Media influence on environmental perception and knowledge of

Transcription

UNIVERSITÄT ZÜRICH
Institut für Umweltwissenschaften
Media influence on
environmental perception
and knowledge of people in
southern Ecuador
María Verónica Iñiguez Gallardo
Supervisors: PD Dr. Petra Lindemann-Matthies
Prof. Dr. Bernhard Schmid
December 2009
1
CONTENT
Abstract
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7
2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 10
2.1. Study area .................................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Data collection .............................................................................................................. 12
First approach: in-depth interviews and newspaper content analysis ............................ 12
Second approach: questionnaire study .......................................................................... 13
Third approach: intervention study “Media Effectiveness Test” .................................... 14
2.3. The instruments ............................................................................................................ 15
Interview agenda ........................................................................................................... 15
The questionnaire and items .......................................................................................... 16
The video sequence ........................................................................................................ 17
2.4. Respondents .................................................................................................................. 17
2.5. Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 18
Interviews and newspaper content-analysis ................................................................... 18
Survey ............................................................................................................................ 18
3. Results .................................................................................................................................. 20
3.1. Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 20
Inclusion of environmental topics .................................................................................. 20
Time dedicated to environmental topics .......................................................................... 21
Reasons for the inclusion of environmental topics and message to convey .................... 22
Targets and reception ...................................................................................................... 23
Contribution to people’s perception, knowledge and awareness of nature ..................... 24
2
Environmental content in mass-media............................................................................ 25
3.2 Survey ............................................................................................................................. 27
Source of knowledge about plants and animals .............................................................. 27
Favorite plants and animals............................................................................................ 29
Television preferences and time spent on TV .................................................................. 32
Newspaper preferences and time spent on reading newspapers ...................................... 34
Environmental knowledge test (pretest) .......................................................................... 35
Picture questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 39
Participants’ perception of species .................................................................................. 39
Species identification test (pretest) .................................................................................. 41
Source of knowledge of the species depicted ................................................................... 43
3.3 Media influence test ....................................................................................................... 45
Environmental knowledge test ........................................................................................ 45
Species identification test ................................................................................................ 45
Subsequent information .................................................................................................. 46
4. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 47
5. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 51
6. Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 51
7. References ............................................................................................................................ 52
8. Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 57
3
TABLES
Table 1: Selected media representatives with national and local widespread, all of them
present in study area..................................................................................................... 13
Table 2: Environmental content in the daily newspaper “La Hora”. All topics were possible in
the same page .............................................................................................................. 25
Table 3: Environmental / nature topics covered by different mass-media in Ecuador between
12th March and 30th June 2009 ..................................................................................... 26
Table 4: Sources of knowledge about (a) plants and (b) animals. Multiple answers were
allowed. 399 study participants answered the question ................................................. 27
Table 5: The influence of the place of residence (urban, rural), sex and relation of occupation
to nature (5-step scale) on the probability that a certain source of information about
plants and animals was used. Data were analyzed by binary logistic regression. Only
significant effects are shown. In brackets: proportion of participants from urban areas
and proportion of women who had used the source. All df = 1 ..................................... 28
Table 6: The ten most often named (a) favorite animals and (b) favorite plants. Overall, 42
animals and 83 plants were named. Only one answer was allowed ............................... 29
Table 7: Favourite animals named by participants (n = 364). Only one answer was allowed.
The answers were sorted into broader taxonomic categories. The most frequently
named animals in each category are shown in brackets ................................................ 30
Table 8: Favourite plants named by participants (n = 332). Only one answer was allowed. The
answers were sorted into broader taxonomic categories. The most frequently named
plants in each category are shown in brackets............................................................... 30
Table 9: Places where respondents have seen for a first time (a) their favorite plants (332
answers) and (b) their favorite animals (364 answers). Only one answer was allowed .. 31
Table 10: Sources of knowledge about study participants’ favorite (a) plant (332 answers) and
(b) animal (364 answers). Multiple answers were allowed. ........................................... 32
Table 11: The seven most (a) favorite channels and (b) TV programs in view of 366 study
participants. Overall, 37 channels and 91 favorite TV programs were named. Only
one answer was allowed. .............................................................................................. 32
Table 12: The five most often named types of programs that study participants (n = 366)
would like to watch in TV. Overall, 70 different types of programs were named.
Only one answer was allowed. ................................................................................... 33
Table 13: The four most often named channels participants had recently used to watch nature
programs. Overall, 18 channels were named by 198 respondents. Only one answer
was allowed. .............................................................................................................. 33
Table 14: The five favorite newspapers and sections (328 answers). Overall, nine different
newspapers and 33 sections were named. Only one answer was allowed. ................... 34
Table 15: The nine most often named answers about Podocarpus National Park (n=399).
Multiple answers were allowed. ................................................................................. 35
4
Table 16: The five most often named answers about hummingbirds (n=399). Multiple answers
were allowed. ............................................................................................................ 36
Table 17: The six most often answers about the cloudy forest (n=399). Multiple answers were
allowed. ..................................................................................................................... 36
Table 18: The five most often named answers about caterpillars (n=399). Multiple answers
were allowed. ............................................................................................................ 37
Table 19: The influence of the place of residence (urban, rural), sex and relation of occupation
to nature (5-step scale) on the probability that the knowledge questions were
answered correctly. Data were analyzed by binary logistic regression. Only
significant effects are shown. In brackets: proportion of participants from urban
areas and proportion of women who had answered the questions correctly. All df =
1 ................................................................................................................................ 38
Table 20: Species regarded as a most useful, dangerous, beautiful, ugly and endangered by
399 study participants. One answer per question was allowed. ................................... 40
Table 21: Identification of ten species depicted. Study participants (n = 399) were asked to
identify the plants and animals in the pictures. Overall, 1840 correct responses were
given. ........................................................................................................................ 41
Table 22: The influence of the place of residence (urban, rural), sex, time spent on reading
newspapers (5-step scale), and relation of occupation to nature (5-step scale) on the
probability that the species depicted were correctly identified. Data were analyzed
by binary logistic regressions. Only significant effects are shown. In brackets:
proportion of participants from urban areas and proportion of women who had
identified the species correctly. All df = 1 .................................................................. 42
Table 23: Sources of information used by the 100 participants after the test. Multiple answers
were allowed. ............................................................................................................ 46
FIGURES
Figure 1: Study areas. ................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2: Study design. .............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 3: Main sources of knowledge about each species depicted in the picture test. ................ 44
Figure 4: Correct answers given by members of the test group (n = 50) and control group
(n = 50) to the five questions asked about the PNP in (a) pretest and (b) posttest........ 45
Figure 5: Correct identifications of species by members of the test group (n = 50) and control
group (n = 50) in (a) pretest and (b) posttest............................................................... 46
5
Abstract
One of the main causes of environmental problems in Ecuador is the lack of education which
might positively influence people’s attitudes towards nature. Studies have shown that many
people in Ecuador have only little knowledge of environmental issues and little sensitivity for
the loss of the Ecuadorian biodiversity. The present research investigates whether the media
can influence people’s perception and knowledge of biodiversity, and whether they can be
used as an educational tool. The study was carried out close to the Podocarpus National Park
(PNP) in the areas of Zapotillo, Catamayo and Loja city.
In a first step, television producers of the most important channels in southern Ecuador as
well as stakeholders of the local radio stations and print media were interviewed to investigate
how many of their productions were covering environmental issues. In a second step,
questionnaires were applied to adults living in the urban and rural areas of the study region
with the aim to identify which kind of TV channels they watch and how often, which
newspapers they read and which TV programs and newspaper pieces they prefer. It was also
investigated which knowledge and perception of local wild plants and animals and aspects of
the PNP they have. In a third step, 100 people in the city of Loja who had already participated
in the questionnaire part of the study were asked to also participate in a media influence test.
50 of them (test group) then watched a 10 minute nature documentary about the biodiversity
of the PNP in order to simulate the effect of TV documentations on people’s environmental
knowledge. The other 50 people (control group) remained untreated. Three weeks later both
groups were asked again the questions related to the ecology and organisms living in the PNP.
The results show that national television pays only little attention to environmental issues.
More attention is given to it by the local newspapers. Probably in consequence, not the media
but school and own experiences were named as the main sources of knowledge about animals
and plants by the study participants. The place of residence had the strongest influence on
people’s environmental knowledge and perception of species. Local wild plants and animals
were perceived as most beautiful, endangered and useful. Study participants’ environmental
knowledge was rather poor in the pretest. However, they were quite able to identify most of
the species depicted in the pictures. A positive influence of the nature documentary on
participants’ environmental knowledge was found. Compared to the untreated control group,
the test group could answer more knowledge questions and also identify more local species
correctly in the posttest. This indicates that visual electronic media can be used as a successful
tool in fostering environmental knowledge.
6
1.
Introduction
It has been assumed that nature TV programs and TV news might generate a desire within
individuals to recycle, purchase products that are environmentally friendly, and to be more
energy efficient in their daily routines (Holbert et al., 2003). Research studies investigated
television portrayals of the environment and their effects on individuals’ environmental
beliefs and feelings. The results showed a positive relationship between mass media use and a
pro-environmental orientation (McComas & Shanahan, 1999; McComas et al., 2001).
However, most research has investigated the effect of print and electronic media on people’s
understanding of global warming and climate change (Novacek, 2008). Hardly anything is
known whether the media can influence people’s understanding of biodiversity, its loss and
conservation. Although global warming is among the most pressing environmental problems
today (Curry et al., 2007), there is concern that also biodiversity loss has serious impact on
ecosystem functioning, services and human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
2005). According to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), biodiversity is defined as
the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, inter alia, terrestrial,
marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this
includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (CBD, 2002).
Surveys about public attitudes and understanding indicate that most adults learn about science
through television (National Science Foundation, 2004, 2008). It seems that when formal
education ends, media become the most available and sometimes only source for the public to
gain information about scientific discoveries (Nisbet et al., 2002). However, scientists and the
general public often do not speak the same language when it comes to environmental issues.
Scientists often use a technical language and examine small pieces of larger environmental
problems in great detail (Chalecki, 2000; Ungar, 2000; Sheufele, 2002; Boykoff & Ravi
Rajan, 2007; Novacek, 2008). This kind of language might be too complicated for the public
to understand and might not result in pro-environmental behavior towards issues such as
biodiversity loss, air and water pollution or climate change (Sachsman, 2000; Nisbet et al.,
2002). Environmental problems are scientifically complex and media have to find an easy
way to cover these kinds of pieces in order to create a compelling message that engages the
general public.
Less educated people were found to have great difficulties in understanding the environmental
