importance of both internal orientation and external opportunity in fostering childhood experiences with nature, which are viewed as foundational for long-term biodiversity engagement.

In conclusion, the influence of personality on biodiversity-related attitudes and behavior remains complex and at times contradictory. While several studies suggest that traits such as openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness may foster environmental concern and pro-environmental action [21,52], others highlight the role of alternative personality dimensions, such as psychopathy or empathy with nature [51,55].

3.3. Meso-Level Factors That Contribute to the Protection of Biodiversity, Including Coastal Biodiversity

3.3.1. Cross-Sectoral Cooperation and the Role of NGOs

Within the multifaceted field of biodiversity conservation, the meso-level—comprising actors such as governmental bodies, non-governmental organizations, municipalities, the private sector, religious communities, and educational institutions—emerges as a pivotal sphere for collective action. It is at this level that cooperation, coordination, and conflict between diverse stakeholders take shape, often determining the feasibility and sustainability of biodiversity protection measures.

Broadly speaking, successful biodiversity conservation requires collaborative networks of stakeholders. As such, biodiversity protection cannot be effectively pursued in isolation by a single actor or institution. Rather, the interplay between various groups and sectors is crucial. For instance, within the domain of tourism management, Csete and Szécsi demonstrate that the responsibility for biodiversity preservation is often perceived as shared between governmental authorities, local populations, and regional administrations [56]. This ambiguity underscores the importance of clearly defined but interdependent responsibilities at the meso-level.

Martini et al. emphasize the necessity of bottom-up processes in developing sustainable tourism, arguing that the co-creation of sustainable offers by local stakeholders enhances their viability and acceptance [57]. Tourists often lack emotional attachment to their destination and may have little understanding of the local socio-ecological context, which can result in unsustainable behavior. In this regard, educational tourism—as described by Bhuiyan et al.—is a promising approach [58]. It aims to sensitize visitors to local ecological and social conditions, promoting more sustainable behaviors even among transient populations.

Non-governmental organizations play a particularly influential role at the meso-level [59]. Given that participation is voluntary, NGO members often display high intrinsic motivation, making them effective advocates for biodiversity. NGOs frequently function as mediators who link diverse stakeholder groups, facilitate communication, and advocate for underrepresented ecological concerns. As the authors highlight, NGOs may also engage in corrective action by spotlighting species, habitats, or regions that have been overlooked in official conservation agendas.

3.3.2. Economic and Institutional Conditions

From an economic standpoint, private sector engagement in sustainability is another critical meso-level factor. The promotion of sustainable products and processes within corporate structures is essential, and this requires both regulatory incentives and consumer demand. Studies by Martin et al. and Guerra and Gonçalves advocate for public tenders and procurement procedures that more explicitly prioritize sustainability criteria, thereby encouraging businesses to integrate biodiversity-conscious practices into their operations [60,61].

3.3.3. Participatory Governance and Social Inclusion

At the municipal level, the literature frequently discusses the centrality of participatory governance [62,63]. When municipalities include various societal actors—such as local residents, environmental groups, and businesses—in decision-making processes, they are more likely to achieve socially accepted and ecologically sound outcomes. Social capital, in general, is also crucial: as Lucungu et al. observe, citizens are more inclined to engage in biodiversity initiatives when they perceive governmental bodies as trustworthy and responsive [24]. And the higher the social capital within communities, the greater the engagement in conservation measures.

One persistent challenge at the municipal level is the scarcity of financial resources for nature conservation projects. In response, scholars such as Nordstrom et al. recommend proactive investment in sustainable development, even under constrained budgets, alongside capacity-building efforts to help local administrations secure external funding [64]. Municipalities also bear responsibility for ensuring inclusive participation, particularly for marginalized or vulnerable groups. As Alexander et al. caution: “Development of inclusive community consensus on landscape dependencies should be undertaken before lucrative tourism ventures and land allocations are advanced in competition to the needs of more vulnerable and often voiceless sectors of a community” [65] (p. 350).

3.3.4. Religion, Religious Communities and Spiritual Frameworks

Religious communities also represent influential meso-level actors. On the one hand, they offer normative frameworks rooted in ethical and spiritual traditions that often emphasize stewardship of nature and value-based sustainability. On the other hand, they act as institutional networks and often as landowners, giving them concrete stakes in biodiversity-related decisions. Their dual role—as moral authorities and as socio-ecological actors—renders them significant for both behavioral influence and policy engagement.

Educational institutions, including schools and universities, serve a long-term function by transmitting values and environmental knowledge across generations. They are thus key sites for fostering biodiversity literacy and shaping cultural norms around sustainability. Concepts such as experience-based learning and eco-humanist education underscore the importance of pedagogical approaches that link emotional, ethical, and cognitive dimensions of human–nature relationships [66].

