The Relationship between Knowing and Liking for 91 Urban Animal Species among Students
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
- To what degree are the different animal species known and liked by students?
- Are the better-known species also the more liked ones?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Questionnaire
2.2. Measures
2.3. Data Management
2.4. Participants
2.5. Statistical Analysis
2.5.1. Familiarity and Attitudes across Species
2.5.2. Relationship between Familiarity and Attitudes
3. Results
3.1. Familiarity and Attitudes across Animal Species
3.2. Relationship between Familiarity and Attitudes
3.3. Taxon-Level Analyses
4. Discussion
4.1. Known and Unknown Species
4.2. Liked and Disliked Species
4.3. The Relationship between Familiarity and Attitudes
4.4. Caveats
5. Conclusions and Research Prospects
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
List of Species
Arthropods | Birds | Mammals | Other Invertebrates | Herpetofauna |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ants | Birds of prey | Badgers | Earthworms | Blindworms |
Aphids | Black- and Common redstart | Bats | Slugs | Common adders |
Bugs | Blackbirds | Beaver | Snails | Fire salamanders |
Bumblebees | City pigeons | Coypu | Frogs | |
Butterflies | Crows | Deer | Grass- and Smooth snakes | |
Centipedes | Cuckoos | Dormice | Lizards | |
Cicadas | Ducks | Edible- and Garden dormouse | Newts | |
Cockroaches | Greylag- and Field geese | Eurasian otter | Toads | |
Crane flies | Herons | European hares | ||
Dragonflies | House- and Field sparrows | Foxes | ||
Earwigs | Jackdaws | Hedgehogs | ||
Fireflies | Jay | House cats | ||
Flies | Kestrel | Mice | ||
Grasshoppers and Crickets | Kingfishers | Moles | ||
Ground beetles | Larks | Muskrats | ||
Honeybees | Magpies | Racoon | ||
Hornets | Mute swan | Rats | ||
Ladybugs | Nightingale | Shrews | ||
Longhorn beetles | Other songbirds (e.g., greenfinch) | Squirrel | ||
Mosquitoes | Owls | Stone- and Pine marten | ||
Moths | Pheasants | Weasel, Polecat, and Ermine | ||
Rhinoceros beetles | Ravens | Wild boars | ||
Spiders | Rose-ringed parakeet | Wild rabbits | ||
Wasps | Seagulls | |||
Wild bees | Starlings | |||
Woodlice | Storks | |||
Swallows | ||||
Swifts | ||||
Tits (e.g., Blue Tit, Great Tit) | ||||
Wood pigeons, pigeons | ||||
Woodpeckers |
Appendix B
Appendix B.1. Data Filtering
Appendix B.2. Participant Demographics
Appendix C
Table with Values for Familiarity and Attitudes for Each Species
Species | Familiarity | Attitude | Correlation Coefficient | Species | Familiarity | Attitude | Correlation Coefficient | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||||
Ants | 1.97 | 0.18 | 2.14 | 1.16 | −0.01 | Jay | 1.49 | 0.74 | 2.99 | 0.98 | 0.60 | |
Aphids | 1.81 | 0.46 | 1.06 | 1.00 | −0.05 | Kestrel | 1.67 | 0.54 | 3.26 | 0.90 | 0.41 | |
Badgers | 1.89 | 0.33 | 2.93 | 1.03 | 0.21 | Kingfishers | 1.65 | 0.63 | 3.32 | 0.91 | 0.63 | |
Bats | 1.96 | 0.19 | 3.18 | 1.03 | 0.10 | Ladybugs | 1.98 | 0.16 | 3.45 | 0.83 | 0.09 | |
Beaver | 1.96 | 0.20 | 3.31 | 0.91 | 0.15 | Larks | 1.41 | 0.65 | 2.92 | 0.91 | 0.44 | |
Birds of prey | 1.85 | 0.38 | 3.29 | 0.91 | 0.34 | Lizards | 1.93 | 0.26 | 3.14 | 0.99 | 0.20 | |
Black- and Common redstart | 1.22 | 0.82 | 2.84 | 0.99 | 0.62 | Longhorn beetles | 1.27 | 0.74 | 2.13 | 1.00 | 0.21 | |
Blackbirds | 1.87 | 0.37 | 3.19 | 0.86 | 0.37 | Magpies | 1.80 | 0.46 | 2.60 | 1.03 | 0.19 | |
Blindworms | 1.73 | 0.52 | 2.29 | 1.29 | 0.24 | Mice | 1.93 | 0.25 | 2.60 | 1.18 | 0.07 | |
Bugs | 1.78 | 0.46 | 1.17 | 1.13 | 0.10 | Moles | 1.95 | 0.25 | 2.99 | 1.06 | 0.13 | |
Bumblebees | 1.97 | 0.17 | 3.52 | 0.87 | 0.16 | Mosquitoes | 1.95 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.61 | −0.07 | |
Butterflies | 1.73 | 0.50 | 2.96 | 1.08 | 0.44 | Moths | 1.76 | 0.47 | 2.33 | 1.09 | 0.13 | |
Centipedes | 1.93 | 0.29 | 1.67 | 1.15 | 0.06 | Muskrats | 1.55 | 0.66 | 1.81 | 1.29 | 0.11 | |
Cicadas | 1.32 | 0.77 | 1.96 | 1.08 | 0.24 | Mute swan | 1.55 | 0.71 | 2.80 | 1.02 | 0.42 | |
City pigeons | 1.89 | 0.33 | 1.88 | 1.29 | 0.07 | Newts | 1.69 | 0.55 | 2.69 | 1.12 | 0.32 | |
Cockroaches | 1.54 | 0.65 | 0.77 | 0.90 | −0.18 | Nightingale | 1.56 | 0.56 | 3.22 | 0.88 | 0.41 | |
Common adders | 1.60 | 0.58 | 2.09 | 1.29 | 0.14 | Other songbirds (e.g., greenfinch) | 1.63 | 0.54 | 3.33 | 0.83 | 0.44 | |
Coypu | 0.90 | 0.92 | 2.17 | 1.00 | 0.29 | Owls | 1.96 | 0.21 | 3.66 | 0.69 | 0.19 | |