information conveyed in the media, especially in newspapers, whereas information from
television news is more understandable to them (Eveland & Scheufele, 2000; Sheufele, 2002).
7
In consequence, it can be expected that electronic media such as television or the internet
have a larger effect in shaping people’s perceptions and awareness than print media.
However, the media - and especially television - provide extensive coverage of acute
environmental issues such as oil spills which are perfect news because they show dramatic
visual images, making the viewers identify with the pain of the volunteers rescuing the birds
from the oil (Sachsman, 2000). They might also present a biased view of the natural world by
focusing on impressive sceneries, habitats and animals (Hanski, 2005). In consequence, little
attention might be given to local (inconspicuous) species or the loss of local biodiversity in a
region or country.
People’s responses to the decline of biodiversity, i.e. the local, regional or global extinction of
species, and their support for conservation measures will depend on their knowledge about
biodiversity, their conceptions of the number of species present and an awareness of the
seriousness of the threat of extinctions (Lindemann-Matthies & Bose, 2008). Studies indicate
that the general public has little knowledge of the concept of biodiversity (Turner-Erfort,
1997; Hunter & Brehm, 2003). Moreover, research suggests that people have widely
inaccurate ideas of the species richness of communities (Dunning, 1997). In addition, several
studies have shown that the public’s ability to identify species is very limited, at least in
western European countries and the United States (Balmford et al., 2002; Bebbington, 2005).
Recent studies indicate that both children and adults from traditional, rural communities and
less developed countries are more knowledgeable about plant and animal species than those
from highly developed countries and urban areas (Chipeniuk, 1995; Pilgrim et al., 2007).
However, even within a country this knowledge differs. With increasing annual household
income, knowledge about local organisms is lost (Pilgrim et al., 2007).
Main cause of environmental problems that Ecuador is facing today is the lack of adequate
education. Many people in Ecuador have little knowledge of environmental issues and little
sensitivity towards the Ecuadorian biodiversity (Corporacion OIKOS, 2008). In Ecuador,
educators have invested considerable effort in the development of environmental education
programs that address students’ knowledge, attitudes, and action competence regarding
environmental issues, but they have not yet achieved their goals (Plan de Educación
Ambiental 2006-2016). The present study provides information on the influence of mass
media on people’s environmental knowledge and perception towards environmental issues in
southern Ecuador, and its use as tool in environmental education.
8
Data were collected by using three approaches. In the first approach, stakeholders from local
and national media were interviewed about their interest in covering environmental issues,
and a local newspaper was content-analyzed with regard to its environmental pieces. In the
second approach, randomly selected people in different regions of southern Ecuador were
interviewed about their media preferences, their environmental knowledge and perception
with the help of a written questionnaire and a picture test. In the third approach, a sample of
these study participants (all living in Loja city) was asked to watch a ten-minute nature video.
After three weeks, their environmental knowledge was tested again and compared with an
untreated control group. The three approaches complemented each other and allowed a better
understanding of the fit between study participants’ media preferences, media use and actual
environmental knowledge.
The main research questions were:
1. To which extent do electronic and print media in southern Ecuador cover environmental
issues, especially biodiversity?
2. Which information do they communicate about the local biodiversity and its conservation
and how is this done?
3. Do electronic and print media in southern Ecuador aim to influence people’s
environmental perception and knowledge of biodiversity?
4. Does the public in southern Ecuador regard the media as a source of information about
biodiversity?
5. How does a nature documentary (video about Podacarpus National Park) influence
people’s environmental knowledge, especially their knowledge about local wild plants and
animals?
9
2. Methodology
2.1. Study areas
The study was carried out in the rural areas of Zapotillo, Catamayo, Malacatos and
Vilcabamba; the two last areas are located close to the Podocarpus National Park (PNP), and
in the city of Loja which belongs to the urban zone of the Loja province (Figure 1). The PNP
comprises an area of 1.463 square kilometers at an elevation of 1.000 to 3.690 m. It includes
cloud forests, high-altitude grasslands and a chain of small Andean lakes (Morocho &
Romero, 2003). The park was created in 1982 to shelter the largest remaining stand of three
species of the tree genus Podocarpus, commonly referred to as Romerillo, which is the only
native conifer in the Ecuadorian Andes. More than 40% of the park’s 3.000 - 4.000 plant
species are endemic (Jimenez & López, 1999). The PNP harbors 211 endemic species (99
restricted to its area) which represents the highest endemism of all natural protected areas in
Ecuador (Aguirre et Al., 2002). The area comprises one of the largest concentrations of bird
species in Ecuador, with more than 500 known species. Some experts even believe that the
number could be as high as 800 species (Birdlife, 2008). Some of the most threatened birds in
Ecuador have healthy populations in and around the park, such as the coppery-chested
jacamar (Galbula pastazae), bearded guan (Penelope barbata), equatorial graytail
(Xenerpestes singularis) and peruvian antpitta (Grallaricula peruviana) (The Nature
Conservancy, 2008). About 107 bird species are endemic to the area (Birdlife, 2008). More
than 40 mammal species occur in the area, including the jaguar (Panthera onca), wooly tapir
(Tapirus terrestris), andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus), pudú (Pudu puda), giant armadillo
(Priodontes maximus) and neotropical otter (Lontra longicaudis) (The Nature Conservancy,
2008). In September 2007, the PNP and its neighboring zones were declared “Reserve of
Biosphere Podocarpus-El Cóndor” by the UNESCO (PNUMA et al., 2007).
The forest of Zapotillo belongs to the Tumbesian forest which is a dry habitat type in
southwestern Ecuador and northern Peru. This forest type provides the major stronghold for a
number of globally threatened bird species including the endangered grey-cheeked parakeet
(Brotogeris pyrrhopterus) and blackish-headed spinetail (Synallaxis tithys) and has been
designated as an important bird reserve (Birdlife, 2008). Part of this area is the last remnant of
a forest dominated by tagua trees (Phytelephas aequatorialis) in the country. This plant
species produces the so-called plant ivory used by neighboring communities to make
handicrafts (Correa & Ordoñez, 2007). Wildlife inventories have not yet been made of the
area, but species such as howler monkey (Alouatta palliate), puma (Puma concolor), and
10
other feline populations live in this area. It is worth mentioning that the area does not receive
any formal protection (Correa & Ordoñez, 2007).
The Loja province is located in southern Ecuador and comprises an area of 10.793 square
kilometers. It is part of the Tumbesian and part of the northern Andes eco-region (WWF,
2000).
Figure 1: Location of Loja, Malacatos, Vilcabamba, Catamayo and Zapotillo. Modified from
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MapaSageo-Ecuador-Loja.png
http://educacionparaeltrabajo.org/pagina%20centro.html
http://www.pnud.org.ec/Publicaciones/TLC/Parte%202%20Mapas%20Ecuador/ProductosCanton/Map
asBrocoli/lojabrocoli.jpg
11
2.2. Data collection
The present study was carried out by using three approaches: (1) in-depth interviews with
representatives of the most common media in Loja region; (2) a survey with 399 randomly
selected inhabitants from Loja, Malacatos, Vilcabamba, Catamayo and Zapotillo; and (3) an
intervention study with 100 inhabitants from Loja city (Figure 2).
First approach: in-depth interviews and newspaper content analysis
Main aim of the interview part was to gather detailed information from television and radio
producers and newspaper editors on the integration of environmental topics in their media. It
was investigated which goals they have when producing or writing about these topics, and
what they think about the effectiveness of their medium in generating an understanding of and
positive attitudes towards environmental issues.
The stakeholders interviewed were employees responsible for the environmental topics
presented by the different media. Only at the local television channel “Ecotel” the general
director was interviewed. All interviewees had to select the most compelling environmental
pieces and either to put them on air (television and radio) or to publish them (newspapers), i.e.
they were important decision makers about the stories which should be published or not.
The interviews were carried out on 15 days between March and June 2009. Two media
representatives were from national channels and one was from a local channel; one was from
a national and one from a local newspaper, and three were from local radio stations. The
media selected represented the most widespread and most common ones in the study areas
(Table 1). All participants received a detailed explanation of the aims of the present study.
Stakeholders living in Loja received the interview questions some days before the scheduled
appointments by mail, and were interviewed at their workplaces; those living in Quito
received the interview questions in advance by e-mail, and were then interviewed by phone.
One interview lasted about 10 minutes. All interviews were tape-recorded, translated into
English and transcribed into protocols.
12
Table 1: Selected media representatives with national and local widespread, all of them present in
study area.
Television
Radio
Newspapers
Teleamazonas (n)
Matovelle (l)
La Hora (l)
RTS (n)
Centinela del Sur (l)
El Universo (n)
Ecotel Tv (l)
Luz y Vida (l)
(n): national cover; (l): local cover
The newspaper La Hora was chosen for the content analysis as it is the highest selling local
paper in Loja province. La Hora circulates daily and has a special page dedicated to
environmental topics. From March 12th to June 30th 2009, a daily sample of pieces appearing
in the local newspaper La Hora was collected and later content analyzed. Overall, 87 pages
including 364 nature stories were analyzed. Categories by which the newspaper’s
environmental content was analyzed were: Pieces of (a) biodiversity, (b) global warming and
climate change, (c) environmental engineering and (d) environmental news. Biodiversity
pieces expressed concern about animals and plants. Global warming & climate change issues
included different kind of news such as the commitments of countries to reduce carbon
emissions. Environmental engineering involved pieces about technology and its proenvironmental inventions. Environmental news included every kind of nature piece different
from the categories mentioned above, e.g. world-wide environmental campaigns or political
statements on environmental issues.
Second approach: questionnaire study
In spring 2009, 200 randomly selected inhabitants from the city of Loja, 100 from the rural
zones of Zapotillo-Catamayo, and 99 from Malacatos and Vilcabamba were interviewed with
the help of a written questionnaire and a picture test. All 399 participants were over 18 years
old. People were approached in well visited areas such as parks, universities, recreation zones
or, in case of the smallest villages, at home. At the end of each interview responders were
asked whether they were also willing to participate in a subsequent test, and if so, to provide
their name and address. For the subsequent intervention study, 100 people from the city of
Loja accepted to cooperate. The 100 participants were then randomly divided in 50 film
13
“viewers” and 50 “non-viewers”. The 50 “viewers” were later shown a video with the help of
a laptop.
Third approach: intervention study “Media Effectiveness Test”
Main aim of the third approach was to test whether the media (in this case a video) could
positively influence people’s environmental knowledge. Therefore a nature documentary
called “Bosque Nublado” (cloud forest) about Podocarpus National Park was selected. The
video was produced by Fundación Podocarpus in co-production with Corpoimagen,
Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja and UV Televisión. The original length of the video
was 45 minutes. It was shortened by the researcher into a 10 minute documentary in a way
that especially information about animals and plants in the PNP was given. The video was
later uploaded in You Tube under the name of “Video Podocarpus” (see video in the CD in
appendix 5 or on You Tube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPp-kLfoW0o).
Five questions related to the content of the video were formulated and included in all
questionnaires. Also some species that appeared in the video were used for the picture
questionnaire, i.e. the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus), hummingbird (Trochilidae), cock
of the rock (Rupicula peruviana), orchid (Catleya maxima), and white neck parrot (Pyrrhura
albipectus).
Three weeks after the video had been presented, the 100 study participants in Loja (viewers
and non viewers), were asked again five questions about the video content (similar to the ones
in the pretest). Moreover, the same set of pictures was shown, and they were asked to name
the species in the pictures. Due to time restrictions, the posttest was already carried out three
weeks after the pretest. However, it was expected that - if the information given was
interesting and appealing enough - it would be organized and reorganized and merged with
previous information, and thus stay in long term memory (Schiffman, et al., 2005). All
participants received a chocolate ladybird for their cooperation.
14
1. In-depth interviews and newspaper content-analysis
TV
representatives
(3)
Radio
representatives
(3)
Newspapers
representatives
(2)
Newspaper
content analysis
2. Questionnaire study in the regions of Loja, Malacatos, Vilcabamba,
Catamayo & Zapotillo (399 participants)
Mass-media
preferences
Sources of knowledge
about plants and
animals
Perception and
knowledge about plants
and animals
3. Media influence test in the city of Loja (100 study participants)
Control group (50)
Test group (50)
Pretest: knowledge about plants and animals occurring in PNP
Video
Posttest: knowledge about plants and animals occurring in PNP
Figure 2: Study design
2.3. The instruments
Interview agenda
In the interviews, television and radio producers and newspaper editors were asked about the
time they had dedicated to environmental topics and the sort of nature pieces they would like
to cover and why. They were further asked about the audience they were addressing, the time
15
and days committed to environmental pieces, and about their interest in international
environmental events compared to local ones (see interview agenda in Appendix 1).
Producers and editors who had stated to have their own environmental production were asked
to name their most recent nature pieces. Moreover, they were asked why they had chosen
them, and whether they felt their productions to be effective in influencing their viewers’
environmental perception. Interviewees without their own environmental productions were
asked whether they would be interested to cover this sort of pieces and, it so, why. All
interviewees were asked to discuss the role of print and electronic media in forming an
environmental awareness in people and the public’s reception of their nature productions.
The questionnaire and items
The questionnaire was divided in two parts: In the first part, study participants were asked to
answer 28 closed-ended and five open-ended questions about their environmental knowledge
and sources of information used (see questionnaire in Appendix 2). In the second part, study
participants were shown a set of ten pictures of wild plants and animals and asked to indicate
the species they thought to be most useful, dangerous, beautiful, ugly, and endangered (see
pictures in Appendix 3). They were then asked to identify the species and state their sources
of knowledge about them. The species depicted were local and exotic ones. The aim was to
investigate whether people know local or exotic species from the media or from other sources.
The identification of the species was coded as: (a) correct answer, (b) know the organism but
not by name and (c) never seen the organism before. The code was chosen because some
