Download Title: Are we working to save the species our children want to protect

Title: Are we working to save the species our children want to protect? Evaluating species
attribute preferences among children
Running head:
Keywords: (5-8)
Word Count:
Authors’ addresses:
Kristin Frew
1401-208 Coopershill Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27604
M. Nils Peterson
Kathryn Stevenson
Correspondence Information:
Kristin Frew
1401-208 Coopershill Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27604
[email protected]
Acknowledgements:
Abstract
The coincident decline in conservation resources and increase in numbers of threatened
species makes prioritizing species increasingly important, and prioritizing based on attributes
versus named species may be the most efficient approach. Despite the importance of
biodiversity’s bequest value, children’s preferences for species attributes have never been
considered. We conducted a study of 3rd and 5th grade students in North Carolina, USA to
determine how children prioritize conservation of species with different attributes. Children
prioritized ecologically important species and species with declining populations over species
with other attributes, whereas previous research suggests adults prioritize endemism over most
other species attributes. Our results suggest children prioritize biodiversity conservation
differently from adults, and in ways that may be more conductive to biodiversity conservation in
cases where endemism is not directly related to species endangerment. We suggest the
perspectives of children be more fully considered within biodiversity conservation both because
they have reasonable priorities and because most many people attempt to save biodiversity for
them in the first place.
Introduction
Limited and often declining resources for biodiversity conservation (Mace et al. 2006;
Butchart et al. 2010) and growing biodiversity conservation needs ( Hooper et al. 2005;
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Rands et al. 2010; Hoffmann et al. 2010; Pereira et al.
2010; Cardinale et al. 2012; Hooper et al. 2012) make prioritizing species increasingly important.
Human actions have increased extinction rates up to 1000 times their background levels (Pimm
et al. 1995), and this catastrophe is projected to grow in the face of rapid anthropogenic climate
and land cover change (Foley et al. 2005; Brook et al. 2008; Stork 2009; Leadley et al. 2010;
Bellard et al. 2014). Stable or declining conservation budgets (Iwamura et al. 2010; Waldron et
al. 2013) mean difficult trade-offs regarding which species are protected will be necessary.
Experts typically prioritize species based on the degree to which they are threatened with
extinction (Miller 2005; Wilson et al. 2011; Arponen 2012), but other criteria including indicator
species status, endemism, charisma, economic value, ecological roles, and evolutionary
uniqueness may all be important to consider (Avise 2005; Joseph et al. 2009).
Understanding public perspectives on prioritizing species is critical both because saving
species often requires human intervention (which requires publically supported resources;
citations), and because public preference should influence conservation in in nominally
Commented [N1]: Move this down into the paragraph.
You have a nice topic sentence with no evidence or
paragraph to go with it here.
democratic contexts (Czech et al. 1998). Public preferences dictate where money will be
allocated, which species will receive protection, and the overall success of conservation plans
(Norton 1986; Miller & McGee 2001; Martin-Lopez et al. 2007; Martín-López et al. 2009).
Efforts to evaluate public prioritization of biodiversity conservation have focused on
willingness to pay for conserving a species or suite of species (e.g., Loomis & White 1996;
Martin-Lopez et al. 2007) ANDERSON?). These studies, however, tend to be species specific
and do not provide general principles for prioritizing species. Eliciting public preference for
species conservation can be problematic when using named species for reasons beyond cost.
Specific species may be viewed in widely differing ways among stakeholders. For example, the
tiger (Panthera tigris) is a popular flagship species in developed countries, but those whose lives
and livelihood are threatened because of tigers have a different view (Leader Williams & Dublin
2000). Further, public preference for iconic species tends to overestimate species value (Jacobsen
et al. 2007). Researchers have responded to this need by developing and testing the importance
of several relatively objective and general species attributes (e.g., Czech et al. 1998, 2001;
Knegtering et al. 2002; Montgomery 2002; Meuser et al. 2009). The most recent effort ranked
attributes with endemism being clearly the most important followed by declining species and
species with economic importance (Meuser et al. 2009).
