Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.