From a natural science perspective, the connection between religion and biodiversity may initially appear tenuous. Correspondingly, only a limited number of empirical studies explicitly address this link. In many cases, religion is subsumed under broader categories such as traditional knowledge or belief systems.

In the context of Christianity, Votrin offers a comparative analysis of biodiversity-related attitudes within the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church [67]. He characterizes both institutions as “excellent bridgeheads for promoting sustainable development” [67] (p. 18). Votrin highlights that religious communities often own large tracts of land and emphasizes that, particularly within Ethiopian Orthodox monasteries, a significant number of endangered species and plant varieties are preserved. Furthermore, he underscores the role of religious institutions as moral authorities and emphasizes their potential influence on environmental ethics: “the transformation of nature begins with the transformation of the soul” [67] (p. 17).

A different perspective is provided by Murray and Agyare, who examined the relationship between religious affiliation and conservation perceptions in the context of Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA) in Western Ghana [68]. Using a mixed-methods design that combined surveys and focus group discussions, the authors explored the influence of religious identity—operationalized as either Christian or Traditionalist—on attitudes toward conservation. Drawing on prior research [69,70,71,72], the study conceptualized traditional religion as a belief system that includes spiritual laws, taboos, and entities tied to nature. While Christians in the study tended to have higher levels of formal education and a more favorable attitude toward conservation programs, they were also described as less connected to nature and more skeptical of traditional ecological knowledge. In contrast, Traditionalists were characterized by a closer relationship to local ecosystems but sometimes viewed conservation as a divine responsibility rather than a human one. Skepticism toward external interventions and organizations was also more pronounced among Traditionalists. The authors emphasize the complexity of these dynamics and point to the need to consider the changing religious landscape, including hybrid forms of religiosity [68]. Similar patterns were reported in a study by Adeyanju et al., who concluded from their data that “religio-cultural benefits are more important drivers of biodiversity conservation than socio-economic benefits” [73]. Also, Kosoe et al. were able to demonstrate how Indigenous knowledge systems contribute to the preservation and protection of biodiversity [74]. Above all, concepts of taboos and totems help protect endangered animal and plant species.

Another case study from South Africa investigated the integration of spiritual and secular perspectives within conservation efforts [75]. Drawing on interviews, workshops, and surveys, the authors developed a Theory of Change that accounted for moral, spiritual, and ecological dimensions. They identified four types of trade-offs by incorporating both sacred and secular principles. The study also highlighted the relevance of the philosophical concept of Ubuntu as a shared normative reference for reconciling diverging worldviews.

Beyond institutional contexts, religious interpretations of biodiversity can also be observed in broader societal discourses. Reiss notes, for instance, that beliefs grounded in creationism or intelligent design may influence how natural phenomena are interpreted, including attributions of divine intention to environmental degradation [76].

Religious environmentalism has emerged as an umbrella term for diverse social movements at the intersection of ecological and spiritual concerns. Koehrsen et al. show that this interface can generate both intra- and interreligious tensions [77]. In the Indian context, Tomalin demonstrates how religious environmentalist initiatives may contribute to political alignments that are not always unproblematic [78].

Taken together, these studies indicate that religion may influence biodiversity conservation in at least three ways. First, traditional ecological knowledge embedded in religious worldviews may offer context-specific approaches to conservation. Second, religious communities often hold significant land assets, positioning them as legal stakeholders in land use planning and biodiversity governance. Third, diverse religious cosmologies provide competing interpretations of the human–nature relationship, which can affect the implementation of conservation measures. Divergences between secular and sacred perspectives can lead to tensions, particularly when ecological goals are negotiated within culturally or spiritually heterogeneous settings. These tensions become especially pronounced at the meso-level when competing logics or motivations—religious, cultural, administrative, or economic—are difficult to reconcile.

3.3.5. Educational Programs

Educational programs play a crucial role in promoting environmental awareness and influencing pro-environmental behavior. A growing body of research has examined the efficacy of various formats and interventions, ranging from interactive educational websites [79], structured school programs [80], and digital simulation games [81] to broader assessments of environmental education in complex socio-ecological contexts [82]. These studies contribute to a nuanced understanding of the role of educational interventions in fostering environmental consciousness and behavioral change.

Sundaraja et al. investigated the impact of online educational interventions on sustainable palm oil on 628 Australian consumers’ purchasing behavior [79]. An interactive website and an educational video both significantly increased knowledge and purchase intentions compared to a control condition. However, the lack of significant differences in actual purchasing behavior at follow-up suggests that the interventions were insufficient to close the intention–behavior gap.

