- Email: [email protected]
Understanding social knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards marine biodiversity: The case of tegnùe in Italy
Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Understanding social knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards marine biodiversity: The case of tegnùe in Italy Stefania Tonin*, Greti Lucaroni University Iuav of Venice, Department of Design and Planning in Complex Environments, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 20 June 2016 Received in revised form 15 February 2017 Accepted 22 February 2017 Available online 6 March 2017
The global decline of marine ecosystems may be partially ascribed to poor governance and to the lack of sustainable use and marine biodiversity conservation policy. Conservation success is strongly related to how people perceive marine biodiversity and those perceptions can change as a result of the accumulation of knowledge, the quality of the environment, and the appropriate and sustainable management of these areas. Engaging the targeted community in the process of promoting and planning safeguarding activities may also contribute to the acceptability and the dissemination of a shared culture of sustainability and a positive change in behavior. This study investigates people's knowledge, perceptions and feelings toward the protection and improvement of marine biodiversity of coralligenous areas in the North Adriatic Sea in Italy. Several focus groups were conducted in the major towns of the targeted area (N ¼ 107) to explore people's familiarity with marine biodiversity and ecosystem services, and to reveal their opinions and behaviours for certain protection strategies, such as the marine protected area (MPA). We found that coralligenous habitats are not very well known among the general people; in fact, only 42% of respondents had previously heard about biodiversity in these habitats. However, participants agreed that they provide important environmental services that benefit human wellbeing. Moreover, we found that 80% of respondents had heard before of MPA, and the majority of them were in favor of supporting interventions and policies to protect these areas. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Marine biodiversity People's perception and attitude Focus group Marine habitat management
1. Introduction Coastal and marine ecosystems provide goods and services that are essential for our well-being (Beaumont et al., 2008). However, they are strongly dependent on biodiversity (Schwartz et al., 2000), which makes them extremely vulnerable to environmental change (Nunes and van den Bergh, 2001). Human activities are degrading the quality of marine biodiversity and thus diminishing the ability of marine ecosystems to provide goods and services (Worm et al., 2006; Petrosillo et al., 2007). The observed global deterioration of marine biodiversity has resulted in a worldwide demand for changing the way the resources of oceans and seas are managed and conserved. Scholars agree that the governmental strategies implemented until now have failed to deliver sustainable use of these resources and to ensure marine biodiversity conservation in many regions of the world (Beaumont et al., 2008; Brooks et al., 2006).
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Tonin). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.02.019 0964-5691/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Recent studies have found that biodiversity conservation success is often grounded in local population support, which in turn is strongly influenced by the perception of these resources and the effects that are experienced by local communities (Schultz, 2011; Jefferson et al., 2014). The challenge is to understand how to engage society and stakeholders in supporting biodiversity conservation strategies and sustainable behavior. This new approach to informing society on the importance of marine biodiversity conservation implies a strengthening of the positive connections between society and the sea (Jefferson et al., 2014). Empirical studies demonstrate that policies and activities are necessary to improve the relationship between public managers and communities and between socioeconomic and conservation outcomes (Abecasis et al., 2013; Atkins et al., 2011). Individual's attitudes are here defined as “psychological tendency expressed by evaluating the natural environment with some degree of favor or disfavor.” (Milfont and Duckitt, 2010). How the local community and users perceive marine biodiversity is fundamental for the social acceptance of any conservation policy and for monitoring and evaluating the effects of these policies (Paterson et al., 2011).
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
Since perceptions and attitudes towards marine ecosystem management play an important role in any conservation actions, it is fundamental to figure out how this ecosystem works. However, the functioning of marine ecosystems may be more difficult to understand than terrestrial ones due in part to what has been described as the “spatial and cognitive disconnection between society and the sea” (Jefferson et al., 2014). The marine environment is perceived by people living in cities or inland areas as being far away and thus its benefits, services, and impacts appear distant. On the contrary, Ahtiainen et al., 2012 demonstrated that citizens of coastal countries have positive attitude and perception towards improving the state of the resource and biodiversity conservation. In particular Newig and Fritsch (2009) underline the spatial relevance regarding stakeholders' perceptions, meaning that people living in proximity to a natural resource tend to favor its economic use, whereas those living at a greater distance tend to favor resource conservation. Finally, coastal residents reveal a deep connection to the marine environment in terms of different values such as aesthetics, lifestyle, and cultural identity. Marine environment is strictly connected with human activities, and the close interaction with man determines a variety of negative impacts in a range of temporal and spatial scales (Halpern et al., 2008). For all these reasons, we think that studies on the attitudes and perceptions of local communities are necessary to improve understanding of people's needs and aspirations and to reveal their ideas, opinions, and suggestions on how to protect the marine ecosystem. To our knowledge, there are few studies in the literature that consider people's perceptions and attitudes toward marine biodiversity and ecosystem quality, even if it is possible to find some papers related to marine environment (Hynes et al., 2014; Jefferson et al., 2014; Jacobs et al., 2015), fisheries (Alexander et al., 2013; Barley Kincaid et al., 2014; Barley Kincaid and Rose, 2014) and marine management options (Gelcich et al., 2009; Pita et al., 2013; McAuliffe et al., 2014; Masud et al., 2014; Engel et al., 2014; Giglio et al., 2015). Jefferson et