This research trajectory is incredibly important but conspicuously omits the perspectives
of children. The idea that biodiversity conservation is in part about a bequest to our children and
future generations is axiomatic to the conservation biology field and was repeatedly voiced in
seminal works (citations). Given the central role of bequest value in the field of conservation
biology, the perspectives of children on prioritizing biodiversity conservation are fundamentally
important. We began addressing this need with a study similar to Meuser et al. (2009), but
focused on how children between 3rd and 5th grade prioritized species attributes. We
acknowledge the possibility that children’s perspectives may change when they become adults
rendering this assessment relevant to the perspectives of children while they remain children, but
Commented [NP2]: Soule, Reed Noss, meine etc.
were that the case the question would remain important because there will be children in the
future.
Children may prioritize species attributes differently from adults for several reasons
including lower levels of nativism and less defined gender identities among children. First,
adults often have a nativist response to animals similar to xenophobia towards other humans
(Brown & Sax 2004). This prioritization of things native and prejudice against things foreign
may be less influential among children making endemism less important to them. Notions that
these implicit prejudices may develop via exposure to detrimental socializing agents in early
childhood have long been present (Devine 1989; Sinclair et al. 2005). These differences,
however, may be moderated by forces documented in attachment and social learning theories.
Attachment theory suggests children internalize their parents’ values and expectations
(Bretherton et al. 1997). Social learning theory states that children develop beliefs and behaviors
by mimicking others (Bandura 1971). Despite moderating relationships between children and
their parents, we hypothesized endemism would be less important relative to other species
attributes among children despite its importance among adults than among adults. Although
gender represents a relatively strong and persistent driver of how adults prioritize and perceive
wildlife (Kellert & Berry 1987; Czech et al. 2001), we predicted the relationship would be
weaker among children because gender identities are still forming (citations). We treated
ethnicity and education as exploratory fashion because there was little or no theory suggesting
potential relationships between these variables and how children prioritized species for
conservation.
Methods
Sampling
Our study targeted 3rd and 5th grade students in North Carolina because they represented
the youngest age groups with cognitive abilities that allow them to think abstractly and form
interests and concerns related to environmental issues (McBeth et al. 2008). We obtained a
stratified random sample of elementary school children across North Carolina. To obtain a
random sample, we selected 60 schools from a list of all public and private middle and
Commented [NP3]: The framing in this paragraph should
be reflected in the Results and Discussion.
elementary schools in North Carolina. Within the 60 schools, we compiled a list of all 3rd and 5th
grade teachers information within those schools. From the list of all 3rd and 5th grade teachers,
118 teachers and their classes were randomly selected for participation in our study. The teachers
were asked to randomly choose one of their classrooms for participation in the study. Of the 118
teachers contacted, 36 responded resulting in a 30.5% response rate. Twenty one of the 36
teachers consented to participate in our study yielding compliance rate of 58.3%. Data
collection occurred in March 2014 and resulted in 16 classrooms visits and 440 student surveys.
Gender was balanced (53% female) and most students were in 5th grade (79%). The most
prevalent ethnicity was white (46%) followed by African American (21%), Native American
(11%), Hispanic (10%), Other (10%), and Asian (2%).
Questionnaire Design
In order to elicit species preferences among children, we constructed a questionnaire
asking students to rank species attributessurvey using questions of preference ranking, money
allocate ionmoney to species with each attribute, and comparison choose between eachof species
attributes against and endemism. These questions were formulated usingadapted for children
from a similar survey by Meuser et al. (2009).
The first question asked students to rank the importance of five species attributes that
Commented [N4]: Survey is the process Q is the actual
document.
Commented [N5]: Can’t have1 and 2 sentence
paragraphs here. Merged in track changes.
Commented [N6]: You should uses these descriptions
exactly this way to be consistent, and use them in the
results instead of questions 1-3 type stuff. See comment
there.
might dictate allocation of resources for conservation: declining species, ecologically important
species, endemic species, animals people watch, and animals people eat.
The second question asked students to allocate a specific amount of money ($10) among the
samefive species attributes.: declining species, ecologically important species, endemic species,
animals people watch, and animals people eat. This constant-sum question provided a ranking of
attributes and a measure of the extent of children’s preferences for these attributes.
The third question asked students to choose between pairs of statements describing different
species values. For each pair, students identified the attribute they thought should be a higher
priority for species protection. The constant attribute in each pair was “species that are found
only in North Carolina.” The other factors were declining species, ecologically important
species, animals people watch, and animals people eat. .