Børresen et al. assessed the effectiveness of an environmental education program targeting secondary school students in Tanzania’s Ngorongoro District [80]. Through a pre-test/post-test design with 180 students, the study found significant improvements in understanding of ecosystem services; biodiversity; and the negative effects of climate change, population growth, and land use change. The intervention lasted six weeks and included questionnaires, lectures, and visual aids such as posters. The authors conclude that such structured educational programs can effectively enhance environmental awareness and recommend their inclusion in school curricula to support ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation.

Fjællingsdal and Klöckner examined the educational potential of the simulation game Eco, which requires players to collaboratively manage a digital ecosystem [81]. Semi-structured interviews with seven male participants explored how gameplay influenced environmental consciousness. The study identified both positive effects—such as enhanced understanding of ecological interdependencies—and limiting factors, including the game’s slow pacing and barriers to immersion. The authors conclude that while Eco holds promise as a tool for environmental education, its effectiveness depends on user experience design and contextual integration. Gender bias due to the all-male sample is acknowledged as a limitation.

Schüßler et al. analyzed 248 environmental education interventions in Madagascar to assess their effectiveness in promoting pro-environmental behavior in the context of widespread poverty and resource scarcity [82]. Although many programs were implemented, only by NGOs, their overall impact was limited. The study attributes this to insecure funding, unsustainable livelihood pressures, and insufficient systematic evaluation. The authors call for improved integration of local cultural contexts, sustainable financing strategies, and robust monitoring frameworks to enhance program efficacy.

Beyond the evaluation of direct program impacts, some studies have examined how environmental knowledge acquired through education spreads within communities. Martini et al. explored the diffusion of yard care knowledge among homeowners in urban ecosystems, particularly whether participants shared knowledge gained through educational materials with neighbors [83]. Utilizing surveys, group discussions, and information exchanges in the Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area, the study found that about 34% of the participants shared information within one month. The factors positively associated with information sharing included participation in group discussions, social connectedness, length of home ownership, and presence of children in the household. Identified barriers to diffusion included spatial distance, lack of time, and perceptual filters, but the study also demonstrated that some of these barriers can be addressed through thoughtful program design.

Collectively, these studies illustrate that educational interventions can enhance environmental awareness, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Yet their transformative potential remains constrained by deeper structural and psychological dynamics. While higher education levels are often associated with greater environmental concern or willingness to donate, the overall predictive power of sociodemographic factors—including education—is remarkably low. For instance, the combined effect of age, gender, education, and income accounted for only a marginal share of variance in donation behavior in studies by Eylering et al. and Dörge et al. [31,32]. This suggests that education alone is not sufficient to explain or mobilize pro-environmental engagement. Effective environmental education must, therefore, extend beyond didactic content, addressing structural inequalities, cultural narratives, and social–psychological mechanisms that shape how individuals perceive, process, and act upon ecological knowledge.

3.3.6. Education for Sustainable Development in Teacher Education

The education of future teachers in the field of sustainable development plays a pivotal role in equipping upcoming generations with the knowledge and competencies necessary to address global ecological challenges. As educators are central agents in imparting sustainability-related knowledge, their training directly influences the effectiveness of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Enhancing the competence of teacher candidates in this area is, therefore, a key element for fostering long-term biodiversity protection and ecological literacy.

In their empirical study, Brandt et al. examined the development of ESD-specific professional action competence among pre-service teachers [84]. The research was based on courses conducted at Leuphana University in Germany and Arizona State University in the USA. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the study investigated how these university courses supported the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to implement ESD in school settings. The results showed that both courses significantly increased students’ competence in ESD. The authors identified four dimensions that substantially influenced learning processes and outcomes: personal, professional, social, and structural connections. These findings underscore the importance of designing teacher education programs that take these factors into account to effectively foster ESD competence.

The study by Büssing et al. focused on identifying contextual and personality-related variables that motivate pre-service teachers to engage with biodiversity-related topics in the classroom [85]. Specifically, the research investigated motivational predictors for teaching about the return of wolves in Germany. Using a cross-sectional design and a self-completion questionnaire, the study surveyed 120 pre-service biology teachers in Lower Saxony. The findings revealed that protection motivation, attitudes toward wolves, and psychological distance were significant predictors of motivational outcomes such as enjoyment, attitudes, and perceived behavioral control. Protection motivation was found to be the strongest direct predictor, while psychological distance negatively influenced motivational variables. The study concludes that these psychological and contextual variables are crucial for the design of teacher education programs that aim to integrate ESD-related topics such as biodiversity conservation.