Crane flies | 1.68 | 0.64 | 0.84 | 1.00 | −0.23 | Pheasants | 1.75 | 0.51 | 3.04 | 0.97 | 0.45 | |
Crows | 1.93 | 0.26 | 2.54 | 1.14 | 0.12 | Racoon | 1.93 | 0.28 | 2.71 | 1.25 | 0.09 | |
Cuckoos | 1.78 | 0.43 | 3.12 | 0.95 | 0.22 | Rats | 1.96 | 0.20 | 1.47 | 1.33 | −0.03 | |
Deer | 1.98 | 0.14 | 3.64 | 0.67 | 0.24 | Ravens | 1.53 | 0.71 | 2.69 | 1.12 | 0.38 | |
Dormice | 1.59 | 0.61 | 3.03 | 1.00 | 0.38 | Rhinoceros beetle | 1.41 | 0.73 | 2.36 | 1.12 | 0.32 | |
Dragonflies | 1.96 | 0.21 | 3.22 | 0.99 | 0.21 | Rose-ringed parakeet | 0.97 | 0.81 | 2.54 | 0.95 | 0.49 | |
Ducks | 1.99 | 0.11 | 3.28 | 0.83 | 0.22 | Seagulls | 1.96 | 0.21 | 2.53 | 1.15 | 0.15 | |
Earthworms | 1.98 | 0.18 | 2.65 | 1.09 | 0.11 | Shrews | 1.85 | 0.40 | 2.88 | 1.10 | 0.15 | |
Earwigs | 1.49 | 0.75 | 1.28 | 1.11 | −0.01 | Slugs | 1.96 | 0.20 | 1.15 | 1.07 | −0.06 | |
Edible- and Garden dormouse | 1.44 | 0.68 | 2.81 | 1.01 | 0.49 | Snails | 1.95 | 0.24 | 2.53 | 1.09 | 0.15 | |
Eurasian otter | 1.77 | 0.48 | 3.15 | 1.01 | 0.35 | Spiders | 1.98 | 0.13 | 1.64 | 1.32 | 0.01 | |
European hares | 1.94 | 0.26 | 3.47 | 0.79 | 0.26 | Squirrel | 1.99 | 0.10 | 3.72 | 0.59 | 0.09 | |
Fire salamanders | 1.82 | 0.44 | 3.14 | 1.00 | 0.31 | Starlings | 1.52 | 0.68 | 2.83 | 0.95 | 0.45 | |
Fireflies | 1.91 | 0.29 | 3.59 | 0.73 | 0.29 | Stone- and Pine marten | 1.67 | 0.56 | 2.31 | 1.28 | 0.11 | |
Flies | 1.97 | 0.18 | 1.24 | 0.94 | −0.05 | Storks | 1.94 | 0.29 | 3.51 | 0.82 | 0.36 | |
Foxes | 1.97 | 0.19 | 3.37 | 0.89 | 0.08 | Swallows | 1.81 | 0.45 | 3.18 | 0.90 | 0.37 | |
Frogs | 1.94 | 0.24 | 2.97 | 1.01 | 0.14 | Swifts | 1.31 | 0.78 | 2.83 | 1.05 | 0.53 | |
Grass- and Smooth snakes | 1.65 | 0.52 | 2.21 | 1.34 | 0.22 | Tits (e.g., Blue Tit, Great Tit) | 1.80 | 0.46 | 3.31 | 0.88 | 0.47 | |
Grasshoppers and crickets | 1.96 | 0.20 | 2.71 | 1.11 | 0.01 | Toads | 1.90 | 0.32 | 2.41 | 1.13 | 0.09 | |
Greylag- and Field geese | 1.85 | 0.39 | 2.86 | 1.01 | 0.32 | Wasps | 1.95 | 0.22 | 1.37 | 1.22 | −0.07 | |
Ground beetles | 1.30 | 0.76 | 2.20 | 0.96 | 0.32 | Weasel, Polecat, and Ermine | 1.60 | 0.59 | 2.72 | 1.06 | 0.32 | |
Hedgehogs | 1.99 | 0.13 | 3.73 | 0.59 | 0.34 | Wild bees | 1.78 | 0.46 | 3.39 | 0.99 | 0.27 | |
Herons | 1.78 | 0.51 | 3.02 | 0.99 | 0.40 | Wild boars | 1.97 | 0.19 | 2.62 | 1.12 | 0.11 | |
Honeybees | 1.96 | 0.20 | 3.52 | 0.85 | 0.08 | Wild rabbits | 1.89 | 0.33 | 3.43 | 0.81 | 0.25 | |
Hornets | 1.91 | 0.32 | 1.45 | 1.36 | 0.01 | Wood pigeons, pigeons | 1.61 | 0.59 | 2.61 | 1.12 | 0.27 | |
House- and Field sparrows | 1.49 | 0.67 | 2.92 | 0.94 | 0.48 | Woodlice | 1.82 | 0.45 | 1.38 | 1.11 | 0.05 | |
House cats | 1.99 | 0.13 | 3.27 | 1.17 | 0.08 | Woodpeckers | 1.92 | 0.30 | 3.38 | 0.90 | 0.28 | |
Jackdaws | 1.20 | 0.81 | 2.54 | 0.98 | 0.50 |
Appendix D
Variability in Familiarity and Attitudes
Appendix E
Taxon-Level Analyses
References
- Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sandifer, P.A.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Ward, B.P. Exploring Connections among Nature, Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health and Well-Being: Opportunities to Enhance Health and Biodiversity Conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Brondizio, E.S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., Ngo, H.T., Eds.; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- CBD Secretariat. Cities and Biodiversity Outlook—Action and Policy; CBD Secretariat: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Haase, D.; Larondelle, N.; Andersson, E.; Artmann, M.; Borgström, S.; Breuste, J.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Gren, Å.; Hamstead, Z.; Hansen, R.; et al. A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation. Ambio 2014, 43, 413–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McKinney, M.L. Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation. BioScience 2002, 52, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duvall, P.; Lennon, M.; Scott, M. The ‘Natures’ of Planning: Evolving Conceptualizations of Nature as Expressed in Urban Planning Theory and Practice. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2018, 26, 480–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elmqvist, T.; Goodness, J.; Marcotullio, P.J.; Parnell, S.; Sendstad, M.; Wilkinson, C.; Fragkias, M.; Güneralp, B.; McDonald, R.I.; Schewenius, M.; et al. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assessment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; ISBN 9789400770881. [Google Scholar]