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
For the first two questions, we compared the rank or allocation for each factor across students
with Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests. For the last question, we tested for differences in pairwise
comparisons with binomial tests. For each of these questions, we also explored whether students’
rankings differed by grade level, gender, and ethnicity with Mann-Whitney tests.
The final instrument was based on pretesting of both 3rd and 5th grade students. First, we
administered the draft instrument to two classes of 5th graders (n = 32). We asked students to
circle questions that were difficult to understand and make notes on how to make improvements.
After making adjustments to the wording of several items, we administered a second draft
version of the survey to an additional two classes of 3rd grade students (n = 37) and asked for
written feedback. Additionally, we completed cognitive interviews (Desimone & Le Floch
2004) with 12 students to gather general feedback and identify which versions of questions that
were easier to understand.
Analysis
For the first two questions, we compared the rank or allocation for each factor across students
with Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests. For the last question, we tested for differences in pairwise
comparisons with binomial tests. For each of these questions, we also explored whether students’
Commented [N7]: I thought we had this section written?
In any case we need to describe what stats were done to
what data. It should be largely the same as the Mueser
paper and easy to write. Just cut, paste, and tweak to avoid
plagiarism.
Commented [N8]: Per above revise to say what the
questions are versus using questions 1-3 code.
rankings differed by grade level, gender, and ethnicity with Mann-Whitney tests.
Results
For two of the three questions, children ranked declining species as most important
relative to the other species attributes (Tables 1 & 2). This result was significant for four out of
five comparisons in question 1 and significant for all five comparisons in question 2 (Tables 1 &
2). For the third question, children chose species that are important in nature over endemism the
most and this result was significant (Table 3).
We did not detect gender based differences in a, b, or c (Table ???).found no evidence of
any difference between males (n = 201) and females (n = 224) gender . This is opposite of the
Meuser et al. (2009) results, which found that men were more likely to prefer endemism than
women.
Commented [N9]: Rewrite this so that you are talking
about something readers understand. The whole question
1-3 thing is like writing in code. See comment at start of
methods.
Also rewrite this so that you are describing patterns in
results. Score on A was twice that for b, c, and d (Table 1).
The text should not be redundant with results. Meaning
you should never say “x was significant” that’s in the tables
and the text adds absolutely nothing to the p-value in the
table.
Commented [N10]: Cite the table and merge this with
ethnicity bc no 1 sentence paragraphs are allowed in any
writing.
Commented [N11]: Not results
We did not find detect a difference in the overall ranking or money allocation of species
attributes between white (n = 196) and nonwhite children (n = 229). However, when individual
Commented [N12]: Use language from methods
attributes are examined, we found white children ranked declining species higher than nonwhite
children (mean = 3.28 vs. 2.68; z = -4.399; p = 0). For the money allocation question, nonwhite
Commented [N13]: ditto
children significantly valuedallocated more money to conserving animals people watch higher
than white children (mean = 1.57 vs. 1.29; z =-3.512; p = 0.0004). For the comparison question,
Commented [N14]: ditto
white children significantly valuedchose declining species over endemic species more often
thanhigher than nonwhite children (mean = 0.96 vs. 0.78; z = 5.265; p = 0).
Commented [N15]: p=o is impossible. The typical thing
is to use < 0.001 for all that fit. Fix above as needed.
Children in the 3rd grade (n = 347) and 5th grade (n = 93) showed no difference in the
preference ranking or comparison questions. For the money allocation question, 3rd graders
Commented [N16]: ditto
allocated more money to endemic animals higher than to animals people eat (mean = 1.94 vs.
Commented [N17]: ditto
1.84) and 5th graders allocated animals people eat higher than endemic animals (mean = 1.77 vs.
1.53).
Commented [N18]: This doesn’t make any sense. You
need to clarify whether you are comparing 3rd to 5th and for
what or comparing 2 different things for 3rd and then doing
the same for 5th. Similarly you need measures of variance,
test statistics, and p values.
Discussion
Commented [N19]: Given some remaining issues with
the Results, I’ve decided to do a “light” editing of this
section and hit it harder once the previous stuff is cleaned
up.