al. (2014) highlights that the majority of these studies regard coastal or littoral marine ecosystems, where the high levels of biodiversity are strongly threatened by human presence and the effects of economic activities. In these areas, marine resource management assumes greater significance both for local stakeholders and government (Foster et al., 2011); consequently, we have closely examined and identified factors that may facilitate an effective marine resource management. This paper aims to address the research gap mentioned before by investigating the role of people's knowledge, perceptions and feelings toward the protection and/or improvement of biodiversity in a particular marine ecosystem, i.e., a coralligenous area locally named tegnùa in the North Adriatic sea in Italy. This marine ecosystem is also the case study analyzed in a wider EU project (http://www.life-ghost.eu) whose aim is to assess the impact of the so-called “abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gears” (ALDFG) on biodiversity and to promote concrete measures for the restoration of an optimal environmental quality. The objectives of this current study were (i) to understand people's knowledge about coralligeneous habitat and its biodiversity; (ii) to gather information on the attitudes of general people toward marine biodiversity; (iii) to identify the perceived impacts and ecosystems services associated with coralligenous habitat; and (iv) to investigate people's perception toward marine protected area as a strategy tool for its conservation. Focus groups were organized among citizens of four different Italian cities (Venice, Bari, Rome, and Livorno). In what follows, Section 2 will briefly review previous studies on people's perceptions toward marine biodiversity. Section 3 will introduce the case study and the methodology adopted. Section 4
69
will explain and discuss the results, and Section 5 will end the paper with some conclusions. 2. Previous studies that have examined perceptions and attitudes toward marine ecosystems and marine biodiversity Studies about attitudes and perception toward marine ecosystem and marine biodiversity are valuable due to their ability to increase awareness and to understand the existing beliefs regarding conservation efforts. The analysis of the existing scientific literature has the additional objectives of understanding which factors may influence marine biodiversity perception and how to increase society's knowledge and people's involvement in this issue. Moreover, through the review of the literature it is possible to understand which aspects of marine biodiversity have been previously examined and those still missing or underestimated, which methodological approaches have been utilized by researches and how to organize our own work on this field. To our knowledge, the first study that specifically considers the perception of marine biodiversity is a research project supported by Cobham Resource Consultants in 1996 regarding the attitudes and perceptions of Scottish people toward their marine environment. The study, based on literature review and an original survey, found that stakeholders appear to have a restricted understanding of biodiversity and of the importance of marine biodiversity but had a better knowledge of some negative environmental externalities related to the marine environment, such as pollution, waste disposal, and overfishing damage. Later, Suman et al. (1999), within a broader survey regarding the management plan of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, introduced the concept that different stakeholders hold different positions and perceptions toward biodiversity conservation activities and underlined the relevance of taking into account all the decisive groups in society for an effective management of biodiversity resources. In particular, the authors found that the main differences in stakeholder perceptions were principally attributed to the diverse ecosystem services they enjoyed in a consumptive or non-consumptive way; that is, in a way that determined whether or not there was a physical reduction of natural capital. A correct stakeholder analysis provides significant information on what the stakeholders want, who they interact with and how, and what problems they are experiencing related to marine biodiversity. Spash (2002) published a very seminal work in the economic valuation field in which he highlights how cognitive and social psychology provides potential insight into the information and preference formation process in the economic valuation of coral reef biodiversity. In a previous paper (1997), the author had already recognized that environmental attitudes and ethical beliefs were found to affect people's willingness to pay for. Later, Spash (2009) reaffirmed that perceptions and attitudes offer a better understanding of value formation, especially for policy purposes. The paper extended the standard contingent valuation method to the theory of planned behavior, using measures of attitudes and perceptions to assess the validity and reliability of willingness to pay a bid. Knowledge is another important element to consider in explaining people's perceptions and attitudes. For example, Steel et al. (2005) administered a national survey on public literacy about ocean and revealed that the people in the state of Oregon in the US felt they were not well informed about environmental issues and had very little knowledge of oceans and coastal areas. One might expect higher levels of knowledge concerning oceans and coastal management issues among those citizens who frequently visit or live in coastal areas for either recreational or commercial purposes and among those who have strong attitudes about ocean
70
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
and coastal management issues. The paper found that coastal residents are slightly more “well-grounded” than those living in noncoastal areas, but both coastal and non-coastal respondents showed some uncertainty when asked to answer specific questions or to explain particular terms concerning their familiarity with the ocean and coastal resources and their subjective or objective knowledge of these issues. The results obtained demonstrated that people in the US have a low level of knowledge about ocean and coastal issues, and for this reason, better information should be provided in a more effective manner. In Europe, Potts et al. (2011) recently explored the perceptions of lay people regarding the marine environment in seven countries (UK, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland) as part of KnowSeas EU project and found that people have a good understanding of marine resources and are relatively aware of the many benefits derived from marine ecosystem services. However, Potts et al. emphasized that the general public and the scientific community had differing perceptions of the marine problem. In relation to this difference in perceptions, Foster et al. (2011) interviewed