- Lepczyk, C.A.; Aronson, M.F.J.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; Macivor, J.S. Biodiversity in the City: Fundamental Questions for Understanding the Ecology of Urban Green Spaces for Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience 2017, 67, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nilon, C.H.; Aronson, M.F.J.; Cilliers, S.S.; Dobbs, C.; Frazee, L.J.; Goddard, M.A.; O’Neill, K.M.; Roberts, D.; Stander, E.K.; Werner, P.; et al. Planning for the Future of Urban Biodiversity: A Global Review of City-Scale Initiatives. BioScience 2017, 67, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. Urban American Perceptions of Animals and the Natural Environment. Urban Ecol. 1984, 8, 209–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. American Attitudes Toward and Knowledge of Animals: An Update. Adv. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1984, 85, 177–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pett, T.J.; Shwartz, A.; Irvine, K.N.; Dallimer, M.; Davies, Z.G. Unpacking the People-Biodiversity Paradox: A Conceptual Framework. BioScience 2016, 66, 576–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shwartz, A.; Cheval, H.; Simon, L.; Julliard, R. Virtual Garden Computer Program for Use in Exploring the Elements of Biodiversity People Want in Cities. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 876–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deliège, G. Dieren Maken de Stad. In Dierschap—Naar een Gedeelde Ruimte voor Mens en Dier; Deliège, G., Van Damme, S., Eds.; Gompel&Svacina: Oud Turnhout, Belgium, 2019; pp. 35–63. [Google Scholar]
- Manfredo, M.J.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Teel, T.L.; Fulton, D.; Schwartz, S.H.; Arlinghaus, R.; Oishi, S.; Uskul, A.K.; Redford, K.; Kitayama, S.; et al. Why Social Values Cannot Be Changed for the Sake of Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 772–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manzolillo, B.R.; Henger, C.S.; Graham, T.; Hall, N.; Toomey, A.H. Are Coyotes “Natural”? Differences in Perceptions of Coyotes Among Urban and Suburban Park Users. Cities Environ. 2019, 12, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Bjerke, T.; Reitan, O.; Kellert, S.R. Attitudes toward Wolves in Southeastern Norway. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1998, 11, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambarli, H. Rural and Urban Students’ Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Brown Bears in Turkey. Anthrozoos 2016, 29, 489–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, A.L.; Ryan, D.A.J. A Tale of Two Cities, with Bears: Understanding Attitudes towards Urban Bears in British Columbia, Canada. Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 961–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaltenborn, B.P.; Bjerke, T.; Nyahongo, J.W.; Williams, D.R. Animal Preferences and Acceptability of Wildlife Management Actions around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 4633–4649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjerke, T.; Ødegårdstuen, T.S.; Kaltenborn, B.P. Attitudes toward Animals among Norwegian Children and Adolescents: Species Preferences. Anthrozoos 1998, 11, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Driscoll, J.W. Attitudes toward Animals: Species Ratings. Soc. Anim. 1995, 3, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzog, H.A.; Galvin, S. Common Sense and the Mental Lives of Animals: An Empirical Approach. In SUNY Series in Philosophy and Biology: Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals; Mitchell, R.W., Thompson, N.S., Miles, H.L., Eds.; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 237–253. [Google Scholar]
- Rupprecht, C.D.D. Ready for More-Than-Human? Measuring Urban Residents’ Willingness to Coexist with Animals. Fennia 2017, 195, 142–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bjerke, T.; Østdahl, T. Animal-Related Attitudes and Activities in an Urban Population. Anthrozoos 2004, 17, 109–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. Values and Perceptions of Invertebrates. Conserv. Biol. 1993, 7, 845–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teel, T.L.; Manfredo, M.J. Understanding the Diversity of Public Interests in Wildlife Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bart, W.M. A Hierarchy Among Attitudes Toward Animals. J. Environ. Educ. 1972, 3, 4–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, M.A.J. Student Attitudes Towards Animals. Am. Biol. Teach. 1976, 38, 491–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R.; Westervelt, M.O. Children’ s Attitudes, Knowledge and Behaviors Toward Animals; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1983.