Our findings support the hypothesis that endemism would not be the most important
species attribute among children as previous research suggests it is among adults. The findings
of our study suggest children prioritize biodiversity conservation in fundamentally different ways
than adults. Previous research with adults While adults in the Meuser et al. (2009) study found
endemism to be most important (Meuser et al. 2009), but children in our study ranked endemism
as the third most important behind declining species and species important in nature. This coulde
reasoning behind this alternative viewpoint could be related to children’s lack of racial prejudice
against “alien species”. According to Brown and Sax (2004), people have a deep natural
response, similar to xenophobia towards other humans, in their view of alien plants and animals.
Children are less influenced by thisese ideas of nativist thinkingm because they have yet to
develop prejudices against people, animals, or plants that are seen as foreign (Brown & Sax
2004). It has commonly been theorized that implicit racial prejudice develops via exposure to
detrimental socializing agents in early childhood (Devine 1989; Sinclair et al. 2005). This lack of
implicit prejudice is likely the reason why children view species attributes differently from
adults. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that children would rank endemic species lower
because nativism is not an important aspect in their minds
The unique perspectives of children including a potential lack of prejudice against nonnative species may have interesting implications for conservation. Specifically the perspectives
of children often influence their parents as in the case of promoting recycling (???????????). The
innate tendency of children to value and prioritize declining and ecologically important species
could be leveraged to promote similar concern among their parents. Conversely. some of the
greatest wildlife conservation challenges require eradication of non-native species such as feral
cats (????????), and typical arguments about non-native or invasive status may not resonate with
children. If hurting such animals is offensive to children the same familiar mechanisms of
influence may make arguments rooted in endemism less salient among adults with children.
Commented [N20]: Get citations for this and think about
ways you could do something similar with the gender and
grade level/age stuff below (i.e., adding material addressing
implications for con bio).
Unlike Meuser et al. (2009) who found that males preferred endemism more than
females, we did not find any correlations between gender and prioritization of species attributess.
The lack of evidence supporting gender differences may be a result of agereflect the young age
of our respondents. There are theories that attempt to explain how gender is established and
when it starts to impact a person’s behavior (Bussey & Bandura 1999). However, there is no
universal explanation for gender development. Our results may be inconclusive because gender
socialization has not occurred or is still in the process of taking affect. In order to be positive,
more research needs to be conducted.
The assessment of education level provided some evidence that grade level affects
prioritization of species attributes. Overall, there was no difference between grade level and how
students prioritized species attributes. However, we found that older students (5th grade) ranked
declining species and animals important in nature higher than younger students (3rd grade).
Younger students ranked utilitarian species attributes such as animals people eat, animals people
watch, and endemic species higher. Our results vary from the results of Meuser et al. (2009),
who found that endemism was preferred more by those with higher education. Even though there
is a small range of education level between 3rd and 5th grade, we consider 5th graders to be more
educated. Due to more education, 5th graders have more knowledge regarding the environment
and how organisms are interconnected (Kellert 1984). This provides reasoning that older
children would regard declining species and animals important in nature as more important to
Commented [N21]: This has no real value as is. You need
to explain what they actually are and what they have to do
with our results here.
Commented [N22]: This is true of every phenomenon on
earth including gravity so no need to say it.
Commented [N23]: This can be massaged once the stuff
above is addressed. We need the names of theories the
ages when stuff happens why etc. Then we can say how it
might fit with what we found.
protect. Kellert (1984) also found that young children consistently placed the needs of people
over animals. By considering peoples’ needs first, young children display a more utilitarian view,
which is reinforced with our results.
Commented [N24]: I’ll edit this once the results on this
issue are clarified. I think its clear here, but that indicates
you have too much summary of results here (:
The relationships between ethnicity and species attribute preferences may be explained
by previously established differences in orientations towards wildlife among different ethnic
groups. Our results illustrate a difference between ethnicity and how students prioritize species
attributes. We found that minority children viewed utilitarian based species attributes as most
important to protect. Kellert (1984) found that nonwhite children were more utilitarian,
Commented [N25]: This is results summary not
discussion
scientistic, negativistic, and dominionistic than white children. If such utilitarian wildlife
orientations identified among non-white adults (Kellert 1984) persist among children, that may
explain why we found non-white children Consequently, it stands to reason why we found
considered edibility and watch-ability as more important species attributes than white children.