In a related study, Richter-Beuschel and Bögeholz explored the procedural knowledge of student teachers concerning sustainability challenges, with a particular focus on biodiversity and climate change [86]. Using a standardized questionnaire, the authors assessed how effectively students’ proposed solutions aligned with expert benchmarks. The study included student teachers from bachelor’s and master’s programs in various disciplines (biology, geography, and political science). The results indicated significant discrepancies between students’ responses and expert evaluations, with no consistent improvement in procedural knowledge from bachelor’s to master’s level or across subject areas. This suggests that current teacher education programs do not sufficiently support the development of the procedural knowledge needed to tackle complex sustainability problems. The authors recommend strengthening education strategies for sustainability in teacher training to address these deficits.

Overall, the research indicates that teacher education programs can significantly influence the competence, motivation, and procedural understanding of future educators in the domain of sustainable development. The effectiveness of these programs hinges on their ability to incorporate interdisciplinary content, address psychological and contextual learning factors, and ensure alignment with scientifically validated benchmarks for sustainability education.

3.4. Macro-Level Factors That Contribute to the Protection of Biodiversity, Including Coastal Biodiversity

3.4.1. Global Disparities in Biodiversity Data and Access

Global biodiversity conservation is significantly influenced by structural and geopolitical conditions at the macro-level. A prominent example of this is the study by Amano and Sutherland, which identifies wealth, language, geographical location, and political stability as critical factors shaping the global availability and distribution of biodiversity data [87]. Their findings demonstrate that conservation-relevant data are disproportionately concentrated in countries with high gross domestic product (GDP), a large proportion of English speakers, proximity to the host countries of major global biodiversity databases, and high levels of security. Conversely, countries with high biodiversity but limited economic or linguistic alignment with dominant scientific infrastructures often remain underrepresented in global data repositories.

Through hierarchical partitioning analyses, the study reveals that these macro-level barriers exert both independent and interactive effects on the spatial availability of biodiversity data. The authors conclude that this misalignment between data availability and areas of high biodiversity risk may impede effective conservation planning and resource allocation. In particular, they highlight a notable disconnect between regions with rich biodiversity and those where comprehensive data are available, suggesting that conservation efforts may be disproportionately directed toward better-documented—but ecologically less critical—regions.

The study also draws attention to the challenges faced by countries with lower economic capacity, limited English language access, and political instability. These conditions hinder both the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge, especially in areas where biodiversity is under acute threat. The presence of conflict or violence further complicates research conditions and international cooperation.

In light of these findings, the study identifies several areas in need of further investigation. These include the need to better understand how macro-level barriers affect the effectiveness of conservation interventions and to develop strategies for improving data coverage in biodiversity-rich but underrepresented regions. Future research might also explore mechanisms for enhancing international scientific collaboration and for reducing structural inequalities in biodiversity research infrastructures.

3.4.2. Societal Personality Profiles and Environmental Engagement

In addition to institutional and structural factors, macro-level psychological dispositions may also shape societal responses to biodiversity loss. Milfont and Sibley examined this connection by analyzing the relationship between aggregated Big Five personality traits and environmental engagement at the national level [52]. Their study revealed that countries with higher average levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and especially openness and extraversion tend to demonstrate stronger pro-environmental values and behaviors. These findings suggest that collective psychological characteristics may influence not only national policy preferences but also public support for biodiversity-related initiatives.

By extending personality research beyond the individual level, the study provides valuable insights into how societal traits may align—or fail to align—with the goals of environmental conservation. This perspective is particularly relevant in the context of coastal biodiversity, where large-scale public support and behavioral change are often prerequisites for successful policy implementation. While Milfont and Sibley’s study focuses on New Zealand, its approach raises important questions about the cultural specificity and cross-national comparability of such findings. More research is needed to investigate whether similar patterns can be observed in other regions, especially across socio-ecologically diverse European coastal contexts.

3.4.3. Systemic Leverage Points for Nature Connectedness

A research paper by Richardson et al. ventures beyond the conventional focus on individual and local interventions to enhance nature connectedness [88]. It introduces a systemic approach, incorporating the pathways to nature connectedness—sensory contact, emotion, beauty, meaning, and compassion—into the fabric of societal structures, policies, and practices. This broadened perspective is pivotal for fostering a profound and sustainable relationship between humans and nature.

At the macro-societal level, the study underscores the profound impact of environmental crises, notably the climate crisis, on both organizations and individuals. It argues that societal climate, political culture, and legal frameworks play a significant role in shaping the actions of organizations and individuals towards the environment. Employing the pathways to nature connectedness as a theoretical framework, the paper proposes systemic changes across different societal echelons to mitigate these crises’ effects and promote a more symbiotic human–nature relationship.