people could identify the species but did not know the name.
Selection criteria for the species were:
Exotic plants and animals likely to be covered by the media: lion (Felis leo), baobab
(Adansonia digitata), tulip (Liliaceae).
Native animals likely to be covered by media: spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus), white
neck parrot (Pyrrhura albipectus), cock of the rock (Rupicula peruviana).
Native plants and animals likely to be known to study participants in the areas:
hummingbird (Trochilidae), orchid (Catleya maxima), ceibo (Ceiba trichitandra), toucan
(Ramphastidae).
16
Great care was placed on the selection of suitable pictures (preferably digital photographs).
All pictures had to be of good quality, taken under similar light conditions and with the
intention to present a species as its best. A picture was supposed to show just one single plant
or animal in close-up. Typical characteristics of a species had to be identifiable. Each picture
was printed out on photographic paper, and marked with a letter of the alphabet.
All study participants were also asked about their age, sex, and level of education (highest
degree). Moreover, they were asked to estimate on a 5-step scale how strongly their
occupation was related to nature. In the following, this will be called “relation to nature”.
The video sequence
To confirm the effectiveness of the information given by the video the following questions
were asked: Do you know which is the only bear occurring in South America? Do you know
why the Podocarpus National Park is an excellent water regulator? Do you know what
hummingbirds are useful for? Do you know why plants grow throughout the year in the cloud
forest? Do you know why caterpillars have different ornaments and colors on their bodies?
In a short second part, a set of pictures of plants and animals were shown to the study
participants, and they were asked to name the species. If the information obtained from the
video was efficient and influenced people’s knowledge after they had watched the
documentary, study participants should know the name of the species occurring in PNP.
Moreover, participants were asked whether in the meantime they had gathered information
about the plants and animals presented, and, if so, to state where.
2.4. Respondents
Participants who had answered the questionnaire (51% women in the urban and 47% in the
rural study areas) were between 18 and 81 years old (mean age = 38 years). About 79% of the
urban study participants had a higher education, while in the rural areas 40.5% participants
have studied only the primary school.
17
2.5. Data analysis
Interviews and newspaper content-analysis
The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and translated into English. The answers were
content-analyzed and sorted into categories according to the type of responses given. Coding
was discussed between the researcher and the project supervisor, and reliability guaranteed by
comparing their categorizations. Due to the small sample and qualitative nature of this part of
the study, no further analyses were carried out.
The newspaper’s content was also analyzed and sorted into four main categories according to
the pieces published on it.
Survey
Data were first analyzed through descriptive statistics. The answers to the open questions
were content-analyzed and sorted into categories according to the type of responses given.
Coding was discussed between the researcher and the research project leader, and reliability
judged by comparing their categorizations.
Single analysis of variance was used to test for the influence of socio-demographic variables
on study participants’ use of newspaper articles (frequency of use). Binary logistic regression
analyses were used to test whether certain variables influenced the probability that a certain
source of information about plants and animals was used, and the probability that the
knowledge questions were answered correctly. Multiple regression analyses (Type II sums of
squares) were used to test for influences on study participants’ time spend on reading
newspapers and on knowledge test outcomes in the posttest. The final minimum adequate
models were obtained by backward elimination of non-significant (p > 0.05) variables.
As these types of analyses do not allow strong correlations between explanatory variables,
Pearson correlations between the explanatory variables were tested first. Only variables with r
< 0.35 where included in the models (Crawley, 2005). As people’s place of residence was
strongly correlated with age (study participants in the rural areas were older than those in the
urban ones) and the level of education (study participants in urban areas were better educated
than those in rural areas), only the place of residence was included in the models.
To test for influences on the use of certain sources of information about plants and animals,
and the time spend on reading newspapers, the following variables were initially included in
18
the models: sex, place of residence (urban, rural), degree to which occupation is related to
nature. To test for influences on the probability that the knowledge questions were answered
correctly, the following variables were included: sex, place of residence (urban, rural), visits
to the PNP (yes, no), degree to which occupation is related to nature, time spent on watching
television and on reading newspapers. To test for influences on study participants’
performance in the posttest, the following variables were included: pretest performance
(number of correct answers) and treatment (test, control). To test whether the treatment (test,
control) influenced study participants’ environmental and species knowledge related to the
PNP, Chi-square tests were carried out. All analyses were carried out with SPSS for Windows
11.5.
19
3. Results
3.1. Interviews
Inclusion of environmental topics
Overall, two television and one radio producer, and two newspaper editors (63% responses)
stated to have a special segment dedicated to nature stories. Among the three radio producers,
only Matovelle radio station had a special segment dedicated to environmental topics called
“Protesta”. The other two stations covered environmental issues only during the news. The
two newspaper editors stated to have a special section dedicated to nature themes. La Hora
had “Tierra” (earth), and El Universo “Ecología” (ecology).
The three television producers were asked about the environmental issues they transmit in
their productions. Only for Lucy Peralta (General Producer of RTS channel), environmental
topics were not interesting. For her and RTS only environmental catastrophes such as an oil
spill were regarded as worth to be covered. For Ramiro Cueva (General Producer of Ecotel
TV) and Gabriela Osorio, (Responsible for Environmental Issues of Teleamazonas TV) nature
themes always had been an essential part in their overall programming.
“Teleamazonas has the program Día a Día. Since its start in May 1998,
environmental topics have been a fundamental part of our weekly
programme. We cover a variety of critical pieces about the destruction of
the environment to projects and initiatives about safeguarding and
protecting the environment. Of the almost 5.000 reports we have done,
30% have been on ecological or nature-related topics” (Gabriela Osorio,
Teleamazonas TV).
The two producers who had included ecological or nature-related topics were asked about
their environmental production. The aim was to investigate whether the broadcasted programs
were about local environmental issues, especially about plants and animals. Both of the two
interviewees confirmed to transmit original productions, but also to have bought some
international nature documentaries. Their responses were:
“The journalistic genre that we deal with consists of reporting, and 95% of our
pieces are produced entirely by our staff, which includes preproduction,
production, travel and interviews. The same is true for pieces on environmental
20
topics as we are responsible for all production and related costs, but
Teleamazonas also buys documentaries about the environment and ecology”
(Gabriela Osorio, Teleamazonas TV).
“We have two types of programs. One is made it by ourselves and is called
ECOS. And the second one is purchased from BBC London. It is called Magic
World and has a big impact on the public as it is a production with
approximately 80 to 100 chapters” (Ramiro Cueva, Ecotel TV).
Time dedicated to environmental topics
Four interviewees dedicated time to nature topics on a weekly basis, whereas the other three
did it daily or monthly. Typical answers included:
“Our program Día a Día deals with environmental issues in at least one
out of four programs every month. The program is on air every Sunday
from 21:00 to 21:30 and we have different ecological segments from four
to five minutes in every program” (Gabriela Osorio, Teleamazonas TV).
“Every Thursday from 20:30 to 21:00 we show nature documentaries
which are acquired from international channels like BBC. Our own
program ECOS is on air every Thursday and Saturday” (Ramiro Cueva,
Ecotel TV).
“We have weekly segments of 15 minutes in different programs” (Franco
Angamarca, radio Matovelle).
“We cover nature news when there is something to tell about” (Lucy
Peralta, RTS Channel).
“We have three short notes per week during the news. Our main
programs are about social, cultural politic and sport issues; but we
would like to convey something more about environmental topics” (Jorge
Pereira, radio Luz y Vida).
“It depends on the importance of the news. Between two and three hours
per week” (Karina Gonzalez, radio Centinela del Sur).
21
“Generally on the weekend, nevertheless, if some phenomenon has
occurred, like the discovery of a new species, some crime against nature,
or something that we consider newsworthy, we publish it in a different
section which is called País” (Alexandra Ávila, El Universo).
Reasons for the inclusion of environmental topics and message to convey
The interviewees were asked about their main reason for conveying environmental stories or
news. The answers given were basically two: to educate people in environmental terms and to
inform the general public. Each five interviewees had either education or the more general
information of the public in mind. Typical answers included:
“The main objective of our program is to inform, educate and entertain.
We inform our viewers about environmental problems, but also make
them aware that they are part of the problem as well as part of the
solution” (Gabriela Osorio, Teleamazonas TV).
“The goal is to cover the news, it does not matter what kind it is. The
broader the news is the more interesting to cover it, but even short news
are good for us” (Karina Gonzalez, Radio Centinela del Sur).
“Our goal is to make readers aware of environmental topics, to inform
them about nature conservation and its threats. Let them know that all of
us are responsible for our planet’s conservation” (Matovelle, Luz y Vida,
La Hora, El Universo).
When asked about the message they would like to convey to their audience when covering
nature topics, four interviewees stated that they wanted to make people aware about the
preservation of natural resources. One interviewee stated that he wanted to inform the general
public. The most prominent responses were:
“We want to increase people’s awareness of the preservation of natural
resources, not only for the country but also for the rest of the world”
(María José Freire, La Hora).
“We report about environmental damages such as deforestation, species
loss or illegal species transactions” (Alexandra Ávila, El Universo).
22
Targets and reception
When asked about the target groups, three types of answers were given. Four interviewees
focused on the family target, two on teenagers and one on adults (radio Centinela del Sur).
The most interesting response was given by Jorge Pereira from Radio “Luz y Vida” which
despite not having an exclusive program dedicated to environmental themes supports nature
campaigns, open up spaces where people can talk and convey their messages:
“Our public targets are basically adults, but it is also addressed to young
people. There are some high school groups, for instance, coming to the
radio station looking for some space in the general production in order to
convey their message to the general public about environmental harms.
For example, today we had an interview with a small group from “San
Gerardo High School” about a campaign that they are promoting: “Save
the palm’s parrot”. At the beginning of Easter it is a tradition to take a
palm branch to the church; this tradition has caused a big environmental
problem, because people are cutting down the palms in order to sell them;
and palms are the home of the golden cheek parakeet. Since these birds
are loosing their homes, this group is working on a campaign against that
tradition, and we as a radio station support them, conveying their
messages and conduct interviews with the people involved. Another
campaign we support is about “bromelias” which are taken from their
natural habitat and sold to the public during Christmas” (Jorge Pereira,
Radio Luz y Vida).
For three of the interviewees the public reception towards environmental topics was good, for
two it was very good and for further two even excellent. Reasons given were, for instance:
“Since three years we are one of the most watched programs on Ecuadorian
television. We have the first place in Teleamazonas on Sunday and the
second place of the whole production of the channel in the week” (Gabriela
Osorio, Teleamazonas TV).
“One example is our program ECOS. There are lots of people saying that
our program is good and interesting. Even business men say that. But when
asking for funds nobody wants to fund it” (Ramiro Cueva, Ecotel TV).
23
“There are people interested in that kind of stories. We know it because of
phone calls we have received from people looking for more information
about certain nature stories, especially about national ones” (María José
Freire, La Hora).
“I think the readers’ reception is very good because of the e-mails and
mails we are receiving. Some readers are very interested in our stories and
offer suggestions; other times they propose new themes to us” (Alexandra
Ávila, El Universo).
Contribution to people’s perception, knowledge and awareness of nature
All stakeholders believed that mass-media contribute to people’s perception, knowledge and
awareness about nature, and that they are indispensable in environmental education. However,
they also thought that information must be creative and dynamic in order not to bore the
audience. They argued:
“We are essential, because through our images it is easier to reach people’s
attention. Discourse and theory normally do not overlap in people’s
awareness, but by using resources like images we can explain the
environmental problem in its context in a simpler way that comes closer to
catching people’s attention and consideration” (Gabriela Osorio,
Teleamazonas TV).
“It does, but in the long term. We would like to have more funds in order to
make more of these programs” (Ramiro Cueva, Ecotel TV).
“In our city are no radio programs conveying environmental issues. Most of
the radio stations focus on music or sports. I also think that people are not
interested in environmental programs, they, for instance, prefer sports.
However, I would like to introduce a program with an environmental
approach” (Jorge Pereira, Radio Luz y Vida).
“Of course I do, what I think is we did not exploit these kinds of topics. Some
people used to call the radio station to denounce environmental harms such
an irrational use of water” (Karina Gonzalez, Radio Centinela del Sur).
24
“The role of the mass media is fundamental in raising interest in
environmental topics as it is an important mean to solve environmental
problems” (María José Freire, La Hora).
Environmental content in mass-media
Biodiversity pieces comprised different themes ranging from the discovery of new species to
general information about the current state of the forests or species; sometimes biodiversity
stories occupied the whole page or just a tiny part of it. During the 87 days of environmental
content analysis, local biodiversity pieces appeared on 28 and global biodiversity ones on 49
days. They ranked second behind general environmental news (Table 2).
Table 2: Environmental content in the daily newspaper “La Hora”. All topics were possible in the
same page.
Content
Percentage (%)
Environmental news
83.9
Biodiversity
65.5
Global warming & climate change
51.7
Environmental engineering
21.8
Television producers and newspaper editors focused more on pieces related to local and
global biodiversity, whereas radio producers were interested in covering current
environmental topics (Table 3).
25
Table 3: Environmental / nature topics covered by different mass-media in Ecuador between 12th
March and 30th June 2009.
Mass media
Environment / nature topic
Content