- Bjerke, T.; Østdahl, T.; Kleiven, J. Attitudes and Activities Related to Urban Wildlife: Pet Owners and Non-Owners. Anthrozoos 2003, 16, 252–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosaka, T.; Sugimoto, K.; Numata, S. Childhood Experience of Nature Influences the Willingness to Coexist with Biodiversity in Cities. Palgrave Commun. 2017, 3, 17071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bjerke, T.; Ødegårdstuen, T.S.; Kaltenborn, B.P. Attitudes toward Animals among Norwegian Adolescents. Anthrozoos 1998, 11, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. The Value of Life—Biological Diversity and Human Society; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; ISBN 1-55963-318-2. [Google Scholar]
- Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J.; Yamaura, Y.; Kurisu, K.; Hanaki, K. Both Direct and Vicarious Experiences of Nature Affect Children’s Willingness to Conserve Biodiversity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Unterweger, P.; Schrode, N.; Betz, O. Urban Nature: Perception and Acceptance of Alternative Green Space Management and the Change of Awareness after Provision of Environmental Information. A Chance for Biodiversity Protection. Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J.; Koyanagi, T.F.; Kurisu, K.; Hanaki, K. Urban Residents’ Perceptions of Neighbourhood Nature: Does the Extinction of Experience Matter? Biol. Conserv. 2016, 203, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hostetler, M.; Swiman, E.; Prizzia, A.; Noiseux, K. Reaching Residents of Green Communities: Evaluation of a Unique Environmental Education Program. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2008, 7, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P. “Loveable” Mammals and “Lifeless” Plants: How Children’s Interest in Common Local Organisms Can Be Enhanced through Observation of Nature. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27, 655–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.L. Changing Learner Behavior Through Environmental Education. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 21, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Bose, E. Species Richness, Structural Diversity and Species Composition in Meadows Created by Visitors of a Botanical Garden in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borchers, C.; Boesch, C.; Riedel, J.; Guilahoux, H.; Ouattara, D.; Randler, C. Environmental Education in Côte d’Ivoire/West Africa: Extra-Curricular Primary School Teaching Shows Positive Impact on Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes. Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B 2014, 4, 240–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Pauw, J.B.; van Petegem, P. The Effect of Flemish Eco-Schools on Student Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Affect. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33, 1513–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liefländer, A.K.; Bogner, F.X. The Effects of Children’s Age and Sex on Acquiring pro-Environmental Attitudes through Environmental Education. J. Environ. Educ. 2014, 45, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zajonc, R.B. Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1968, 9, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bornstein, R.F. Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968-1987. Psychol. Bull. 1989, 106, 265–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zajonc, R.B.; Markus, H.; Wilson, W.R. Exposure Effects and Associative Learning. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1974, 10, 248–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crisp, R.J.; Hutter, R.R.C.; Young, B. When Mere Exposure Leads to Less Liking: The Incremental Threat Effect in Intergroup Contexts. Br. J. Psychol. 2009, 100, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leiner, D.J. SoSci Survey, version 3.2.23; SoSci Survey GmbH: München, Germany, 2019.