The findings and discussions presented are particularly relevant to exploring how crises affect organizational and individual actions at a macro-level and the influence of societal climate, political culture, and legal frameworks on these dynamics.

While the paper provides a novel perspective on integrating the psychological construct of nature connectedness with systemic societal changes, it also highlights several research gaps that warrant further exploration:

There is a need for empirical research to assess the effectiveness of the suggested interventions and systemic changes in enhancing nature connectedness. This includes evaluating the impact of these interventions on biodiversity protection and their role in facilitating societal transformation towards sustainability.

On the methodological side, developing and refining metrics for measuring nature connectedness at the societal level could provide clearer insights into the progress and effectiveness of interventions. This would help in tracking changes over time and adjusting strategies accordingly.

Concerning cross-cultural validity and adaptability, the paper’s recommendations are based on a framework that may have culture-specific elements. Research into the cross-cultural applicability of the pathways to nature connectedness can uncover universal and culturally unique aspects, enhancing the global applicability of the approach.

Moreover, further research could benefit from an interdisciplinary approach that combines insights from psychology, environmental science, sociology, and policy studies. This could lead to a more holistic understanding of the complex interactions between humans and nature.

Also, long-term studies are needed to understand the enduring effects of systemic changes on nature connectedness and environmental outcomes. This would provide valuable data on the sustainability and long-term impact of these interventions.

3.4.4. Structural Challenges of Environmental Education in Low-Income Settings

Schüßler et al. provide a comprehensive review of educational approaches to encourage pro-environmental behaviors in Madagascar, a biodiversity hotspot grappling with the twin challenges of poverty and environmental degradation [82]. This paper delves into the intricacies of implementing environmental education (EE) in a context where about 80% of the population lives below the poverty line and relies heavily on dwindling local resources. Through a thorough analysis of 248 EE interventions, the authors illuminate how EE can foster pro-environmental behaviors and delineate the formidable obstacles it encounters using the case study of Lake Alaotra.

At the macro-level, the findings underscore the pervasive influence of crises, particularly the worsening climate crisis, on organizations and individuals. The social climate, political culture, and legal framework are elucidated as pivotal factors in shaping organizational and individual actions toward environmental conservation. The study reveals that despite the potential of EE to promote biodiversity conservation, its effectiveness is severely curtailed by challenges such as insecure and insufficient funding, poverty-induced unsustainable decisions, and the overarching issue of a lack of empirical research on the interventions’ effectiveness.

The research gaps highlighted include the need for a comprehensive empirical evaluation of EE interventions to assess their real-world impact on enhancing nature connectedness, biodiversity protection, and facilitating societal transformation towards sustainability. Additionally, the development of metrics for measuring nature connectedness at the societal level is identified as crucial for evaluating the progress and effectiveness of interventions.

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Key Findings

This review examined how societal and sociodemographic variables shape biodiversity-related attitudes and behaviors, with particular attention to coastal ecosystems. By organizing the existing literature along the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of society, we were able to synthesize diverse empirical findings and identify both patterns and contradictions across studies.

At the micro-level, societal variables such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, education, and personality characteristics have been widely studied in relation to biodiversity concern, willingness to donate, and pro-environmental action. However, the findings remain fragmented and often contradictory. Some studies show that older adults, women, and individuals with higher levels of education or income are more concerned and more willing to engage [21,22,23,27,35,36,38], while others find no significant associations or even inverse patterns [22,24,25,26,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,37]. More consistent evidence exists regarding personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are repeatedly linked to higher concern for biodiversity and stronger support for conservation. In contrast, traits associated with social dominance or psychopathy tend to inhibit pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors.

At the meso-level, biodiversity conservation appears as a collective and contested societal process. Institutional actors such as municipalities, NGOs, educational institutions, religious communities, and private enterprises play a critical role in shaping the feasibility, legitimacy, and implementation of conservation strategies [56,57]. Success at this level hinges on cooperation, trust, and inclusive governance structures, while conflicts over land use, economic priorities, or value systems may hinder collective action. NGOs often serve as intermediaries or correctives to state-driven conservation policies, and religious or educational organizations can act as normative anchors [59,67]. Tourism and private sector dynamics emerge as ambivalent forces—both contributing to environmental pressures and offering leverage points for sustainable practices. Despite promising effects of environmental education and teacher training programs, translating awareness into action often falters due to psychological, cultural, or structural constraints—especially in contexts marked by poverty or institutional fragility.