Galapagos

Environmental tragedy in Hiroshima
Global and local
biodiversity

National parks and protected areas in Ecuador

Oil spills in Galapagos and in Esmeraldas

Protests against the new Ecuadorian mining law

International water day

Misuse of paper in election campaigns

Forest fires

Deforestation

International water day

Mining industry in southern Ecuador

Carnivorous plants of Ecuador

New types of yeast discovered in the Ecuadorian
Amazon

Mountain tapir seriously threatened

Threatened amphibians and reptiles of Europe

Appearance of lion fish threatens ecosystem in
Costa Rica

Exploitation of petroleum in Ecuadorian
Amazonia

Species trafficking “tarantulas”

Global warming and its consequences

Antarctic ice melting

Water pollution
Television
Ecotel TV
Teleamazonas TV
Local biodiversity
Radio
Matovelle
Luz y Vida
Centinela del Sur
Current
environmental
events
Current state of
Loja local forests
News
Newspapers
La Hora
El Universo
26
Local and global
biodiversity
Local biodiversity
and global
warming
3.2. Survey
Sources of knowledge about plants and animals
All study participants were asked to indicate where they had learnt something about plants
and animals. Most of them indicated more than one source. Overall, twelve sources were
named. On average, only 1.4 different sources were used. The school was the main source of
information about plants and animals (Table 4). Only few participants felt that they had learnt
something about species in the media.
Table 4: Sources of knowledge about (a) plants and (b) animals. Multiple answers were allowed. 399
study participants answered the question.
Source of knowledge
Responses (%)
(a) Plants
(b) Animals
School
45.4
38.6
Own experience
27.8
28.6
Family
22.8
24.6
Television
13.5
20.8
Books
8.3
9.5
Magazines
6.0
5.3
Friends
4.8
5.3
Internet
3.8
4.0
Press
1.0
2.3
Radio
0.8
0.5
Do not know
7.0
6.8
Others (NGO’s, workplace)
7.0
5.1
In the logistic regression model, study participants’ places of residence strongly influenced
the probability that a certain information source about plants and animals was used (Table 5).
Women more likely used the family as a main source of information about plants and animals,
whereas men more likely relied on their own experiences in nature. Moreover, the more study
participant’s occupation was related to nature, the more likely they were to name the school
and own experiences as information sources.
27
Table 5: The influence of the place of residence (urban, rural), sex and relation of occupation to nature (5-step scale) on the probability that a certain source of
information about plants and animals was used. Data were analyzed by binary logistic regression. Only significant effects are shown. In brackets: proportion
of participants from urban areas and proportion of women who had used the source. All df = 1
Wald values
Place of residence
Sex
Relation to nature
School
16.98*** (62.4% urban)
------
5.59* (familiar >>)
Own experiences
16.44*** (34.2% urban)
20.23*** (27.0% women)
5.24* (familiar >>)
------
8.76** (62.6% women)
------
18.93*** (79.6% urban)
------
------
School
19.73*** (64.3% urban)
------
------
Own experiences
20.51 *** (31.6% urban)
19.68*** (30.7% women)
------
5.55* (40.8% urban)
19.90*** (68.4% women)
------
44.94*** (88.0% urban)
------
------
Source of information about plants
Family
TV
Source of information about animals
Family
TV
*: p <0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001
28
Only 47% of the study participants had access to the internet. Of those, 35% stated to use it to
inform themselves about plants and 39% stated to use it also to get information about animals.
Only 21% of respondents read magazines about plants (most often Terra Incognita and
National Geographic) and 19% read magazines about animals (most often National
Geographic and Terra Incognita).
Favorite plants and animals
The most favorite animals were dogs and cows, and the most favorite plants were roses and
orchids (Table 6). Overall, 43 different animals and 84 different plants were named as
favorites (full list in appendix 3).
Table 6: The ten most often named (a) favorite animals and (b) favorite plants. Overall, 42 animals
and 83 plants were named. Only one answer was allowed.
(a) Animal taxa
Dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
Responses (%) (b) Plant taxa
36.3
Responses (%)
Rose (Rosa spec.)
16.8
10.0
Cow (Bos spec.)
6.8
Orchid o
Cat (Felis silvestris)
6.0
Orange tree (Citrus spec.)
4.3
Goat (Capra hircus)
6.0
Fern o
4.0
Hen (Gallus gallus)
5.5
Coconut plant (Cocus nucifera)
4.1
Parrot (Psitacidos spec.)
3.5
Mango tree (Mangifera indica)
2.5
Horse (Equus equus)
2.8
Sunflower (Helianthus annus)
2.0
Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
2.5
Cactus o
1.8
Pig (Sus spec.)
2.3
Ceibo (Ceiba trichistandra)
1.5
Lion (Panthera leo)
2.0
Arupo (Lonicera pubescens)
1.3
o
: Denotes unspecific taxa
When the 43 favorite animals were sorted into broader taxonomic categories, non-native
domestic mammals were predominant (Table 7).
29
Table 7: Favorite animals named by the study participants (n = 364). Only one answer was allowed.
The answers were sorted into broader taxonomic categories. The most frequently named animals in
each category are shown in brackets.
Categories
Responses (%)
Mammals
81.6
Non-native domestic mammals (dog, cow, cat)
69.2
Exotic mammals (lion, bear, tiger)
5.8
Native wild mammals in Ecuador (dolphin, puma, monkey)
5.8
Native domestic mammals (guinea pig)
0.8
Birds
17.0
Non-native domestic birds (hen, rooster, chicken)
8.0
1
Native wild birds in Ecuador (parrot , condor, hummingbird)
7.4
Exotic birds (eagle)
0.8
Reptiles and fishes
0.8
Invertebrates
0.3
1
Brotogeris pyrrhopterus
The 84 favorite plants were also sorted into broader taxonomic categories. Non-native shrubs
and herbs were the most predominant groups of organisms (Table 8).
Table 8: Favorite plants named by the study participants (n = 332). Only one answer was allowed. The
answers were sorted into broader taxonomic categories. The most frequently named plants in each
category are shown in brackets.
Categories
Responses %
Shrubs and herbs
63.9
Non-native shrubs and herbs common in Ecuador (rose, carnation, sunflower)
41.0
Native shrubs and herbs (orchid o, fern o, anthurium o)
22.6
Trees
34.3
Non-native trees (orange, coconut, mango)
25.9
Native trees (ceibo1, arupo2, carob3)
8.4
Cacti
2.1
o
: Denotes unspecified taxa; 1Ceiba trichistandra, 2Lonicera pubescens, 3Sweitenia macrophylla
Most study participants had seen their favorite plant in nature and their favorite animal at
home. The media were hardly considered as a source of information (Table 9).
30
Table 9: Location where respondents had first seen their favorite (a) plant (332 answers) and (b)
animal (364 answers). Only one answer was allowed.
Responses (%)
Location
(a) Favorite plant
(b) Favorite animal
In nature
48.8
28.1
At home
39.5
56.2
In the forest
3.6
0.3
Flower shop
3.0
----
Botanical garden
1.8
----
School
1.5
0.3
Books
0.9
1.9
Television
0.6
8.3
Photos
0.3
----
Press
0.0
0.0
Internet
0.0
0.3
Greenhouse
0.0
----
Zoo
----
3.3
Circus
----
0.6
Pet shop
----
0.6
Aquarium
----
0.3
About 71% of the study participants stated to have some knowledge about their favorite plant,
and 82% stated to have some knowledge about their favorite animal. Own experiences,
friends and family were the main sources of knowledge about the favorite plants and animals.
The media were hardly named (Table 10).
31
Table 10: Sources of knowledge about study participants’ favorite (a) plant (332 answers) and (b)
animal (364 answers). Multiple answers were allowed.
Responses (%)
Source of knowledge
(a) Favorite plant
(b) Favorite animal
Own experiences
29.2
31.9
Friends & family
28.0
30.2
School
13.0
10.7
Books
6.6
6.6
Magazines
3.6
3.8
Television
2.1
13.5
Internet
2.1
2.2
Press
0.0
0.3
Radio
0.0
0.0
Television preferences and time spent watching TV
About 92% of the study participants stated to have TV. About 51% had national and 49%
cable television. About 17% of respondents did not have a favorite channel and 20% did not
have a favorite television program (Table 11).
Table 11: The seven most (a) favorite channels and (b) TV programs in view of 366 study participants.
Overall, 37 channels and 91 favorite TV programs were named. Only one answer was allowed.
Favorite channel
Responses (%)
Favorite TV program
Responses (%)
Gama TV (N)
18.0
News (N)
17.8
Ecuavisa (N)
10.8
Soap operas (N)
8.0
Discovery Ch. (C)
8.8
Sports (N&C)
4.8
Nat Geo (C)
8.5
Movies (N&C)
2.0
Teleamazonas (N)
6.8
Dia a Dia (C)
1.5
Canal 1 (N)
3.0
Documentaries (N&C)
1.5
Animal Planet (N)
2.5
Animal planet extreme (N&C)
1.3
Other channels
24.3
Other TV programs
43.0
None
17.3
None
20.1
N: national television C: cable television
32
Most of the study participants (77%) watched TV up to two hours a day. They especially
liked to watch the news and soap operas (Table 12). Only about 22% of participants would
like to have more programs related to environmental topics in TV.
Table 12: The five most often named types of programs that study participants (n = 366) would like to
watch in TV. Overall, 70 different types of programs were named. Only one answer was allowed.
Type of TV program
Responses (%)
Family education
16.8
Nature documentaries in general
9.5
Ecuador nature documentaries
6.1
Environmental education
2.8
Agriculture
2.5
Others (entertainment, movies, TV series)
40.2
No special wish
22.1
About 54% of the respondents had recently watched programs about plants and animals. The
most popular channel was Discovery Channel (Table 13).
Table 13: The four most often named channels participants had recently used to watch nature
programs. Overall, 18 channels were named by 198 respondents. Only one answer was allowed.
Channel
Responses (%)
Discovery Channel
13.3
National Geographic
8.8
Animal Planet
7.5
Teleamazonas
7.5
Ecuavisa
5.5
Other channels
57.4
33
Newspaper preferences and time spent on reading newspapers
About 22.8% of respondents stated to read newspapers everyday, 13.3% weekly, 46.0%
occasionally, and 17.8% never. When asked about their favorite papers and sections, 13.8% of
the respondents did not have a favorite newspaper and 24.6% did no have a favorite
newspaper section. La Hora, which is a local journal, was most often named as the favorite
newspaper, and the “News Section” was the most favorite part of the papers (Table 14).
Table 14: The five favorite newspapers and sections (328 answers). Overall, nine different newspapers
and 33 sections were named. Only one answer was allowed.
Favorite newspaper
La Hora
Responses (%)
Favorite section
Responses (%)
47.1
News
17.5
El Universo
7.5
Sports
8.3
El Comercio
6.0
Entertainment
7.3
Extra
5.3
Editorials
4.5
El Telégrafo
0.8
Politics
2.0
Other newspapers
16.3
Other sections
30.4
None
17.0
None
30.0
About 35% of the respondents did not read the section about plants in the newspapers, and
29% did not read it about animals. Some participants stated to read occasionally about plants
and animals in the newspapers (26% about plants and 27% about animals). About 91% of
study participants stated that they would like more articles about plants and 92% about
animals in their favorite newspapers. Study participants indicated that they would like the
articles about plants and animals on a weekly basis (plants: 62%; animals: 64 %).
Study participants’ place of residence and the degree to which their occupation was related to
nature influenced how often a newspaper was read (place of residence: F1,396 = 17.05, p <
0.001; relation to nature: F1,396 = 5.17, p = 0.024). In urban areas 28.5% of the study
participants read newspapers daily, whereas in rural areas only 17.1% did so. The more an
occupation was related to nature, the more often study participants read newspapers in
general.
34