informed stakeholders, i.e., people engaged in environmental policy or governance in the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs), in order to investigate their perception of marine biodiversity in their islands and to identify the main short-term and long-term threats to the marine environment. The results highlighted the delicate environmental status of the Caribbean areas and the decline of marine ecosystem health in these areas, which are not adequately supported by appropriate legislation and financial aid. Perception of environmental goods may be positive or negative, while perceptions of marine biodiversity quality and marine ecosystem governance and management are generally negative (McCay and Jones, 2011; McKinley and Fletcher, 2012; Baral and Heinen, 2007). This is because people generally do not have a good opinion about issues concerning marine ecosystems: people perceive marine ecosystems as polluted or not well preserved or they think that biodiversity conservation requires significant costs. A negative perception stimulates negative behaviors toward the environment and local people do not support or participate in protection activity; on the other hand, a positive perception procures the support of local people, stimulates environment-friendly behaviors, reinforces cooperation with the conservation management of marine ecosystems, and ensures an effective policy implementation (Cihar and Stankova, 2006). For these reasons, policy makers should strengthen the positive perceptions that people already have by increasing the level of public awareness; in the case of negative perceptions, they should work to mitigate them and to increase the knowledge of marine biodiversity and marine ecosystem services. Other scholars analyzed the role of proximity to explain the different attitudes toward environmental resources in general and found that people living in proximity to a natural resource tend to favor its economic use, whereas those living at a greater distance tend to support resource conservation (Newig and Fritsch, 2009). However, in general, coastal residents reveal a strong connection to the marine environment in terms of aesthetics, lifestyle, and cultural identity (Abecasis et al., 2013). The direct use of the resource and the proximity to the marine environment positively affect the level of perception, the level of involvement, and the attitude toward the preservation of marine biodiversity (Jefferson et al., 2014; Engel et al., 2014). Local support and the commitment of citizens to protect the environment are essential for safeguarding biodiversity, and the positive perception of local communities toward biodiversity conservation is strictly correlated with the management strategy ^ et al., 2010; Booth et al., 2009; Trenouth et al., provided (Vodouhe
2012). Biodiversity perception is not uniform across the population and such diversity may affect the different methods used to catalyze societal engagement with marine conservation. Again, we can say that those who never visit the coast or engage in coastal activities demonstrate disinterest toward marine conservation issues (Jefferson et al., 2014). Other studies have examined the attitudes, perceptions, and preferences of individuals regarding marine protected areas (MPA) as a management tool for marine conservation. Stump and Kriwoken (2006) conducted structured interviews with Tasmanian commercial fishers to elicit perceptions and attitudes towards MPA strategy and to identify the key issues that influence fisher support or opposition to it. They found that a correct use of MPAs as a management tool needs the adoption of a holistic approach. The majority of fishers interviewed stated that they can give conditional support for an expansion of the number of MPAs if able to sustain or increase fish populations, support scientific research, allow fishing in multiple use areas, and if multiple use areas contained small ‘no-take’ zones. Similarly, Leleu et al. (2012) investigates the value of fishers' perceptions as indicators of social acceptance and compliance in a north-western Mediter^te Blue. Their study showed ranean MPA, the Parc Marin de la Co that MPA acceptance improves when fishers are directly involved in MPA establishment and management. In another part of the world, in Scotland, Pita et al. (2013) interviewed fishers to measure their opinions about MPA, state of resources, fisheries regulation, conflicts, and current and future fisheries management measures. Mangi and Austen (2008) investigated the perceptions of stakeholders towards objectives and zoning of MPAs in southern Europe. They found that most stakeholders think that MPAs can offer more conservation than fisheries benefits. Moreover, their results show that people have strong preference for MPAs that present mixed use-zonations: from recreational fishing to diving and the full protection of species and ecosystems. A survey to different stakeholders, living close to a MPA in Tasmania, was administered by Trenouth et al. (2012) with the purpose to understand if the connection between demographic and social factors with environmental awareness can provide valuable insight to improve MCPA management. Abecasis et al. (2013) used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to understand the community and local stakeholders' attitudes and expectations towards MPAs as instrument for marine conservation in the Azores Archipelago. They found strong local support for MPAs and that shared vision on marine values can contribute to MPA success. Benett and Dearden, 2014 examined respondents' perception of the MPA impacts on neighbouring communities on the Andaman Coast of Thailand as well as perceptions of governance and management processes. They found that Conservation outcomes were perceived quite mixed for marine environments. Opinions of Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation governance and management were quite negative. Moreover, they found that there is little incentive for local people to participate in, or support, conservation. Finally, people's attitudes and perceptions are influenced by demographic and socioeconomic conditions, such as their level of education and their geographical origin (see, for example, Badola et al., 2012; Abecasis et al., 2013; Jefferson et al., 2014; and Engel et al., 2014). To conclude, to our knowledge, no previous research on this topic has been undertaken in Italy and the review of the literature presented in this Section highlighted that the issue of marine biodiversity, and its many aspects, is still not well known outside the technical and scientific expert's sphere. Moreover, our study
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