At the macro-level, broader societal structures and global inequalities shape the visibility, accessibility, and strategic prioritization of biodiversity conservation. Disparities in scientific data availability, access to knowledge, and institutional capacity are strongly correlated with national wealth, language dominance, and geopolitical location [87]. Societal personality profiles—aggregated cultural patterns in traits such as openness and agreeableness—may partly explain national differences in environmental engagement. Furthermore, systemic interventions to foster nature connectedness highlight the potential of leveraging cultural values, policy design, and collective narratives to promote biodiversity-friendly behavior at scale [88]. Educational efforts in low-income contexts, while widespread, often remain underfunded and insufficiently evaluated.

Taken together, these findings show that biodiversity protection is not merely a matter of individual attitudes or ecological metrics, but is deeply embedded in societal dynamics. Understanding how social structures, cultural orientations, and institutional arrangements interact across different levels of society is key to advancing both the empirical analysis and the practical effectiveness of conservation efforts.

4.2. Contradictory Findings and Research Gaps

Across the reviewed literature, several recurring inconsistencies and research gaps emerge that limit the cumulative advancement of knowledge in the field of biodiversity-related attitudes and behaviors. These contradictions are particularly salient with respect to the variables of gender, socioeconomic status, education, and willingness to donate. Moreover, they point to broader challenges in research design, theoretical integration, and context sensitivity.

The inconsistencies regarding age can likely be explained by regional and cultural differences. However, it is also conceivable that factors such as personality or socialization may mitigate age effects. To analyze contextual factors or country-specific path dependencies, however, standardized cross-national data are required.

Gender is frequently cited as a significant predictor of pro-environmental concern, with numerous studies reporting that women express higher levels of concern for biodiversity and are more likely to support conservation initiatives [21,22,27,29,31,32,38,39]. However, these patterns are not universally observed. In some contexts, gender differences are statistically insignificant [24,26,28,30,32,33,37] or even reversed [23,25,27,35]. Explanations for these discrepancies often remain underdeveloped and are rarely theorized beyond descriptive correlations. Moreover, the gender variable is frequently treated as binary and static, neglecting intersectional dimensions such as gender roles, norms, and identities, as well as their interaction with other social categories like class, education, or rural–urban location.

Socioeconomic status—typically operationalized through income or occupational status—also yields mixed results. In some studies, lower-income groups show higher concern for biodiversity loss, potentially due to greater exposure to environmental degradation [21,33]. In others, individuals with higher income are more willing to donate or to pay for conservation, suggesting a capacity-driven rather than a value-driven engagement. Still other findings report no significant SES effects at all. The operationalization of SES varies greatly across studies, which complicates comparison and theory-building. Additionally, SES is often treated in isolation, without sufficient integration of related factors such as education, wealth inequality, or economic precarity.

Education is one of the most widely studied sociodemographic predictors, and yet it, too, shows a mixed empirical profile. While many studies find that higher levels of formal education are associated with increased environmental concern and knowledge, this does not consistently translate into pro-environmental behavior or willingness to financially support biodiversity protection [29,30,31,32,39]. In some cases, more educated individuals are less concerned about specific biodiversity issues, such as the loss of marine species [21]. The inconsistent findings suggest that the mere attainment of educational degrees may be a poor proxy for environmental awareness or engagement. Moreover, differences in educational systems, curriculum content, or critical thinking skills are rarely accounted for in cross-country comparisons.

Willingness to donate toward biodiversity conservation—either in hypothetical scenarios or in real-world donation behavior—has likewise produced contradictory results. While some studies report a positive association between higher education and greater donation intent [32,34,48], others find no statistically significant effects on willingness to donate [31]. A few studies even indicate greater average donations in lower-income regions [33], suggesting that local contexts and motivations may override sociodemographic predictors. Furthermore, many studies rely on single-item measures of donation intent, which limits the reliability and validity of conclusions drawn.

These contradictions point to several broader research gaps:

First, theoretical underdevelopment is a pervasive issue. Many studies adopt a correlational design without embedding findings in broader conceptual frameworks. This results in fragmented knowledge and limited explanatory depth. For example, the observed inconsistencies across gender, SES, and education could potentially be resolved—or at least contextualized—through the use of intersectional, cultural, or psychodynamic theories, which are rarely employed.

Second, there is a lack of methodological diversity. Most studies rely on cross-sectional surveys with convenience or online samples. Experimental, longitudinal, and ethnographic approaches are underrepresented, even though they could provide more nuanced insights into behavioral dynamics and change processes over time.

Third, context sensitivity is often limited. Many studies treat sociodemographic variables as universal categories without sufficiently accounting for local, regional, or national differences in norms, values, political structures, and environmental conditions. This reduces the generalizability of findings and limits their practical applicability.