Environmental knowledge test (pretest)
About 44% of the study participants had visited the Podocarpus National Park and 32% the
dry forest of Zapotillo. However 43% had never visited these places. In the pretest, about 55%
of the respondents did not answer the question whether the spectacled bear is the unique bear
occurring in South America.
About 71% of the study participants did not know why the Podocarpus National Park is an
excellent water regulator. Overall, 49 answers were given, but not all of them were correct.
The most common answer was that the vegetation helps to store the water (Table 15).
Table 15: The nine most often given answers about Podocarpus National Park (n = 399). Multiple
answers were allowed.
Do you know why the Podocarpus National Park is an excellent water regulator?
Answers
Responses (%)
Because of the vegetation (c)
12.3
Because of the plant cover (c)
4.3
Because of the moorlands (c)
3.5
Because of the lagoons (c)
3.0
Because it is a protected area (f)
2.5
Because of the plant diversity that it harbors (f)
2.0
Because of the biodiversity (f)
1.8
Because of the humidity (f)
1.8
Because it stores water (c)
1.3
Other answers
13.6
No answer
53.9
c: accepted as a correct answer. f: false answer
About 64% of study participants did not know why hummingbirds are useful. Overall, eleven
answers were given, nevertheless not all of them were correct. Pollination was the most
common answer (Table 16).
35
Table 16: The five most often named answers about hummingbirds (n = 399). Multiple answers were
allowed.
Do you know what hummingbirds are useful for?
Answers
Responses (%)
For pollination (c)
31.8
They help plants to reproduce (c)
2.0
They are good for seed dispersal (c)
1.8
They absorb nectar (f)
0.3
They help to produce more flowers (c)
0.3
Other answers
1.1
No answer
62.7
About 62% of the study participants did not know why plants grow throughout the year in the
cloud forest. Overall 29 answers were given, nevertheless not all of them were correct.
Humidity was named most often (Table 17).
Table 17: Answers to the question why plants grow throughout the year in the cloud forest (n = 399).
Multiple answers were allowed.
Do you know why plants grow throughout the year in the cloud forest?
Answers
Responses (%)
Because of the humidity (c)
26.6
Because of the constant weather conditions (c)
11.0
Because of the water availability throughout the year (f)
7.0
Because of the constant precipitation (f)
5.3
Because cloud forest are protected (f)
1.8
Because there is non disturbance (f)
1.3
Other answers
7.7
No answer
39.3
36
About 72% of the study participants did not know why caterpillars have different ornaments
and colors. Overall, 12 answers were given, not all them were correct. Self defense was the
most common answer (Table 18).
Table 18: The five most often named answers about caterpillars (n=399). Multiple answers were
allowed.
Do you know why caterpillars have different ornaments and colors on their bodies?
Answers
Responses (%)
For their self defense (c)
15.0
For mimesis (c)
8.8
They use them as a warning (c)
3.5
It is an adaptation process (f)
2.3
For their reproduction (f)
0.8
Other answers
2.7
No answer
66.9
In the logistic regression models, the place of residence and previous visits to the Podocarpus
National Park especially influenced whether the knowledge questions were answered
correctly. Participants in urban areas were more able to answer the questions correctly than
participants from rural areas. Participants who had visited the PNP before were also more
knowledgeable (Table 19).
37
Table 19: The influence of the place of residence (urban, rural), sex and relation of occupation to nature (5-step scale) on the probability that the knowledge
questions were answered correctly. Data were analyzed by binary logistic regression. Only significant effects are shown. In brackets: proportion of
participants from urban areas and proportion of women who had answered the questions correctly. All df = 1
Wald values
Place of residence
Sex
Visit PNP
Relation to nature
55.60*** (78.5% urban)
------
16.92*** (66.9% visitors of PNP)
9.14** (familiar >>)
4.25* (67.5% urban)
------
8.83** (65.0% visitors of PNP)
16.96*** (familiar >>)
Q3 (Hummingbird)
55.02*** (82.6% urban)
9.50** (39.6% women)
5.75* (67.4% visitors of PNP)
10.21** (familiar >>)
Q4 (Cloud forest)
16.41*** (63.2% urban)
------
------
------
Q5 (Caterpillar)
40.43*** (84.7% urban)
4.69* (42.3% women)
8.50** (69.4% visitors of PNP)
------
Knowledge questions
Q1 (Spectacled bear)
Q2 (PNP)
*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001
38
Picture questionnaire
Participants’ perception of species
With the help of a set of pictures, study participants were asked about their perception of
different species (native and non-native ones). For all respondents the most useful and most
beautiful species was the orchid (Catleya maxima), and the most dangerous one the lion (Felis
leo). The most ugly species depicted was the baobab (Adansonia digitata), and the most
endangered one the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) (Table 20).
39
Table 20: Species regarded as a most useful, dangerous, beautiful, ugly and endangered by 399 study participants. One answer per question was allowed.
(a) Most useful
Taxon
(b) Most dangerous
Answers (%)
Taxon
(c) Most beautiful
Answers (%) Taxon
(d) Most ugly
Answers (%) Taxon
Orchid
31.6
Lion
67.7
Orchid
25.6
Baobab
White neck parrot
22.6
Spectacled bear
10.3
Hummingbird
18.3
Lion
10.0
Baobab
2.0
Ceibo
9.8
Ceibo
Spectacled bear
7.5
Tulip
(e) Most endangered
Answers (%) Taxon
Answers (%)
13.0
Spectacled bear
46.6
Spectacled bear
9.8
Cock of the rock
9.8
White neck parrot 13.3
Lion
8.3
Lion
8.8
1.3
Spectacled bear
10.3
Cock of the rock
6.0
White neck parrot
7.8
Orchid
1.3
Cock of the rock
7.0
Ceibo
5.8
Toucan
5.0
5.0
Tulip
0.8
Tulip
6.0
Tulip
3.8
Baobab
4.5
Hummingbird
3.8
White neck parrot
0.8
Toucan
5.0
Toucan
2.8
Orchid
3.8
Toucan
1.8
Toucan
0.0
Lion
4.8
White neck parrot
1.8
Ceibo
3.3
Cock of the rock
1.5
Cock of the rock
0.0
Ceibo
3.3
Orchid
0.8
Tulip
1.8
Baobab
1.3
Hummingbird
0.0
Baobab
1.8
Hummingbird
0.3
Hummingbird
1.5
Do not know
3.3
Do not know
2.5
Do not know
0.0
Do not know
0.0
Do not know
7.0
None of them
1.5
None of them
13.5
None of them
0.0
None of them
47.9
None of them
1.5
All of them
0.5
All of them
All of them
4.8
All of them
All of them
1.8
0.0
40
0.0
Species identification test (pretest)
Study participants were then asked to identify the ten species depicted. Most often they were
able to correctly identify the hummingbird and the lion (Table 21). Many respondents
recognized the parrot but did not know its name. On average, they could identify correctly 4.6
of the species depicted.
Table 21: Identification of ten species depicted. Study participants (n = 399) were asked to identify the
plants and animals in the pictures. Overall, 1840 correct responses were given.
Responses (%)
Category and taxa
Correct
Know organism,
but not by name
Never seen
before
Hummingbird
96.7
1.3
2.0
Orchid
65.7
14.8
19.5
Ceibo
56.6
19.5
23.8
Toucan
52.6
30.8
16.5
Spectacled bear
52.1
37.3
10.5
Cock of the rock
12.3
17.3
70.4
White neck parrot
11.5
83.5
5.0
Lion
94.5
2.8
2.8
Tulip
18.0
26.8
55.1
1.0
1.8
97.2
Native plants and animals
Exotic plants and animals
Baobab
In the models, the place of residence, sex, an occupation related to nature and the time spent
on reading newspapers influenced how often participants could correctly identify the species
(Table 22). Participants in urban areas and those with a profession related to nature, but also
daily newspaper readers were more likely to identify the species correctly.
41
Table 22: The influence of the place of residence (urban, rural), sex, time spent on reading newspapers (5-step scale), and relation of occupation to nature (5step scale) on the probability that the species depicted were correctly identified. Data were analyzed by binary logistic regressions. Only significant effects are
shown. In brackets: proportion of participants from urban areas and proportion of women who had identified the species correctly. All df = 1
Wald values
Species
Place of residence
Sex
Time spent on reading
newspapers
Relation to nature
65.74*** (73.1% urban)
------
5.96* (daily >>)
4.82* (familiar >>)
8.64** (52.8% urban)
------
------
------
------
------
------
------
21.96*** (43.4% urban)
------
7.82** (daily >>)
36.82*** (familiar >>)
Hummingbird
------
------
------
------
Cock of the rock
------
6.01* (28.6% women)
7.75** (daily >>)
6.53* (familiar >>)
Orchid
44.23*** (66.4% urban)
------
28.22*** (daily >>)
------
Tulip
30.12*** (87.5% urban)
8.56** (63.9% women)
4.11* (daily >>)
------
------
------
------
------
46.24*** (67.1% urban)
------
------
------
Spectacled bear
Lion
Baobab
Ceibo
White neck parrot
Toucan
*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001
42
Sources of knowledge of the species depicted
Most often, study participants felt that they had seen the organisms depicted in nature. Only in
case of the spectacled bear and the lion, television but also school were named frequently
(Figure 3).
Spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus)
80
80
60
zin
es
Bo
Fr
ok
ien
s
ds
&
fam
ily
In
na
tur
e
et
ern
Ma
ga
ol
Sc
ho
Sc
ho
Int
0
Pr
es
s
Int
ern
et
Ma
ga
zin
es
Bo
Fri
ok
en
s
ds
&f
am
ily
In
na
tur
e
0
TV
Ra
dio
20
ol
20
es
s
40
Pr
40
TV
Ra
dio
Responses %
60
Responses %
Lion (Felis leo)
Sources of information
80
60
43
e
tur
na
In
ks
am
ily
&f
Bo
o
Fr
ien
ds
s
ga
zin
e
et
ern
Ma
Int
ol
Sc
ho
s
0
Pr
es
0
Pr
es
s
Int
ern
et
Ma
ga
zin
es
Bo
Fri
ok
en
s
ds
&F
am
ily
In
na
tur
e
20
TV
Ra
dio
20
dio
40
Ra
40
TV
Responses %
60
Sc
ho
ol
Responses %
Hummingbird (Trochiladae)
80
Ceibo (Ceiba trichistandra)
Cock of the rock (Rupicula peruviana)
80
Orchid (Catleya maxima)
80
ho
o
l
e
tur
Fri
en
ds
In
Sc
na
am
ok
s
&f
Bo
Ma
ga
zin
es
et
ern
Int
Pr
es
Ra
Sc
h
ily
0
s
0
dio
20
TV
20
Tulip (Liliaceae)
80
White neck parrot (Pyrrhura albipectus)
80
60
60
40
20
In
na
tur
e
ily
s
fam
s
ok
Fr
ien
ds
&
Bo
et
ine
az
ern
Int
Ma
g
Pr
es
s
TV
dio
Ra
Sc
ho
ol
0
Figure 3: Main sources of knowledge about each species depicted in the picture test.
44
tur
e
ily
na
In
s
Toucan (Ramphastidae)
am
ok
ds
en
Fri
80
Responses %
&f
es
zin
Fr
Bo
et
ga
ern
es
dio
Ma
Int
Sc
Ra
ho
ol
na
tur
e
ily
In
ks
ien
ds
&
fam
s
Bo
o
et
ine
az
Ma
g
es
ern
Int
Pr
ho
s
0
Ra
dio
0
TV
20
ol
20
s
40
Pr
40
TV
Responses %
60
Sc
Responses %
es
s
Int
ern
et
Ma
ga
zin
es
Bo
Fr
ok
ien
s
ds
&
fam
ily
In
na
tue
40
Pr
40
TV
Ra
dio
Responses %
60
oo
l
Responses %
60
3.3. Media influence test
Environmental knowledge test
Three weeks after the video had been shown, the five knowledge questions were asked again
to the 100 participants (50 persons in the test and 50 in the control group. In the pretest, the
test and control group not differ significantly in the number of correct answers to the
questions (all p > 0.05; Figure 4a).
In the posttest, the test group knew more in almost all questions asked (Figure 4b). Both
previous knowledge (F1,97 = 62.44, p < 0.001) and treatment (F1,97 = 25.38, p < 0.001)
positively influenced the test result.
(a) Pretest
(b) Posttest
Q1
Q1
Q2
Q2
Q3
Q3
Q4
Q4
Q5
Q5
0
20
40
60
80
**
**
*
**
0
20
Number of correct answers
40
60
80
100
Number of correct answers
Control group
Test group
Control group
Test group
Figure 4: Correct answers given by members of the test group (n = 50) and control group (n = 50) to
the five questions asked about the PNP in (a) pretest and (b) posttest.
Species identification test
In the pretest, the test and control group not differ significantly in the number of correct
answers to the questions (all p > 0.05; Figure 5a). Only the ceibo were more often correctly
identified in the control group. However, in the posttest the test group gained in knowledge.