investigates the issues, previously introduced, inviting respondents to discuss the circumscribed topics, and not as part of wider discussion or questionnaire. The literature review was helpful to design the questionnaire used in focus group rounds and to support the findings of the empirical research. 3. Materials ad methods The present work is part of a broader EU Life project regarding the economic valuation of an improvement in marine biodiversity in the tegnùe area of the Veneto Region. In this paper, we will describe the results of a preliminary work undertaken to better understanding the attitudes and perceptions of people toward biodiversity. We used focus group methodology, which is considered as an important tool in questionnaire design and testing (Malhotra, 1996), to explore a new research area that is difficult to observe. In particular, the purpose was to reveal the extent to which lay people are in favor of restoring and enhancing the biodiversity in the tegnùe ecosystem and to explore people's preferences for biodiversity conservation instruments and policies. 3.1. Case study 3.1.1. Location and general description The study area (Fig. 1) is a coralligenous habitat locally named “Tegnùe” and located in the North Adriatic sea of Italy along the coast, from the mouth of the river Brenta to Grado in front of the Lagoon of Venice. The word “tegnùe” derives from the Venetian dialect and means “hold” because since ancient times, fishermen have experienced frequent loss of their nets and fishing gears, which remain trapped in the irregularities of the rocks (Casellato et al., 2006). The tegnùe are submarine rocky substrates, a specific habitat similar to coral reefs with dense and diversified benthic communities. The dimensions of these outcrops vary widely; their distribution is discontinuous, from a few m2 up to a few km2; and they have an elevation from the bottom ranging from a few decimeters up to some tens of meters in the case of those located at greater
71
depths. While the existence of this particular ecosystem has been known among local fishermen since the eighteenth century, it was documented by underwater explorations only 40 years ago (Newton and Stefanon, 1975). The rocky habitats evidence high geological and biological variability and are important for their exceptional biodiversity and their fundamental role in the coastal ecosystem (Casellato et al., 2005). The ecological and environmental role played by the tegnùe is unique because in addition to being true oases of biodiversity, they are naturally protected areas against bottom trawl fishing. They offer refuge and reproduction sites for a large number of fish and invertebrate species. Research studies carried out over the last few years in the Adriatic sea have underlined the scientific importance of this rocky habitat and permitted the discovery of many zoobenthic species, some of which are now considered rare and are therefore protected in Italian seas (Casellato et al., 2006). In particular, a recent survey carried out in fifty sites within the framework of the EU Life Project found that about 740 species of fish and macro-zoobenthic communities colonize the area of the tegnùe. Among the species observed, 12 appear to be on the list of protected species and 97 have a commercial interest (Nesto et al., 2014). The map in Fig. 1 above is the result of a recent survey of the main tegnùe locations. While the exact number is still unknown, it is claimed to be more than 3000 for the Veneto Region alone (Casellato et al., 2007). The survey of these areas was also helpful to better identify the types of ALDFG that most significantly affected the tegnùe. Tegnùe and coral reefs belong to the same family and perform the same functions and environmental servicesdalbeit on a different dimensional scale and with a different intensity. Coral reefs play a relevant role on a global scale because they influence the oceans, whereas the tegnùe areas have a local but nonetheless important role limited to the Adriatic sea. In particular, these ecosystems, besides being a refugee for numerous sponges, molluscs, and fishes, have productive and informative functions and also perform an important role in relation to regulation processes, the nutrient cycle, and waste treatment. However, these ecosystems have a limited function in sediments retention and erosion control
Fig. 1. Location of the tegnùe areas in Venice, Italy.
72
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
since they are located at a greater depth than coral reefs and are not continuous but instead appear as small islands. Finally, tegnùe ecosystems provide a climate and gas regulation function like every marine ecosystem, even if the benefit intensity is significant only for the existence of the habitat itself (Fondazione Musei Civici e Arpav, 2010). Table 1 summarizes the main environmental and ecological functions and services provided by the tegnùe areas. Habitats similar to tegnùe have been localized in Southeast Florida, the FrencheItalian Riviera, Corsica, Croatia, the northern Baltic areas, the Oslo Fjords, and Greenland (Casellato et al., 2007). In Italy, coralligeneous habitats are located in Sardinia, the Sicilian islands, along the southern Italian coasts, the Tyrrhenian, and the Adriatic coast (Giaccone, 2007) (see Fig. 2). Unfortunately, the coralligneous areas are currently experiencing a loss of biodiversity as a consequence of human activities, such as overfishing and environmental contamination. In particular, among the causes of negative impact on the local biodiversity, the loss of fishing equipment (e.g., nets, traps, metal tools) is a serious and ongoing problem. The ALDFG cause considerable damage to the natural environment, including the destruction of nursery areas and the accidental entanglement of marine protected species. In general, the main threats recognized in the tegnùe area are the degradation due to waste water, the damage caused by destructive fishing methods, the negative impact of divers' activities, the effects of the invasion of alien species, non-sustainable tourist practices, water turbidity, and alluvial sediments (Ballesteros, 2006). 3.2. The focus groups We organized 13 focus groups in four different Italian cities between February 2014 and September 2015: Venice, Rome, Livorno, and Bari (see Table 2). In addition to Venice where the case study is based, we selected other cities with the aim of investigating people's altruism in supporting restoration interventions in marine areas located in other regions and took into account various individual characteristics in terms of attitudes, income, education, culture, and geography (from the North to the South of Italy). In total, we selected 107 participants from the abovementioned four cities with the help of a professional marketing research firm. In particular, we asked to select eight people per group who were representative of the local population in terms of gender, profession, educational level, and age. Moreover, we asked to involve at least one person who practiced fishing or diving activity. All the focus groups took place in the evening; the participants were informed that the scope of the study would be marine biodiversity in Northern Adriatic Sea. The sessions lasted 90 min
