Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 25;19(7):e0307431. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307431. eCollection 2024.
Terrestrial and ocean ecosystems are increasingly under threat from an array of anthropogenic pressures. And while threats mount, how people view and value nature is changing. In the United States (U.S.) in particular, there is a shift away from viewing nature as something to 'dominate,' as evidenced in the decline in hunting. However, it is unclear if or how opinions around environmental issues and conservation need might differ when comparing ocean versus terrestrial ecosystems, especially given the prevalence and continued importance of wild capture fishing in the U.S. We employed two national parallel surveys, one focused on oceans, the other land, receiving responses from nearly every state in the U.S. (N = 1,973). While we found only slight, but statistically significant more concern for ocean habitats and animals over terrestrial ecosystems, this did not translate to increased willingness to monetarily support more ocean conservation actions. Using Random Forest models, we also found the best predictor of conservation need was feeling most impacted by environmental issues personally (self and/or community), regardless of ecosystem type. In fact, land versus sea (survey) had the lowest rank in the models, underscoring the importance of general nature-based interactions. Instead, the number of outdoor recreational activities was a highly ranked variable explaining the level of reported impact to self/community, with people who participate in 2 or more activities scoring higher levels of impact, on average. Notably, people who hunt and fish, versus only do one or the other, reported higher levels of impact and participated in more activities overall, providing a more nuanced finding regarding the nature 'dominance hypothesis.' Voting, not political affiliation, was also important in explaining responses, and governmental mechanisms to fund conservation were favored over voluntary. Overall, our results add to the strong existing literature that access and connection to nature is key, but uniquely broad connection may "float all boats," especially when diversified.
陆地和海洋生态系统正日益受到各种人为压力的威胁。随着威胁的增加,人们对自然的看法和价值观正在发生变化。特别是在美国,人们越来越不认为自然是可以“主宰”的,这从狩猎活动的减少就可以看出。然而,目前尚不清楚在比较海洋和陆地生态系统时,人们对环境问题和保护需求的看法是否存在差异,以及这种差异有多大,特别是考虑到在美国,野生捕捞仍然普遍存在且仍然非常重要。我们进行了两项全国性的平行调查,一项侧重于海洋,另一项侧重于陆地,调查收到了来自美国几乎每个州的回复(N = 1,973)。虽然我们发现人们对海洋栖息地和动物的关注比陆地生态系统略多,但这并不意味着他们更愿意为更多的海洋保护行动提供资金支持。我们还使用随机森林模型发现,个人(自身和/或社区)对环境问题感受的影响最大,这是保护需求的最佳预测指标,而与生态系统类型无关。事实上,陆地与海洋(调查)在模型中的排名最低,突显了一般基于自然的相互作用的重要性。相反,户外活动的数量是一个高度相关的变量,它解释了对自身/社区的报告影响程度,参与 2 项或更多活动的人平均得分更高。值得注意的是,狩猎和捕鱼的人,而不是只做一项或另一项的人,报告的影响水平更高,总体上参与的活动也更多,这为“自然主宰假说”提供了更细致的发现。投票,而不是政治派别,在解释回应方面也很重要,人们更倾向于通过政府机制为保护提供资金,而不是自愿捐款。总的来说,我们的研究结果增加了现有的有力文献,即接触和与自然的联系是关键,但独特的广泛联系可能“对所有人都有利”,尤其是当联系多样化时。