They could identify more (local) species correctly than the control group. They especially
45
increased their knowledge about previously not well-known species such as the cock of the
rock and white neck parrot which were introduced in the nature documentary (Figure 5b). In
the model, both previous knowledge and treatment influenced the number of correct
identifications (F1,97 = 76.82, p < 0.001 and F1,97 = 29.34, p < 0.001, respectively).
(b) Posttest
(a) Pretest
*
Spectacled bear
Lion
Baobab
Ceibo
*
Hummingbird
***
Cock of the rock
Orchid
**
***
Tulip
White neck parrot
Toucan
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Correct answers %
Correct answers %
Control group
Test group
Control group
Test group
Figure 5: Correct identifications of species by members of the test group (n = 50) and control group (n
= 50) in (a) pretest and (b) posttest.
Subsequent information
Respondents were asked to state if they had informed themselves in the meantime about
questions related to the tests. About 30% of the study participants stated to have done so.
Friends and family were named as the main sources of information by the respondents (Table
23).
Table 23: Sources of information used by the 100 participants after the test. Multiple answers were
allowed.
Responses %
Friends and family
10.0
Books and magazines
3.0
Internet
3.0
TV
3.0
Other sources
2.0
No sources used
70.0
46
4. Discussion
In the present study, both school and own experiences were named as main sources of
information about plants and animals. For respondents living in urban areas the school was
the main source of information, whereas for respondents in rural areas own experiences in
nature was the main source. Other studies have also shown that ecological knowledge is
acquired through interactions with the local environment, experiences out of school and
participation in environmental activities (Howe et al., 1988; Haron et al., 2005). People in
rural areas in Ecuador obtain their income from farming and related business which makes
them interact with their local environment (Sánchez-Paramo, 2005). This might explain why
the rural study participants in the present study learnt more about plants and animals from
their own experiences than from school or other sources. Whether a participant was a man or
a woman also influenced which sources of knowledge were used. For men, own experiences
were the main source of knowledge, whereas for women it was the family. One explanation
could be that women in the study areas are more involved in housework, whereas men more
often work in the field.
The media were hardly considered as a source of environmental information. Television was
the only media named, but ranked only fourth among the other source used. When study
participants were asked to name their favorite plant and animal similar results were found.
Not even the most liked species were known from the media, but from participants’ own
experiences or friends and family. Television ranked only seventh as a source of information
about plants and third about animals. A study from Nigeria had also shown that print and
electronic media were of only minor relevance in increasing city residents’ perceptions and
knowledge of environmental issues (Agbola et al., 1999). However, in a recent study in
Malaysia, newspapers, television and radio were named as main sources of environmental
knowledge and information (Haron et al., 2005). Students in the United States also stated to
have learned about environmental issues from electronic and print media (Hausbeck et al.,
1991), and adults stated to have learned about science through television, print media and the
internet (National Science Foundation, 2004, 2008). One reason for the discrepancies
discussed above could be that the study location matters. In the present study, participants
from urban areas more often reported to use television as a source of information than those
from rural areas.
In the rural areas of Malacatos and Vilcabamba only one TV channel (Gama TV) can be
watched. The general program of Gama TV does not include environmental topics
47
(www.gamatv.com.ec, 2009), which might partly explain why participants in the rural study
areas were not learning about environmental issues by television and did not mention it as a
main source of knowledge about plants and animals. The two national channels Ecuavisa and
Teleamazonas were among the favorite channels named by the study participants. However,
the first one hardly covers environmental topics (only one for adults called “La Television”;
www.ecuavisa.com, 2009). The second one transmits once a week documentaries purchased
from the international network Discovery Channel and their own program “Dia a Dia” which
includes some reportages about environmental issues (www.teleamazonas.com, 2009). In
general terms the national channels do cover more news and soap operas which were also
people’s favorites in the present study. The cable channels Discovery Channel and National
Geographic Channel were also among the favorites. National Geographic Channel is the only
one which has almost daily productions dedicated to nature documentaries
(www.natgeo.tv/la/programacion/, 2009). This shows that - with the exception of National
Geographic - television channels that participants tend to watch pay little attention to
environmental topics which explains why study participants do not regard television as an
environmental information source.
Mass media in general and television in particular, often cover acute environmental issues
such as oil spills (Sachsman, 2000). To a much lesser extent they cover nature-related issues
of local interest as the present interviews demonstrate. Representatives of the media in
Ecuador wanted to inform and educate the public about environmental issues as they felt it
important to enhance people’s environmental awareness and knowledge. They thus cover
environmental topics (especially the newspapers) which are, in case of the TV producers,
even of local interest. However, a mainstream environmental program is almost absent and
nature documentaries about Ecuador are not produced. In this, they do not satisfy people’s
expectations as the survey showed. The respondents wanted to watch more nature
documentaries from Ecuador on TV. However, the local newspaper La Hora has a daily page
about environmental issues and reports about nature-related topics as the content-analysis has
shown. La Hora is also the most read newspaper in the study area. Nevertheless, the study
participants did not regard it as a source of environmental knowledge and information about
local organisms. The content analysis of the local newspaper La Hora showed that terms such
as endemic species, biodiversity or carbon sinks were often used in its nature pieces. Such
terms might be easy to understand for well educated people or for those working in fields
related to ecology. However, less educated people may have difficulties in comprehending the
48
information conveyed in the paper. The content-analysis has also shown that the most
environmental pieces published were about general environmental news such as global pronature campaigns and recent nature events. Unlike to other research where global warming
pieces were the most important environmental events to cover (Novacek, 2008), biodiversity
pieces ranked second and global warming pieces third.
Newspaper producers and the general public might not speak the same language when it
comes to environmental issues (Chalecki, 2000; Corbett et al., 2002). The use of a technical
(scientific) language and the presentation of environmental problems in great detail might
affect people’s understanding of environmental issues and therefore their behavior towards
problems such as biodiversity loss, air and water pollution or climate change (Ungar, 2000;
Sheufele, 2002; Boykoff & Ravi Rajan, 2007; Novacek, 2008). Although environmental
problems are scientifically complex, the media have to find an easy way to cover these kind of
pieces in a compelling way that engages the general public (Sachsman, 2000; Nisbet et al.,
2002). The two favorite newspapers of the study participants “La Hora” and “El Universo”
cover a variety of environmental information (interviews: María José Freire, La Hora &
Alexandra Ávila El Universo), but the information given might not be compelling enough or
the language used too scientific to understand and to discuss. In fact, respondents stated that
they would like more articles about plants and animals in newspapers, meaning that they did
not even pay attention to the nature pieces already published and therefore never discussed.
Studies indicate that interpersonal discussions play an important role in the reception of and in
processing news (Smith & Reiser, 1997; Sheufele, 2002). This means that when people
discuss with each other what they have heard or read in the media, their knowledge gains
might be highest. However, if the information conveyed in the media is too complicated,
people will not talk about it and might not remember anything of what they have heard or
read.
Several studies have shown that the public’s ability to identify species is very limited, at least
in western European countries and the United States (Balmford et al., 2002; Bebbington,
2005). However, in the present study participants were quite able to identify the species
depicted in the pictures. One reason could be again that the study location matters. In the
present study, participants from urban areas were more able to correctly identify species than
those from rural ones, especially species likely to be presented in the media. The only species
correctly identified by more participants from rural areas was a native species common in one
of the study areas. This finding is consistent with the result that people from rural areas learn
49
more about plants and animals from their own experiences. The time spent reading newspaper
also influenced on the probability that the species depicted were correctly identified. An
interesting result is that study participants perceived the local wild plants and animals shown
to them as most beautiful, endangered and useful. This might partly explain why participants
wanted to watch more nature documentaries from Ecuador. They might want to see their own
species in the media, i.e. in documentaries about conservation in the PNP or the region of
Zapotillo.
Study participants’ environmental knowledge was rather poor in the pretest. More than 60%
did not correctly answer the questions about PNP. Once again the place of residence
influenced the probability that the knowledge questions were answered correctly. People from
urban areas were more knowledgeable than those from rural areas, probably due to their better
education. Participants who had visited the PNP before were also more able to answer the
questions correctly, but also those with an occupation related to nature. As with local
organisms, own experiences seem to be again an important knowledge source.
Although study participants had not mentioned television as a main source of information
about environmental / nature topics, their knowledge about the Podocarpus National Park and
the species depicted increased after they had watched the short nature video. In comparison to
the untreated control group, participants in the treatment group were more knowledgeable
about most of the topics asked. This suggests that media, in particular television (= video),
can influence people’s environmental knowledge. Other studies have found similar results.
Students who had watched a television science program held more positive attitudes towards
science than those who had not (Mares et al., 1999). Moreover, after watching a nature
documentary students were more able to establish sophisticated discussions about the