and were conducted under the supervision of a moderator and two-notes takers. Moreover, each session was video-recorder and the full transcripts were used as an input for the analysis. In each focus group, we asked participants to complete time-bytime small parts of a pre-designed questionnaire, divided by topic, then, together with a moderator, they were solicited to discuss their answers and exchange opinions. The questionnaire included several topics: in the first part, participants were asked about their feelings and beliefs toward marine areas and in particular, how often they go to the sea; what they do and what they think about the quality of the marine areas they visited; and how this quality can affect their activities. Then we asked about people's knowledge regarding marine biodiversity and about the reasons they would like to protect it and how. In the third part, we introduced the issue of coralligenous areas, such as tegnùe habitats, to identify their direct and indirect knowledge of this ecosystem. We were also interested in understanding people's familiarity with and awareness of the wide variety of species living in this coralligenous area and their perception of the environmental services and goods provided by such areas. Gradually, we introduced the problem of biodiversity degradation and the main threats to this habitat, asking our interviewees for opinions, personal experiences, and even possible solutions. Indeed, we proposed some potential instruments and policies to protect biodiversity in these habitats and we challenged our respondents to express which of those actions would be the best option for safeguarding and improving the quality of the coralligenous areas, such as the tegnùe. In particular, we proposed to our respondents to think about the creation of a marine protected area (MPA) and to reveal their perception toward MPAs and their effectiveness as a biodiversity conservation tool. Moreover, we wanted to test the levels of support for this policy and to identify people's preferences for who should manage and plan the MPA. The questionnaire then ended with the usual sociodemographic questions. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Sample demographics The average age of the participants was 39, and 51% of our respondents were male. The average annual household income was approximately V24,486.37 (std. dev 17,516.09), which is lower than the national average (V30,500, Banca d’Italia, 2015). Almost 55% of our sample had a high school diploma and 33% had a college degree (the statistics for the entire Italian population are 57% and 20%,
Table 1 Services provided by tegnùe areas. Ecosystem services classification
Tegnùe ecosystem services
Description
Provisioning services
Food provision Raw materials Lifecycle maintenance Nutrient cycling
Fish and other seafood products The extraction of any material from coastal/marine environments for all purposes except human consumption. The contribution of a particular habitat to migratory species' populations through the provision of an essential habitat for reproduction and juvenile maturation. The contribution of the biotic elements of a coastal/marine ecosystem to regulate the flows and concentrations of nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, through a number of complex processes. The contribution of the biotic elements of a coastal/marine ecosystem to the maintenance of a favorable climate via their impact on the hydrological cycle and their contribution to the climate-influencing substances in the atmosphere. Removal of pollutants through storage, dilution, transformation, and burial. The provision of opportunities for recreation and leisure that depend on a particular state of marine/coastal ecosystems.
Habitat services Regulating services
Climate regulation
Cultural services
Waste treatment Leisure and recreation Cultural heritage and The contribution that a coastal/marine ecosystem makes to cultural heritage and identity. This includes the importance of identity marine/coastal environments in cultural traditions and folklore.
€hnke-Henrichs et al. (2013). Source: The researcher's own elaboration based on Bo
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
73
Fig. 2. Distribution of coralligenous habitats in Italy.
Table 2 Respondents' sociodemographic characteristics.
Average annual household income Average age College degree High school diploma Employed Family members (n) Average distance from the sea (km) Recreational purpose
Bari (N ¼ 17)
Livorno (N ¼ 18)
Roma (N ¼ 16)
Venezia (N ¼ 56)
24,118.03 (17,137.92) 39.41 (13.08) 0.35 (0.49) 0.53 (0.51) 0.59 (0.51) 2.88 (0.99) 8.47 (5.73) 0.88 (0.33)
20,278.14 (9467.20) 37.00 (13,35) 0.33 (0.49) 0.39 (0.50) 0.83 (0.38) 2.89 (1.13) 7.06 (3.81) 0.66 (0.48)
23,906.59 (19,684.56) 41.94 (14.05) 0.37 (0.50) 0.50 (0.52) 0.94 (0.25) 3.06 (1.06) 11.00 (4.34) 0.81 (0.40)
26,116.48 (19,074.85) 39.37 (12.06) 0.30 (0.46) 0.62 (0.49) 0.70 (0.46) 3.19 (1.11) 7.41 (2.78) 0.96 (0.20)
respectively). Table 2 shows the main descriptive statistics for each city. Participants lived within an average of 8 km from the sea. Eighty-four percent of respondents went to the sea for recreational purposes and 43% always go to the beach, including during the summer and the winter. 4.2. Participants' views, attitudes and knowledge about marine biodiversity The perceived environmental quality of marine areas among
respondents that always go to the beach was quite satisfying (50%); only 5% were “not at all” satisfied. Respondents from Livorno and Bari were more satisfied with the quality of their sea (the percentage of “very satisfied” was 33% and 44%, respectively). However, 67% of respondents affirmed they would go to the sea more often if the environmental quality of the water was improved. Almost 70% of participants had already heard about the issue of “marine biodiversity” but only 26% knows what it meas. The knowledge increases with people's level of education and income. In terms of the general quality of Italian marine biodiversity, 34% of respondents deemed it “good” (36% think it is “enough good”),
74
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