- R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Version 4.2.1); R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, Y.; Allaire, J.J.; Grolemund, G. R Markdown: The Definitive Guide; Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; ISBN 9781138359338. [Google Scholar]
- Allaire, J.; Xie, Y.; McPherson, J.; Luraschi, J.; Ushey, K.; Atkins, A.; Wickham, H.; Cheng, J.; Chang, W.; Iannone, R. Rmarkdown: Dynamic Documents for R (Version 2.14). 2019. Available online: https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/docs/authors.html#citation (accessed on 13 October 2022).
- Rstudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R (Version 2022.07.1+554 “Spotted Wakerobin”); RStudio, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Pedersen, T.L. Patchwork: The Composer of Plots, R Package Version 1.1.1; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2019.
- Hope, R.M. Rmisc: Rmisc: Ryan Miscellaneous, R Package Version 1.5.1; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2013.
- Schlegel, J.; Rupf, R. Attitudes towards Potential Animal Flagship Species in Nature Conservation: A Survey among Students of Different Educational Institutions. J. Nat. Conserv. 2010, 18, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prokop, P.; Tunnicliffe, S.D. Effects of Having Pets at Home on Children’s Attitudes toward Popular and Unpopular Animals. Anthrozoos 2010, 23, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, J.R. Biodiversity Conservation and the Extinction of Experience. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 430–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pyle, R.M. The Extinction of Experience. In The Thunder Tree. Lessons from an Urban Wildland; Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR, USA, 1993; pp. 130–141. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, W.R.; Nakamura, T.; Dinetti, M. Global Urbanization and the Separation of Humans from Nature. BioScience 2004, 54, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shipley, N.J.; Bixler, R.D. Beautiful Bugs, Bothersome Bugs, and FUN Bugs: Examining Human Interactions with Insects and Other Arthropods. Anthrozoos 2017, 30, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davey, G.C.L. Characteristics of Individuals with Fear of Spiders. Anxiety Res. 1991, 4, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davey, G.C.L. Self-reported Fears to Common Indigenous Animals in an Adult UK Population: The Role of Disgust Sensitivity. Br. J. Psychol. 1994, 85, 541–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muris, P.; Mayer, B.; Huijding, J.; Konings, T. A Dirty Animal Is a Scary Animal! Effects of Disgust-Related Information on Fear Beliefs in Children. Behav. Res. Ther. 2008, 46, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sweet, F.S.T.; Noack, P.; Hauck, T.E.; Weisser, W.W. The Relationship between Knowing and Liking for 91 Urban Animal Species among Students. Animals 2023, 13, 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030488
Sweet FST, Noack P, Hauck TE, Weisser WW. The Relationship between Knowing and Liking for 91 Urban Animal Species among Students. Animals. 2023; 13(3):488. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030488
Chicago/Turabian StyleSweet, Fabio S. T., Peter Noack, Thomas E. Hauck, and Wolfgang W. Weisser. 2023. "The Relationship between Knowing and Liking for 91 Urban Animal Species among Students" Animals 13, no. 3: 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030488
APA StyleSweet, F. S. T., Noack, P., Hauck, T. E., & Weisser, W. W. (2023). The Relationship between Knowing and Liking for 91 Urban Animal Species among Students. Animals, 13(3), 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030488