ecological behavior of lions (Smith & Reiser, 1997). A marine mammal documentary
increased the knowledge about marine mammals in the treatment (documentary viewers)
compared to an untreated control group (Fortner, 2006).
50
5.
Conclusions
One way to increase people’s environmental awareness is through mass media. The Global
Biodiversity Strategy even states that biodiversity conservation will best attract public support
if it is conveyed through entertainment, advertising, popular arts and the media. Stakeholders
such as television commentators or newspaper editors can make the biodiversity message
compelling, and touch all people’s lives and aspirations (World Resources Institute, 1999).
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment also highlights the use of media for environmental
education (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The present study indicates that welldesigned videos about local species and habitats can enhance people’s environmental
knowledge and awareness, and can thus be recommended as an environmental education tool.
However, it is important to pay attention to the language used which should be simple
enough, clear and well-ordered to reach the environmental consciousness of the general
public. Newspapers editors are advised to work on the way they are presenting the
information and analyze the language they are using to convey their message.
6.
Acknowledgements
First of all I would like to thank my supervisor Petra Lindemann-Matthies for all her support,
guidance and patience during this project. I would also like to thank all my friends in Ecuador
who supported me and helped me during the field work in Loja. Special thanks to my
boyfriend Boris for his help in every step of this research. I am especially grateful with all my
classmates for the great time spent during this beautiful experience, especially to Barbara and
Thomas for their tolerance and support during my time in Switzerland.
A very special thanks goes to my father, Max, without whose support this master study would
not have been possible. Finally, I would like to thank my siblings Max and María. Helena, my
mother Krupskaya, and Mili always make feel good and accompanied.
51
7.
References
Agbola, T., Olurin, T., Mabawonku, A. 1999. An appraisal of the contribution of the print and
electronic media to environmental education and consciousness in Nigeria. International
Journal of Environmental Studies 56: 509-530.
Aguirre, Z., Madsen, J., Cotton, E., Balslev, H. 2002. Botánica Austroecuatoriana. Estudios
sobre los recursos vegetales en las provincias de El Oro, Loja y Zamora Chinchipe.
ABYA AYALA/ Herbario Reinaldo Espinosa/ Department of Sistematic Botany. Loja,
Ecuador.
Balmford, A., Clegg, L., Coulson, T., Taylor, J. 2002. Why conservationists should heed
Pokemon. Science 295: 23-67.
Bebbington, A. 2005. The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological
Education 39: 62-67.
Bell, A. 1994. Media (miss) communication on science of climate change. Public
Understanding of Science 3: 259-275.
Birdlife International. Parque Nacional Podocarpus-Neotropical factsheet. Accessed 5 April
2008. Downloaded from: http://www.birdlife.info/neotropical/sitefactsheet.asp?sid=14543
Birdlife International. Tumbesian Reserve secures future for endemic birds. Accessed 5 April
2008. Downloaded from: http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2005/03/tumbesia.html
Boykoff, M.T., Rajan, R. 2007. Signal and noise: Mass-media coverage of climate change in
the USA and the UK. EMBO Reports 8: 207-211.
Corporación OIKOS. Comunicación, Educación para el Desarrollo. Ecuador. Accessed 10
March 2008. Downloaded from: http://www.oikos.org.ec/index.php/Areas/Comunicacion/-Educacion-para-el-Desarrollo.html.
Global Convention on Biodiversity. 2002. Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada.
Chalecki, E.L. 2000. Same planet, different worlds: The climate change information gap.
Proceedings of an International Conference. Environmental Canada & University of
Waterloo A2: 15-22.
52
Chand, V.S., Shukla S.R. 2003. Biodiversity contests: Indigenously informed and transformed
environmental education. Applied Environmental Education & Communication 2: 229236.
Chan. K.W. 1996. Environmental attitudes and behavior of secondary school students in
Hong Kong. The Environmentalist 16: 297-306.
Chipeniuk, R. 1995. Childhood foraging as a means of acquiring competent human cognition
about biodiversity. Environment and Behaviour 27: 490-512.
Corbett, J.B., Durfee, J.L. 2004. Testing public (Un) certainty of science: Media
representations of global warming. Science Communication 26: 129 - 151.
Correa-Conde, J., Ordoñez-Delgado, L. 2007. El Sur tiene Alas. Guía de Aviturismo de la
provincia de Loja y Zamora Chinchipe. Ministerio de Turismo-Regional Frontera Sur.
Fundación Ecológica Arcoiris/ The Nature Conservancy. Loja-Ecuador.
Curry, T.E., Ansolabehere, S., Herzog, H. 2007. A survey of public attitudes towards climate
change and climate change mitigation technologies in the United States: Analyses of 2006
Results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Laboratory for Energy and the
Environment, Cambridge, Publication No. LFEE 2007-01.
Discovery Channel. Programación de TV. Accessed 2 November 2009. Downloaded from:
http://www.tudiscovery.com/programacion-de-tv/?type=day&country_code=LTM
Dunning, J.B. 1997. The missing awareness, part 2: teaching students what a billion people
looks like. Conservation Biology 11: 6-10.
Ecuavisa. Programación de Guayaquil/Centro-Sur. Accessed 2 November 2009. Downloaded
from:
http://www.ecuavisa.com/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=130&extmode=grid&c
ateg=3&Itemid=56
Eveland, Jr. W.P., Scheufele, D.A. 2000. Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge
and participation. Political Communication 17: 215-237
Fortner, R.W. 2006. Relative effectiveness of classroom and documentary film presentations
on marine mammals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 12: 115-126.
Gamatv. Programación. Accessed 2 November 2009. Downloaded from:
http://www.gamatv.com.ec/programacion.php
53
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorelli, N. 1981. Scientists on the TV screen. Culture
and Society 42: 51-54.
Haron, S.A., Paim, L., Yahaya, N. 2005. Towards sustainable consumption: an examination
of environmental knowledge among Malaysians. International Journal of Consumers
Studies 29: 426-436.
Holbert, R.L., Kwak, N., Shah, D.V. 2003. Environmental concern, patterns of television
viewing, and pro-environmental behaviors: integrating models of media consumption and
effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 47: 177-196.
Hausbeck, K.A., Milbrath, L.W., Enrigth, S.M. 1992. Environmental knowledge, awareness
and concern among 11th-grades: New York State. Journal of Environmental Education 24:
27-34.
Hunter, L.M., Brehm, J. 2003. Qualitative insight into public knowledge of, and
concern with, biodiversity. Human Ecology 31: 309-320.
Jiménez, A, López, F. 1999. Guía de las aves del bosque nublado de San Francisco Parque
Nacional Podocarpus. Editorial Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Kirchhein, J., Matthies, D. 2004. Perception of plant diversity by
children and their parents. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie 34: 416.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Bose, E. 2008. How many species are there? Public understanding
and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology 38: 731-742.
Loja. Loja unidades productivas y categoría brócoli por cantones, 2000. Accessed 5
December 2009. Downloaded from:
http://www.pnud.org.ec/Publicaciones/TLC/Parte%202%20Mapas%20Ecuador/Productos
Canton/MapasBrocoli/lojabrocoli.jpg
Mares, M.L., Cantor, J., Steinbach, J.B. 1999. Using television to foster children’s interest in
science. Science Communication 20: 283.
McComas, K.A., Shanahan, J. 1999. Telling stories about global climate change. Measuring
the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication Research: 26: 30-57.
McComa, K.A., Shanahan, J., Butler, J.S. 2001. Environmental content in prime-time network
TV's non-news entertainment and fictional programs. Society and Natural Resources 14:
533-542.
54
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Policy
responses - Biodiversity 3.
www.icsu-lac.org/diversitas/MA_BiodiversityResponses_McNeely_etal_2005.pdf
Ministerio de Cultura & Ministerio del Ambiente. 2006. Plan de educación ambiental para la
educación básica y el bachillerato 2006-1016. Quito. Ecuador.
Morocho, D., Romero, J.C. (Eds). 2003. Bosques del Sur. El estado de 12 remanentes de
bosques andinos de la provincia de Loja. Fundación Ecológica
Arcoiris/PROBONA/DICA. Loja, Ecuador.
National Geographic Channel. Programación. Accessed 2 November 2009. Downloaded
from: http://www.natgeo.tv/la/programacion/
National Science Foundation. Science and engineering indicators 2004. Science and
technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Accessed 7 October 2009. Downloaded
from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7h.htm
National Science Foundation. Science and engineering indicators 2008. Science and
technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Accessed 7 October 2009. Downloaded
from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c7/c7h.htm
Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., Lewenstein B.V. 2002.
Knowledge, reservation or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of
science and technology. Communication Research 29: 584.
Novacek, M.J. 2008. Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. National Academy of Science
of the United States of America 105: 11571-11578.
Pilgrim, S.E., Cullen, C., Smith, D.J., Pretty, J. 2007. Ecological knowledge is lost in
wealthier communities and countries. Environmental Science & Technology 42: 10041009.
(PNUMA) Programa de la Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente. 2007. GEO Loja.
Perspectivas del Medio Ambiente Urbano. Loja, Ecuador.
Sachsman, D. 2000. The role of the mass media in shaping perceptions and awareness of
environmental issues. Influence on public understanding of climate change.
Environmental Canada & University of Waterloo A2: 22-24.
55
Scheufele, D.A. 2002. Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications
for participatory behavior. Communication Research 29: 46-65.
Schiffman, L.G., Lazar, K.L. 2005. Comportamiento del consumidor. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Octava Edición.
Smith, B.K., Reiser, B.J. 1997. Interactive nature films for high school classrooms: Why
should a wildebeest say?. International Conference of Multimedia 193-201.
Sudamérica. Países donde se desarrolla el convenio. Accessed 25 October 2009. Downloaded
from: http://educacionparaeltrabajo.org/pagina%20centro.html
Teleamazonas. Programación. Accessed 2 November 2009. Downloaded from:
http://www.teleamazonas.com/parrilla.pdf
The Nature Conservancy. Ecuador: places we protect Podocarpus National Park, Ecuador.
Accessed 5 April 2008. Downloaded from:
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/southamerica/ecuador/work/art5120.html
Turner-Erfort, G. 1997. Public awareness and perceptions of biodiversity. Transactions of the
Illinois State Academy of Science 90: 113-121
Ungar, S. 2000. Why climate change is not in the air: Popular culture and the whirlwind
effect. University of Toronto at Scarborough A2: 8-14.
Wikimedia Commons. Imágenes Ecuador–Loja. Accessed 25 October 2009. Downloaded
from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MapaSageo-Ecuador-Loja.png
(WRI) World Resources Institute, (IUCN) The World Conservation Union, United Nations