while 8% considered it “bad.” When asked to compare the quality of the Italian marine biodiversity with that of the other Mediterranean areas, 30% judged it as identical, but almost 40% of participants thought that it is worse. The negative perception of Italian marine biodiversity compared to Mediterranean marine biodiversity was stronger among people living in Bari and Livorno, where the quality of the sea is generally assessed as good. Next, we asked participants to choose the most relevant reason why marine biodiversity is important; food supply, sustainable development, and scientific research scope were the most selected items. Our respondents affirmed that science and research in general allow having a better knowledge of the environment, and the sustainable development is intended as a mean to realize and develop human activities in respect of the nature. Safeguarding biodiversity plays an important role in protecting human health. In coastal areas, there are many activities related to the sea and these activities can play an important role for local people and may help in developing a better understanding of the people's bond with the sea environment. Thus, respondents were asked to rank (from 1 to 3) the activities related to the Italian sea in terms of their personal importance. Respondents ranked “recreational activities and tourism” as the first most important activity, which was especially true for those participants living in a “sea city” (Bari, Livorno, and even Venice) where these activities are one of the primary sources of income. As already demonstrated by Abecasis et al. (2013) people leaving in close proximity to the sea revealed a deep connection to it, in terms of economic and cultural value. Moreover, participants declared that “sustainable tourism has to be incentivated, but not in disrespectful way.” The second most important reason was “educational activities and scientific research” because “people need to be educated about respecting the sea and the environment”, and again “people have to reflect that if humanity does not respect the sea, there will be severe damages for us and for the future generations.” Fig. 3 illustrates the results of this question. 4.3. Awareness and views regarding functions and services of coralligeneous areas We observed that a remarkable quota of our participants (58%) had never heard of biodiversity in coralligeneous areas. In Venice, only 46% of participants (26 out of 56) had already heard about
tegnùe; as a result, very few people had some personal, direct, or indirect experience of this habitat (such as through diving, watching a documentary, attending conferences and workshops on this issue, etc.). Because this was an expected result, the questionnaire provided basic information for understanding the coralligenous habitat, the variety of species hosted by it, and the known threats. People during the discussion and the sharing of opinions revealed their surprise in believing that such a variety of biodiversity could be found in the Italian Adriatic sea, which is generally perceived as a polluted, low-quality sea. All participants agreed that a coralligenous ecosystem also has many vital functions and provides important environmental services and goods. Above all, 36% of participants indicated the habitat for resident and transient species as the most important service provided by this ecosystem. The reason they gave can be summarized as follows: “protecting this ecosystem means protecting our life too.” Fig. 4 shows respondents' perceptions of the importance of the services we mentioned in the questionnaire. The different locations do not present statistical significant difference between the means when checked with anova statistics. Only the item related to cultural activities shows a statistical significant difference between the means of the different groups. In Venice, people chose with more intensity cultural activity as an important coralligenous service to improve (17% in Venice and 9% in the rest of the cities). The coralligenous area, and the tegnùe habitat in particular, is a delicate and vulnerable environment that is threatened in different ways. We told participants that some human activities and natural phenomena can have negative effects on the environment of the coralligenous area and we invited them to rank the three most damaging activities/phenomena. Results show that 32% of respondents ranked human activities in general first (respondents specified: “humans are the cause of all damages to the environment” or “human activities encompass all other causes”), while 24% chose the industrial wastewater treatment and an additional 24% of the respondents chose the commercial fishing activities. In relation to the most damaging activities chosen by participants, the analysis of variance shows that there is statistical difference between the means for each of geographical location groups (F ¼ 20.7 with Prob > F ¼ 0.000). We were also interested in understanding people's opinions toward the main instruments and policies for reducing the decline of biodiversity and the environmental damage to the coralligenous
Fig. 3. Sea-related activities.
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
75
Fig. 4. Functions and services of coralligenous ecosystem.
area. Among the main alternative actions to preserve marine biodiversity, participants favored the imposition of stricter rules on those economic sectors that negatively impact biodiversity (37.8%), the creation of a marine protected area (27%), and the provision of more information about the importance of marine biodiversity. The results are shown in Fig. 5. Analogously to other likert scale questions, we tried to understand if there was statistical difference among the four geographical location using the analysis of variance. We found that only the item related to “allocate more financial resources to the implementation of policy to protecting marine biodiversity” is statistically significant different between the means for each of the groups (F ¼ 24.57 with prob > F ¼ 0.000). The majority of people from Livorno and Roma selected this item as an important action to preserve marine biodiversity (46% and 56% respectively and 15% on average for the other cases). In literature, MPAs are considered important tools for marine conservation (Abecasis et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2016) and are an important component of the ecosystem-based approach to conserving marine resources (Angulo-Valdes and Hatcher, 2010;
Carcamo et al., 2014). Several rounds of focus groups revealed that our participants considered MPAs as an important instrument to preserve marine biodiversity too. Thus, we asked participants to select which effect related to the creation of a new MPA they deemed as the most important. We found that 88% of respondents considered the “protection and conservation of biodiversity along the sea and coastal areas belonging to the MPA” as the most important effect. Most of the participants supported the creation of an MPA and 90% of them were willing to pay an entry ticket to visit the area. Moreover, 76% of respondents were well disposed to donate money to help preservation in other marine areas of the Adriatic sea. This altruistic attitude is the basis for also considering the indirect-use values of biodiversity, i.e., the resources that are not directly used in a consumption or production activity, but which still provide value (OECD, 2001). Finally, we asked respondents to choose who should manage and plan an MPA. Participants were more inclined to select research centers or environmental organizations to manage the MPA than central government and local administrations. For these options, there is no statistical difference among the four cities, however
Fig. 5. Actions to preserve marine biodiversity.