These findgs should be interpereted with caution, however, as ethnicity often serves as a
sugrrogate for other variables such as income and education (???????????????). animals people
eat, animals people watch, and endemic species ranked higher by nonwhite students. White
Commented [N26]:
children display more ecologistic, humanistic, moralistic, and naturalistic views. They also
exhibit far greater knowledge of animals and the environment than nonwhites (Kellert 1984).
Because white children have more knowledge about animals and the environment, it’s
comprehensible that they have more ecologistic and naturalistic views. This is supported in our
species attributes. Future research into preferences of species attributes among children would
Commented [N27]: This needs rewritten but first you
should double check stuff. I don’t think Kellert’s work was
with children. Also its unclear why we are talking about
knowledge the linking to orientations then linking to our
results instead of using the formula above where we
directly link the orientation (e.g., naturalist) to the view we
found.
facilitate more effective conservation. Future research on how children prioritize species
Commented [N28]: No clear tie to our results and the last
part is redundant with intro material.
study where white children ranked declining species and animals important in nature higher.
The importance of educating our youth about wildlife and the environment tends to be
overlooked, which is validated by the lack of current literature on children’s’ preferences for
attributes would benefit from consideration of several variables including geographic locations
of homes (???), significant life experiences in nature (???????Kathryn’s paper), and adult role
models (???) which appear to shape the way children orient themselves towards nature and
potentially biodiversity. Similarly Qqualitative research would provide insight into why children
think various species attributes are more important than others. Future research could also
include assessment of school type, area of residence, or familial influence and how these
covariates affect children’s views. It would be interesting to delve into how much a child’s
surroundings influence their views of biodiversity conservation. Present research and
conservation initiatives will result in future changes that could positively or negatively affect the
future of our current youth.
Literature Cited
Arponen, A. 2012. Prioritizing species for conservation planning. Biodiversity and Conservation
21:875–893. Available from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10531-012-0242-1 (accessed
July 28, 2014).
Assessment, M. E. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.
Avise, J. C. 2005. Phylogenetic Units and Currencies Above and Below the Species Level.
Phylogeny and Conservation:76–119.
Bandura, A. 1971. Social learning theory.
Bellard, C., C. Bertelsmeier, P. Leadley, and W. Thuiller. 2014. Europe PMC Funders Group:1–
25.
Benjamini, Y., and Y. Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and
powerful approach to multiple testing.
Bretherton, I., B. Golby, and E. Cho. 1997. Attachment and the transmission of values. Pages
103–134 Parenting and Children’s Internalization of Values: A Handbook of Contemporary
Theory.
Brook, B. W., N. S. Sodhi, and C. J. a Bradshaw. 2008. Synergies among extinction drivers
under global change. Trends in ecology & evolution 23:453–60. Available from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18582986 (accessed July 9, 2014).
Brown, J. H., and D. F. Sax. 2004. An Essay on Some Topics Concerning Invasive Species.
Austral Ecology 29:530–536. Available from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.14429993.2004.01340.x.
Bussey, K., and a Bandura. 1999. Social cognitive theory of gender development and
differentiation. Psychological review 106:676–713.
Commented [N29]: Kind of vague and unrelated to what
we found.
Butchart, S. H. M. et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science (New
York, N.Y.) 328:1164–8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20430971
(accessed July 9, 2014).
Cardinale, B. J. et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67.
Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22678280 (accessed July 9, 2014).
Czech, B., P. R. Krausman, and R. Borkhataria. 1998. Social Construction, Political Power, and
the Allocation of Benefits to Endangered Species. Conservation Biology 12:1103–1112.
Available from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046%2Fj.15231739.1998.97253.x.
Czech, B., K. Patrick, and P. R. Krausman. 2001. to conservation attitudes species. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 29:187–194.
D. Hooper, F. Chapin, J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J. Lawton, D. Lodge, M.
Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setala, A. Symstad, J. Vandermeer, and D. W. 2005. ESA
Report. Ecological Monographs 75(1):3–35.
Desimone, L. M., and K. C. Le Floch. 2004. Are We Asking the Right Questions? Using
Cognitive Interviews to Improve Surveys in Education Research. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis 26:1–22.
Devine, P. G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56:5–18. Available from
http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5.
Foley, J. a et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science (New York, N.Y.) 309:570–4.
Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16040698 (accessed July 9, 2014).
Hoffmann, M. et al. 2010. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates.
Science (New York, N.Y.) 330:1503–9. Available from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20978281 (accessed July 9, 2014).
Hooper, D. U., E. C. Adair, B. J. Cardinale, J. E. K. Byrnes, B. a Hungate, K. L. Matulich, A.
Gonzalez, J. E. Duffy, L. Gamfeldt, and M. I. O’Connor. 2012. A global synthesis reveals
biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486:105–8. Nature
Publishing Group. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22678289
(accessed July 9, 2014).
Iwamura, T., K. a Wilson, O. Venter, and H. P. Possingham. 2010. A climatic stability approach
to prioritizing global conservation investments. PloS one 5:e15103. Available from
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2994894&tool=pmcentrez&ren
dertype=abstract (accessed September 5, 2014).
Jacobsen, J. B., J. H. Boiesen, B. J. Thorsen, and N. Strange. 2007. What’s in a name? The use of
quantitative measures versus “Iconised” species when valuing biodiversity. Environmental
and Resource Economics 39:247–263. Available from
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-007-9107-6 (accessed May 7, 2014).
Joseph, L. N., R. F. Maloney, and H. P. Possingham. 2009. Optimal allocation of resources
among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation biology : the
journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 23:328–38. Available from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19183202 (accessed July 17, 2014).
Kellert, S. R. 1984. Attitudes Toward Animals: Age-Related Development among Children.
Pages 43–60 Advances in Animal Welfare Science.
Kellert, S. R., and J. K. Berry. 1987. Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behaviors Toward Wildlife as
Affected by Gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:363–371.
Knegtering, E., L. Hendrickx, H. J. Van Der Windt, and a. J. M. S. Uiterkamp. 2002. Effects of
Species’ Characteristics on Nongovernmental Organizations' Attitudes toward Species
Conservation Policy. Environment and Behavior 34:378–400. Available from
http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0013916502034003006 (accessed April 6, 2014).
Leader Williams, N., and H. T. Dublin. 2000. Charismatic megafauna as “flagship species.”
Pages 53–81 Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity: has the Panda had its
Day?
Leadley, P., H. M. Pereira, R. Alkemade, J. F. Fernandez-Manjarres, V. Proenca, J. P. W.
Scharlemann, and M. J. Walpole. 2010. Biodiversity Scenarios: Projections of 21st century
change in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. CBD Technical Series no. 50.
Available from http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-50-en.pdf.
Loomis, J. B., and D. S. White. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species :
summary and 18:197–206.
Mace, G. M., H. P. Possingham, and N. Leader-Williams. 2006. Prioritizing choices in
conservation.:17–34.
Martin-Lopez, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2007. The non-economic motives behind the
willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139:67–82.
Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320707002455 (accessed
May 1, 2014).
Martín-López, B., C. Montes, L. Ramírez, and J. Benayas. 2009. What drives policy decisionmaking related to species conservation? Biological Conservation 142:1370–1380. Elsevier
Ltd. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000632070900069X
(accessed October 7, 2014).
McBeth, B., H. Hungerford, T. Marcinkowski, T. Volk, and R. Meyers. 2008. National
Environmental Literacy Assessment Project : Year 1 , National Baseline Study of Middle
Grades Students Final Research Report.
Meuser, E., H. W. Harshaw, and A. Ø. Mooers. 2009. Public preference for endemism over other
conservation-related species attributes. Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for
Conservation Biology 23:1041–6. Available from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19500119 (accessed April 18, 2014).
Miller, J. R. 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in ecology
& evolution 20:430–4. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16701413
(accessed July 15, 2014).
Miller, K. K., and C. T. K. McGee. 2001. Toward Incorporating Human Dimensions Information
into Wildlife Management Decision-Making. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:205–221.
Available from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/108712001753461293
(accessed October 16, 2014).
Montgomery, C. a. 2002. Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration of relative values.
Journal of Environmental Management 65:313–326. Available from
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301479702905530 (accessed March 27, 2014).
Norton, B. G. 1986. The Preservation of Species: The Value of Biological Diversity. Princeton
University Press.
Pereira, H. M. et al. 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science (New
York, N.Y.) 330:1496–501. Available from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20978282 (accessed July 9, 2014).