Fourth, there is insufficient differentiation between attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. The presented literature often conflates environmental concern, stated willingness to act, and actual behavior, despite well-documented gaps between these levels (e.g., the intention–behavior gap) in the field of environmental psychology. This leads to overly optimistic conclusions about the effects of education or awareness campaigns, without addressing structural barriers to behavior change.

Finally, the role of psychological and affective dimensions—such as emotions, values, and identity—is often underexplored or reduced to trait-based personality models. Few studies investigate how fear, guilt, denial, or collective efficacy shape environmental engagement, despite growing evidence of their importance in climate and biodiversity communication.

In light of these inconsistencies, future research would benefit from more theory-guided, methodologically pluralistic, and contextually grounded approaches. Particularly promising are interdisciplinary frameworks that integrate sociological, psychological, and political perspectives—an idea further developed in the following section.

A notable shortcoming of the reviewed literature is the lack of a cohesive theoretical foundation to explain biodiversity-related attitudes and behaviors, particularly in the context of European coastal regions. Many studies remain largely descriptive or correlational, offering empirical data on sociodemographic variables such as age, gender, education, or income, but failing to integrate these findings into broader conceptual models. To advance the field, a theory-informed research agenda is required—one that draws from sociology, political ecology, cultural theory, and psychology.

One of the most influential sociological perspectives is the sociology of risk, developed by Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens [89,90]. Their concepts of the “risk society” and “reflexive modernization” emphasize that contemporary societies are simultaneously producers and victims of global ecological threats. Biodiversity loss, as an example of manufactured risk, emerges from the unintended consequences of modernization—urbanization, industrial fishing, or mass tourism—and challenges the capacity of institutions to respond effectively. While societies may be increasingly reflexive, acknowledging the ecological consequences of their actions, structural inertia and political contestation frequently inhibit adequate responses. Particularly in coastal areas, where environmental pressures accumulate and interests often collide, this perspective sheds light on the tensions between awareness and action.

A complementary view is offered by the cultural theory of risk, first articulated by Douglas and Wildavsky and later extended by Ney and Thompson [91,92]. This approach suggests that risk perceptions are embedded in social worldviews—egalitarian, hierarchical, individualistic, or fatalistic. These cultural orientations shape not only what people regard as environmental problems, but also which solutions they prefer and whom they trust to implement them. This helps explain why public responses to biodiversity decline diverge so markedly, even among similarly educated or informed groups.

In addition to risk theories, social inequality and power dynamics are central to understanding biodiversity politics. Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of capital—economic, social, and cultural—illuminates how access to environmental resources and decision-making power is unequally distributed [93]. Individuals with more capital are better positioned to benefit from ecosystem services or influence conservation policy, while marginalized populations often face compounded vulnerabilities. Intersectionality theory, developed by Crenshaw, deepens this understanding by showing how overlapping systems of inequality—such as class, gender, and ethnicity—shape environmental exposure, voice, and agency [94]. These frameworks collectively argue for a structural approach to biodiversity loss that foregrounds systemic injustice.

More recent cultural–theoretical perspectives add important symbolic and aesthetic dimensions to the analysis. Rancière’s notion of the “distribution of the sensible” draws attention to how visibility and legitimacy are socially constructed [95]. Some species and ecosystems are emotionally or aesthetically valorized, while others remain invisible, excluded from public concern and policy agendas. This selective visibility shapes what is deemed worthy of conservation and who is granted authority to speak for nature. Building on this, Morton’s critique of the human–nature binary calls for more integrated ecological imaginaries—narratives that recognize entanglement, vulnerability, and mutual dependency, especially relevant in coastal zones marked by hybridity [96]. Similarly, the concept of petromasculinity points to affective and gendered dimensions of ecological resistance: the defense of fossil fuel lifestyles is often wrapped in masculinity norms, nationalism, and identity politics, making biodiversity protection not just a technical issue but a symbolic battleground [97].

The political dynamics of biodiversity governance are further illuminated by theories of micropolitics and discourse coalitions. Authors such as Cleaver show how environmental policy is shaped not only by formal rules and institutional design but also by informal power struggles, strategic framings, and gatekeeping processes [98]. Competing narratives—about growth, risk, heritage, or sustainability—vie for legitimacy within decision-making arenas, and outcomes often reflect underlying hierarchies rather than deliberative consensus. These insights are particularly relevant for understanding mismatches between stated goals and actual outcomes in biodiversity programs.