76
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
option such as Region and Local Institution present statistical significant difference between the means for each of the groups. People from Venice demonstrated more trust in local institution and Region in comparison with the other three cities. In general, participants demonstrated distrust and disappointment in government (central and local), possibly as a result of the current political crisis in Italy. In addition, participants affirmed that the management of MPA should be entrusted to scientists or researchers because they have the necessary expertise. The results of this question are illustrated in Fig. 6. 5. Conclusions The concept of marine biodiversity is very well known in scientific, expert, and academic circles, but is poorly understood among the general public. Nevertheless, the support of local people is fundamental for the widespread acceptance of conservation efforts and safeguarding policies meant to protect marine biodiversity, including coralligenous biodiversity. Importantly, this support is strongly influenced by people's perceptions, motivations, and awareness levels towards their marine resources. There has been little systematic investigation regarding citizens' viewpoints concerning marine environments in general and marine biodiversity in particular. The present study aimed to fill that gap by analyzing the understanding and perceptions of Italian residents towards the importance of marine biodiversity, healthy ecosystems, and the benefits provided by healthy marine environments. During the course of the research, we also aimed to increase participants' knowledge about the functions and benefits of marine biodiversity to allow for a better understanding of the policies and instruments that can guarantee the effective conservation of a specific marine habitat that is rich in biodiversity. Indeed, the local population's perceptions and attitudes are important to conservation efforts, as they underpin the ways that people interpret and engage with environmental issues. An accurate understanding of biodiversity among a target audience is useful for identifying the numerous reasons that might influence individuals to accept conservation policies, to adopt personal behaviors to preserve marine ecosystems, and to promote community engagement. There is growing evidence that communications and education have a strong impact on the protection of natural resources and on
long-term environmental sustainability, including in marine environments. However, creating change at the individual and community levels requires a significant effort, not only to convey and expand upon correct scientific information, but also to understanddand then tap intodwhat moves people on an emotional and practical level. Thus, the first step in this research was to learn more about both the social and educational contexts within which the issues of marine environments, marine biodiversity, and coralligenous biodiversity are rooted. Our results showed that while the majority of participants judged the quality of the marine environments around the Italian coasts to be “good” or “good enough,” almost 40% of participants were of the opinion that marine biodiversity in Italy is worse than in other Mediterranean areas. This negative perception is stronger among people living in a coastal city, where the attachment to the sea is deep because of economic and cultural values. The outcomes of focus group discussions and questionnaires confirm our previous hypothesis that coralligenous habitats are not very well understood among the general people; in fact, only 42% of respondents had previously heard about biodiversity in these habitats. However, participants did demonstrate a good comprehension of the different topics explained in the questionnaire and discussed in the focus groups. In particular, they agreed that coralligenous habitats provide important environmental services and products (i.e., ecosystem services) that benefit human wellbeing; for this reason, they were in favor of supporting interventions and policies to protect these areas. For example, people strongly agreed with the establishment of a marine park. They were also firmly convinced that the best managing authorities would be environmental organizations or research institutions rather than the central or regional government. This particular result highlights a general mistrust among Italian people towards their central and regional governments, while also showing their preferences for the local expert management of their natural resources. The results also suggested that the good environmental quality of marine areas is important for stimulating positive behaviors and incentivizing the frequency of the local population's direct experiences with its marine resources. Moreover, we also found that people living in coastal cities highly value the recreational and touristic activities offered by their marine locations, demonstrating a strong and direct bond between a region's marine resources and the availability of opportunities to improve the welfare of nearby
Fig. 6. AMP management.
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
residents. Notably, the results of this study can be used by policy makers to enhance local populations' awareness and knowledge about these habitats through educational campaigns in order to encourage better personal conservation behaviors and to change behaviors that harm marine biodiversity, including coralligenous biodiversity. In fact, we learned that people not only need, but also want, more information on these important habitats, and that they want to have special education programs on this topic, especially for children. This public will is a very optimistic sign for our marine environments, for social change is not a linear process; it starts slowly and requires many investments (i.e., money, time, etc.), but then suddenly it reaches a turning point and the desired change begins to become evident throughout all levels of society. Acknowledgements “This work was supported by the European Commission under Grant LIFE12BIO/IT/00556.” References Abecasis, R.C., Schmidt, L., Longnecker, N., Clifton, J., 2013. Implications of community and stakeholder perceptions of the marine environment and its conservation for MPA management in a small Azorean island. Ocean Coast. Manag. 