Pimm, S. L., G. J. Russell, J. L. Gittleman, and T. M. Brooks. 1995. The future of biodiversity.
Rands, M. R. W. et al. 2010. Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science (New
York, N.Y.) 329:1298–303. Available from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20829476 (accessed July 10, 2014).
Sinclair, S., E. Dunn, and B. Lowery. 2005. The relationship between parental racial attitudes
and children’s implicit prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41:283–289.
Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022103104000666 (accessed
April 8, 2014).
Stork, N. E. 2009. Re-assessing current extinction rates. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:357–
371. Available from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10531-009-9761-9 (accessed
September 3, 2014).
Waldron, A., A. O. Mooers, D. C. Miller, N. Nibbelink, D. Redding, T. S. Kuhn, J. T. Roberts,
and J. L. Gittleman. 2013. Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate
biodiversity declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 110:12144–8. Available from
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3718168&tool=pmcentrez&ren
dertype=abstract.
Wilson, H. B., L. N. Joseph, A. L. Moore, and H. P. Possingham. 2011. When should we save
the most endangered species? Ecology letters 14:886–90. Available from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21749599 (accessed September 2, 2014).
Table 1. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests for differences in rankings of species attributes from
Question 1: rank attributes from 1 to 5 (with 1 being most important) in terms of importance to
allocation of conservation resources (n=296). Each z-score is associated with a comparison to
wild animals that live nowhere else but North Carolina (Ho = no difference in rank of species
attributes).
Wildlife Attributes
Mean Ranks
Za
Wild animals whose numbers are going down fast
2.95
10.21**
Wild animals that are important in nature
2.61
8.45**
Wild animals that people like to eat
1.83
3.79**
Wild animals that live nowhere else but North
Carolina
1.43
Wild animals that people like to watch
1.19
-2.14*
< 0.01; **p ≤ 0.001; p values corrected for false discovery rate (Benjamini & Hochberg
1995).
a*p
Commented [N30]: See below comment
Mean allocation
(USD$)
na
Zb
2.99
332
-9.83***
Wild animals that are important in
nature
2.25
332
-6.01***
Wild animals that people like to eat
1.78
331
-1.91
Wild animals that live nowhere else but
1.65
333
Wildlife Attributes
Wild animals whose numbers are going
down fast
aFor
pairs.
< 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001; p values corrected for false discovery rate (Benjamini & Hochberg
1995).
b*p
Table 2. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests for differences in allocation of conservation funding to
difference species attributes from Question 4: divide a hypothetical CAD $10, to be used for
conservation, among these attributes. Each z-score is associated with a comparison to wild
animals that live nowhere else but North Carolina (Ho = no difference in rank of species
attributes).
Commented [N31]: What? You need to carefully work on
these so its not plagiarism. “CAD” is not what we said its
Canadian $ from the Mueser study.
Also the tables need to be in Con Bio format and only that.
Neither is Con Bio format and they are different from each
other in terms of the heading above and below.
North Carolina
Wild animals that people like to watch
1.43
Factor
332
3.982***
% Preferred Over Endemic
Wild animals that are important in nature
91.23%
Wild animals whose numbers are going down fast
86.16%
Wild animals that people like to eat
51.42%
Table 3. Percentage of cases for which “wild animals that live nowhere else but North Carolina”
was chosen over other species attributes from Question 5: for each pair of statements identify the
factor that should be a higher priority in identifying species for protection.
Commented [N32]: See above comment
Wild animals that people like to watch
46.79%
3.5
A
US Dollar ($) Amount
3
2.5
B
2
C
C
D
1.5
1
0.5
0
Animals whose
numbers are
declining
Animals
important in
nature
Animals people
eat
Animals only
found in NC
Animals people
watch
Graph 1. Means of money allocation among each species attribute. Letters indicate statistical
difference based on one-sided t-tests between consecutive species attribute (i.e., A is different
from B, is different from C, is different from D).
Commented [N33]: Use language I added to the
methods. “Mean money allocation” will not make sense to
readers.
Also the y-axis label should be just USD i.e., delete
“amount”
Also explain what error bars are SE SD, etc.
Also check CB format and fix everything. No journal I know
of has “graphs” just tables and figures so that made me
think there may be other formatting issues related to
journal style.