Finally, psychological and psychodynamic perspectives complement these sociological and political frameworks by examining how people emotionally and cognitively respond to biodiversity threats. While trait-based models such as the Big Five [52,99] or Dark Triad have gained prominence, deeper insights come from psychodynamic theories that focus on emotional defense mechanisms. Kari Marie Norgaard, drawing on psychoanalytic concepts, has shown how implicatory denial—where individuals acknowledge ecological crises but fail to integrate them emotionally—blocks meaningful action [99]. Guilt, helplessness, and fear are not merely affective byproducts but powerful inhibitors of engagement. Classic notions of defense mechanisms remain relevant, offering a lens to understand rationalization, disavowal, and the fragmentation of ecological responsibility. Moreover, approaches from environmental psychology that explore nature relatedness, affective engagement, and social norms help bridge individual dispositions and collective behavior [100,101].

Taken together, these theoretical approaches offer a multi-layered understanding of how biodiversity loss is perceived, negotiated, and acted upon in contemporary societies. They shift the focus from surface-level variables to deeper symbolic, institutional, and emotional logics—enabling more coherent, explanatory, and actionable research. In the specific context of coastal regions, where socio-ecological entanglements are particularly dense, theory is not a luxury but a necessity. Only by anchoring biodiversity research in robust theoretical frameworks can we grasp the full complexity of conservation challenges and design strategies that are not only ecologically sound but socially and culturally resonant.

5. Conclusions

This article set out to synthesize empirical research on the relationship between societal variables and biodiversity-related attitudes and behaviors, with a specific focus on coastal contexts. Through a systematic analysis of recent studies, we explored how factors such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, education, personality, and institutional engagement influence public awareness, willingness to donate, and pro-environmental behavior. We also considered how biodiversity protection unfolds at different levels of society—micro, meso, and macro—each marked by distinct actor constellations, constraints, and potentials for change.

At the micro-level, the empirical evidence suggests that individual-level variables explain only a small portion of the variance in environmental behavior. While education and personality traits such as openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness show some predictive value, these findings are neither consistent across studies nor particularly strong in effect size. Notably, the translation of environmental awareness into concrete behavioral change appears to be structurally constrained by the availability of alternatives, social norms, or emotional barriers. This finding challenges the prevalent knowledge-deficit model that still dominates many environmental education strategies.

At the meso-level, we found that biodiversity protection hinges on the interaction of multiple actors—governmental bodies, NGOs, municipalities, private companies, educational institutions, and religious communities. These actors do not operate in isolation but through contested and cooperative processes shaped by power, trust, and legitimacy. Crucially, institutional trust, inclusive governance, and participatory decision-making emerge as decisive conditions for the success of conservation efforts. At the same time, meso-level dynamics are often shaped by competing interests and micropolitical frictions that hinder coherent implementation.

At the macro-level, only a few studies directly engage with structural or systemic determinants of biodiversity outcomes. Yet the available evidence points to significant disparities in data availability, conservation capacity, and environmental engagement, driven by wealth, geography, language, and geopolitical marginality. National-level personality traits, legal frameworks, and political culture also appear to modulate how societies relate to biodiversity. The scarcity of theoretically informed macro-level analyses suggests a critical research gap that calls for interdisciplinary collaboration and broader system thinking.

One of the most striking insights of this review is the lack of theoretical integration across the literature. While many studies offer valuable empirical insights, they rarely build on coherent frameworks capable of explaining why certain patterns emerge or vary across contexts. We, therefore, proposed a range of theoretical perspectives—drawing from the sociology of risk, cultural theory, political ecology, critical theory, and environmental psychology—to offer deeper explanations for observed phenomena. These theories help move beyond correlation and towards a more robust understanding of how structural, cultural, and emotional factors shape biodiversity outcomes.

Such a theory-informed agenda is particularly urgent in coastal regions, which are both ecologically sensitive and socio-politically complex. Here, biodiversity is often endangered by the convergence of tourism, urban development, climate-induced change, and economic extraction. At the same time, these regions are sites of high symbolic and emotional attachment, making them fertile ground for both conflict and collective action. Understanding how actors construct meaning around biodiversity, how emotional and aesthetic dimensions influence engagement, and how institutional logics structure conservation efforts is therefore indispensable.

Future research should build on this foundation by developing interdisciplinary, multi-level, and theory-guided approaches to biodiversity research. This includes the use of mixed methods, longitudinal designs, and participatory methodologies that attend not only to attitudes and behaviors but also to meaning, affect, power, and institutional context. Only by embracing the full complexity of human–nature relations can biodiversity research live up to its transformative promise.

In times of accelerating ecological crisis, the stakes are high. Biodiversity loss is not merely an ecological phenomenon—it is a deeply social one. It reflects and reproduces societal inequalities, cultural imaginaries, emotional ambivalences, and institutional failures. Responding to this crisis thus requires more than technical fixes or behavioral nudges. It requires a profound rethinking of our societal structures, our value systems, and our collective capacity to care for the more-than-human world.