(UNEP) Environment Programme. 1999. Global Biodiversity Strategy. Guidelines for
action to save, study, and use earth’s biotic wealth sustainable and equitable. WRI,
IUCN, UNEP.
(WWF) World Wildlife Fund. 2000. Propuesta para la Formulación de una Visión
Ecorregional del Chocó. Fondo Mundial para Naturaleza, Programa Colombia.
56
8.
Appendices
Appendix 1. Interview agenda
a) Interview agenda for television producers
1. Does this TV channel have stories or reports dedicated to environmental themes?
2. How much time during the program was dedicated to environmental topics?
3. Does this TV channel have original productions with environmental themes?
4. If you produce your own pieces can you tell me: What are they?
5. What is the principal objective of reports or documentaries made on environmental themes?
6. What is the message that you would like to convey?
7. Do you know if the general program of this TV channel contains environmental programs
made by other international channels like Animal Planet?
8. Which audience is this TV channel addressing in the environmental programs?
9. At what time and which days are the environmental programs on air?
10. How well does the public receive the environmental programs?
11. Do you think that television contributes to people’s perception, knowledge and awareness
about nature?
12. Do you know if there are producers interesting in create nature documentaries in Ecuador?
13. Do you know how expensive it is to produce nature documentaries?
b) Interview agenda for radio producers
1. Does this radio station have programs about environmental issues?
2. Does this radio station convey environmental news?
3. How often you dedicate space to environmental themes
5. What has been the latest nature news that you have conveyed?
6. Which audience is this radio station addressing covering environmental news?
7. At what time and which days are the environmental programs on air?
57
8. Do you think that radio contributes to people’s perception, knowledge and awareness about
nature?
c) Interview agenda for newspapers editors
1. Does this newspaper have an environmental section?
2. How often you dedicate space to environmental themes?
3. What is the principal objective for informing about environmental themes?
5. Which readership is this newspaper addressing?
6. Do you think printed media contributes to people’s perception, knowledge and awareness
about nature?
7. Are the stories published by this newspaper about local happenings or general information
about environmental events?
8. What have been the latest national stories about the environment that you have published?
9. What have been the latest international stories about environment that you have published?
10. How well does the public receive environmental stories, do you think the readers are
interested in that kind of news?
58
Appendix 2. Questionnaire
Influencia de los medios de comunicación en el conocimiento y percepción
ambiental en el Sur del Ecuador
FIRST PART
C
T
R
1. Edad: __________
U
Sitio:
2. Género: Masculino
Número:
Femenino
3. ¿Cuál es su ocupación?: _____________________________ ¿Cuánto de su ocupación está
relacionada con temas ambientales?
Nada
muy poco
poco
mucho
completamente
4. ¿Cuál es su nivel de educación?
Universidad
Colegio
Escuela
Ninguno
Otros estudios superiores
5. ¿En dónde has aprendido o aprendes sobre plantas?
Centro Educativo
Libros
____
____ Revistas
No sabe
TV
____ Radio
____ Amigos
Otros
____ Prensa
____ Familia
____ Internet
____ Experiencia
____
____
___________________________________________________
6. ¿En dónde has aprendido o aprendes sobre animales?
Centro Educativo
Libros
____
____ Revistas
No sabe
TV
____ Radio
____ Amigos
____ Prensa
____ Familia
____ Internet
____ Experiencia
____
____
Otros ____________________________________________________
7. ¿Cuál es su planta y animal favoritos?: __________________
__________________
8. ¿Dónde vio por primera vez aquella planta?
Jardín casa ____ TV ____
___
_
Bosque ____ Libros ____
Radio
Otros
____ Prensa
____
Internet
____ Escuela
Cuáles: _________________________________
9. ¿Dónde vio por primera vez aquel animal?
Jardín casa
____
Bosque
____
TV
____ Libros
____
____
Radio
Otros
____ Prensa
____
TV
Internet
____ Escuela
Cuáles: __________________________________
10. ¿Sabe algo sobre la planta que le gusta?
Centro Educativo
____
____
Si
____ Radio
59
No
____ Prensa
¿Dónde lo aprendió?
____ Internet
____ Libros
Revistas
____ Amigos
____ Familia
____
Otros ___________________________
11. ¿Sabe algo sobre el animal que le gusta?
Centro Educativo
____
Revistas
____
____ Amigos
TV
Si
____ Radio
____ Familia
No
____ Prensa
____
¿Dónde lo aprendió?
____ Internet
____ Libros
Otros ____________________________
12. ¿Ha visitado alguna vez?
Parque Nacional Podocarpus
Bosque Seco Zapotillo
13. ¿Tiene Usted televisión? Si
No
Ninguno
Nacional
Cable
14. ¿Cuál es su canal y programa de televisión favorito?: ____________________________
15. ¿Cuántas horas al día ve televisión?
0-2
3-5
6-8
más de 8
16. ¿Qué clase de programas le gustaría que añadieran a su canal de Tv favorito?:
__________________________________________________________________________
17. ¿Ha visto recientemente programas sobre animales y plantas en la Tv? Si
No
¿En qué canal?: ___________________________________________________________
18. ¿Qué tan a menudo lee el periódico?
Nunca
De vez en cuando
Semanal
Todos los días
19. ¿Cuál es su periódico favorito y sección favorita?: ______________
______________
20. ¿Lee Ud. las secciones relacionadas con plantas?:
Si
No
A veces
21. ¿Lee Ud. las secciones relacionadas con animales?:
Si
No
A veces
22. ¿Está Ud. de acuerdo en que aparezcan más artículos sobre temas de plantas en el
periódico?
Si
No
¿Con qué frecuencia? Diario
semanal
mensual
anual
nunca
23. ¿Está Ud. de acuerdo en que aparezcan más artículos sobre temas de animales en el
periódico?
Si
No
¿Con qué frecuencia? Diario
semanal
24. ¿Tiene acceso frecuente a internet?
mensual
Si
anual
nunca
No
25. ¿Consulta sobre temas de plantas en internet?
Si
No
A veces
26. ¿Consulta sobre temas de animales en internet?
Si
No
A veces
27. ¿Lee revistas sobre plantas?
Si
No
60
¿Cuáles?: ________________________
¿Qué tan frecuente?
Diario
28. ¿Lee revistas sobre animales?
¿Qué tan frecuente?
Diario
Semanal
Si
No
Semanal
Quincenal
Mensual
Anual
A veces
¿Cuáles?: ________________________
Quincenal
Mensual
Anual
A veces
29. ¿Sabes Usted cuál es el único oso que habita en Sudamérica?: _________________________
30. ¿El Parque Nacional Podocarpus es un excelente regulador hídrico, sabe Usted por qué?
____________________________________________________________________________
31. ¿Sabe Usted para que son útiles los colibríes?____________________________________
32. ¿Sabe Usted por qué las plantas de los bosques nublados crecen a lo largo de todo el
año? _______________________________________________________________________
33. ¿Sabe Usted por qué los gusanos u orugas poseen diferentes adornos en sus cuerpos?
____________________________________________________________________________
61
SECOND PART
Mire las fotos en la tarjeta y responda a las siguientes preguntas
¿Cuál es la más usada?
A B C D E F G H I J
no sabe
ninguna
todas
¿Cuál es la más peligrosa? A B C D E F G H I J
no sabe
ninguna
todas
¿Cuál es la más bonita?
A B C D E F G H I J
no sabe
ninguna
todas
¿Cuál es la más fea?
A B C D E F G H I J
no sabe
ninguna
todas
¿Cuál ya no se encuentra tan fácilmente?
todas
A B C D E F G H I J
no sabe
ninguna
INDIQUE LOS NOMBRES Y PLANTAS PRESENTES EN LAS TARJETAS Y DIGA DE DÓNDE LAS
CONOCE.
Especie Nombre
Fuentes de Información
Centro TV Radio Prensa Internet Revistas Libros Amigos y Campo
Educativo
Familia
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
 Conoce el nombre de la especie
X
No conoce el nombre de la especie
No sabe
62
Otros
Appendix 3. Pictures of the Questionnaire
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
63
G.
H.
I.
J.
64
Appendix 4. Full list of favourite animals and plants
Animals (a)
Common name
Scientific name
Rufous Hornero
Furnarius rufus
Halcon
Falco peregrinus
Bear
Ursus sp.
Birds
-----Canary
Serinus Canarius
Capybara
Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris
Cat
Felis sp.
Chameleon
Chamaeleo chamaleon
Chicken
Gallus gallus
Condor
Vultur Griphus
Cow
Bos taurus
Pudu
Pudu pudu
Dog
Canis familiaris
Dolphin
Delphinus delphis
Donkey
Equus asinus
Dragonfly
Gomphus vulgatissimus
Duck
Anatidae
Eagle
Aguila crysateus
Fish
------Goat
Capra hircus
Guinea Pig
Cavia porcellus
Hen
Gallus gallus
Horse
Equus caballus
Hummingbird
Trochilidae
Jaguar
Panthera onca
Lion
Felis leo
Monkey
------Otter
Lutra lutra
Owl
bubo bubo
Panda Bear
Ailuropoda melanoleuca
Papagayo
Ara ararauna
Parrot
Pyrrhura sp.
Pig
Sus scrofa
Puma
Felis concolor
Rabbit
Oryctolagus cuniculus
Rooster
Gallus gallus
Sea Turtle
Chelonia mydas
Siberian Tiger
Panthera tigris altaica
Spectacled Bear
Tremarctos ornatus
Tiger
Panthera tigris
Toucan
Ramphastos sp.
Whale
-------Wolf
Canis lupus
Taxa
Achira
Alder
Aloe Vera
Amapole
Anthurium
Apple Tree
Aromatic plants
Arupo Tree
Avocado Tree
Bamboo
Banana Plant
Bean Plant
Big Trees
Bonsai Tree
Bromelia
Buganvilla
Cactus
Cannabis
Carnation
Carob Tree
Cedar
Cedron
Ceibo
Chala Piedra
Chamomille
Climbing Plant
Coconut Plant
Coffee Plant
Cononut Plant
Corn Plant
Costilla Cristo
Cucumber Plant
Dahlia
Eucaliptus
Faique
Fern
Ficus
Fruit trees
Geranium
Granada Tree
Guayacan
Hierba Luisa
Hortensia
Ivy
65
Plants (b)
Responses %
Canna indica L
Alnus glutinosa
Aloe arborescens Mill
Papaver rhoeas
Anthurium andreanum
Malus domestica
------Lonicera pubescens
Persea americana
Bambusa arundinacea
Musa sapientum
Pisum sativum
------------Bromelia balansae
Bougainvillea sp.
------Cannabis sativa
Dianthus caryophyllus
Prosopis nigra
Cedrela odorata
Aloysia triphylla
Ceiba trichistandra
------Matricaria chamomilla
------Cocos nucifera
Coffea arabica
Cocos nucifera
Zea mays
Monstera sp.
Cucumis sativus
Dahlia sp.
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Acacia macracantha
Equisetum arvense
------------Geranium sp.
Punica granatum
Caesalpinia paraguariensis
Aloysia triphylla
Hydrangea macrophylla
Hedera helix
Laurel
Lemon Tree
Lirium
Lotus Flower
Luma Tree
Mahogany
Mandarine Tree
Mango Tree
Manioc Plant
Daisy
Molle
Nispero Tree
Onion Plant
Orange tree
Orchid
Palm
Papaya Tree
Papelillo
Pasion Fruit Plant
Pena Pena
Perejil
Pine
Plum
Podocarpus
Rose
Rosemary
Sugarcane
Sunflower
Sweet Cucumber
Tamarind Tree
Teca
Tobaco Plant
Tomato Plant
Toronche Tree
Tulips
Venus
Vines
Violet
Watermelon Plant
Willow
66
Laurus nobilis
Citrus limonum
Iris germanica
Nelumbo nucifera
Luma apiculata
Cariniana sp.
Citrus nobilis
Mangifera indica
Yucca filamentosa
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Schinus poligamun
Mespilus germanica
Allium cepa
Citrus sinensis
Orchidaceae
Roystonea Regia
Carica papaya
-----Passiflora edulis
-----Petroselinum crispum
Pinus sp.
Prunus domestica
Podocarpus sp.
Rosa sp.
Rosmarinus officinalis
Saccharum officinarum
Helianthus annus
Solanum muricatum
Tamarindus indica
Tectona grandis
Nicotiana tabacum
Lycopersicum esculentum
Carica pentagona
Tulipa sp.
------Tulipa
Viola odorata
Citrullus lanatus
Salix alba
Appendix 5. Video Podocarpus National Park
67

Media influence on environmental perception and knowledge of

Transcription

Similar documents

• I was a guest on Late Night With David Letterman to promote

Beirut – Lebanon Tel: 00961-1- 484 150 Fax: 00961-1

bryce tolliver - Loyola College Prep

Study abroad in Ecuador - Summer 2016

colon fabricio velasquez vivanco professional skills software skills

THE 7 HABITS IN ECUADOR COLEGIO AMERICANO

BIO-C3 - Bonus

Water Ecuador Field Manual

Vol I, Issue 2 – April 22, 2016 - Good Shepherd Catholic Academy

EUR 22550 EN

The Enigmatic Evanescence of Coca from Ecuador