84, 208e219. € m, L., Hyyti€ Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Czajkowski, M., Hasler, B., Hasselstro ainen, K., €derqvist, T., Zimmer, K., 2012. Public preferences Meyerhoff, J., Smart, J., So regarding use and condition of the Baltic Sea e an international comparison informing marine policy. Mar. Policy 42, 20e30. Alexander, K.A., Wilding, T.A., Heymans, J.J., 2013. Attitudes of Scottish fishers towards marine renewable energy. Mar. Policy 37, 239e244. Angulo-Valdes, J.A., Hatcher, B.G., 2010. A new typology of benefits derived from marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 34, 635e644. Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Gregory, A.J., 2011. Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (2), 215e226. Badola, R., Barthwal, S., Hussain, S.A., 2012. Attitudes of local communities towards conservation of mangrove forests: a case study from the east coast of India. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 96, 188e196. Ballesteros, E., 2006. Mediterranean coralligenous assemblages: a synthesis of present knowledge. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 44, 123e195. Banca d’Italia, 2015. I bilanci delle famiglie italiane nell’anno 2014. Available from: https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/indagine-famiglie/bil-fam2014/ suppl_64_15.pdf. Baral, N., Heinen, J.T., 2007. Resources use, conservation attitudes, management intervention and park-people relations in the Western Terai Landscape of Nepal. Environ. Conserv. 34, 64e72. Barley Kincaid, K., Rose, G., Mahudi, H., 2014. Fishers' perception of a multiple-use marine protected area: why communities and gear users differ at Mafia Island, Tanzania. Mar. Policy 43, 226e235. Barley Kincaid, K., Rose, G., 2014. Why fishers want a closed area in their fishing grounds: exploring perceptions and attitudes to sustainable fisheries and conservation 10 years post closure in Labrador, Canada. Mar. Policy 46, 84e90. Beaumont, N.J., Austen, M.C., Mangi, S.C., Townsend, M., 2008. Economic valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 386e396. Benett, N., Dearden, P., 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Mar. Policy 44, 107e116. €hnke-Henrichs, A., Baulcomb, C., Koss, R., Hussain, S.S., 2013. Typology and inBo dicators of ecosystem services for marine spatial planning and management. J. Environ. Manage. 130, 135e145. Booth, J.E., Gaston, K.J., Armsworth, P.R., 2009. Public understanding of protected area designation. Biol. Conserv. 142, 3196e3200. Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J.F., Mittermeier, C.G., Pilgrim, J.D., Rodrigues, A.S.L., 2006. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58e61. Carcamo, P.F., Garay-Flu, R., Squeo, F.A., Gaymer, C.F., 2014. Using stakeholders' perspective of ecosystem services and biodiversity features to plan a marine protected area. Environ. Sci. Policy 40, 116e131. Casellato, S., Sichirollo, E., Cristofoli, A., Masiero, L., Soresi, S., 2005. Biodiversit a delle Tegnùe di Chioggia, Zona di tutela biologica nel Nord Adriatico. Biol. Mar. Mediterr. 12 (1), 69e77. Casellato, S., Soresi, S., Masiero, L., Stefanon, A., 2006. The “Tegnùe”: unique outcrops in the gulf of Venice. Biol. Mar. Mediterr. 13, 234e235. Casellato, S., Masiero, L., Sichirollo, E., Cristofoli, A., Soresi, S., 2007. Hidden secrets of the Northern Adriatic: tegnùe, peculiar reefs. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2 (1), 122e136. Cihar, M., Stankova, J., 2006. Attitudes of stakeholders towards the Podyji/Thaya
77
River Basin National Park in the Czech Republic. J. Environ. Manag. 81, 273e285. Cobham Resource Consultants, 1996. Review of the attitudes and aspirations of people towards the marine environment of Scotland with respect to its uses, controls and conservation importance. Scott. Nat. Herit. Rev. 67. Engel, M.T., Marchini, S., Pont, A.C., Machado, R., de Oliveira, L.R., 2014. Perceptions and attitudes of stakeholders towards the wildlife refuge of Ilha dos Lobos, a marine protected area in Brazil. Mar. Policy 45, 45e51. Fondazione Musei Civici e Arpav, 2010. Le Tegnùe dell’Alto Adriatico, ISBN 978-887504-151-9. Foster, J., Lake, I.R., Watkinson, A.R., Gill, J.A., 2011. Marine biodiversity in the Caribbean UK overseas territories: perceived threats and constraints to environmental management. Mar. Policy 35, 647e657. Gelcich, S., Defeo, O., Iribarne, O., Del Carpio, G., DuBois, R., Horta, S., Isacch, J.P., Godoy, N., Penaloza, P.C., Castilla, J.C., 2009. Marine ecosystem-based management in the Southern Cone of South America: stakeholder perceptions and lessons for implementation. Mar. Policy 33, 801e806. Giaccone, G., 2007. Il coralligeno come paesaggio marino sommerso: distribuzione sulle coste italiane. Biol. Mar. Mediterr. 14 (2), 126e143. Giglio, V.J., Luiz, O.J., Schiavetti, A., 2015. Marine life preferences and perceptions among recreational divers in Brazilian coral reefs. Tour. Manag. 51, 49e57. Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., Watson, R., 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948e952. Hynes, S., Norton, D., Corless, R., 2014. Investigating societal attitudes towards the marine environment of Ireland. Mar. Policy 47, 57e65. Jacobs, S., Sioen, I., Pieniak, Z., De Henauw, S., Maulvault, A.L., Reuver, M., Fait, G., Cano-Sancho, G., Verbeke, W., 2015. Consumers' health riskebenefit perception of seafood and attitude toward the marine environment: insights from five European countries. Environ. Res. 143 (B), 11e19. Jefferson, R.L., Bailey, I., Laffoley, D., Richards, J.P., Attrill, M.J., 2014. Public perceptions of the UK marine environment. Mar. Policy 43, 327e337. Leleu, K., Alban, F., Pelletier, D., Charbonnel, E., Letourneur, Y., Boudouresque, C.F., 2012. Fishers' perceptions as indicators of the performance of Marine protected Areas (MPAs). Mar. Policy 36, 414e422. Malhotra, N.K., 1996. Marketing Research: an Applied Orientation, second ed. Prentice-Hall International, Inc. Mangi, S.C., Austen, M.C., 2008. Perceptions of stakeholders towards objectives and zoning of marine-protected areas in southern Europe. J. Nat. Conserv. 16, 271e280. Martin, C.L., Momtaz, S., Jordan, A., Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., 2016. Exploring recreational fishers' perceptions, attitudes, and support towards a multiple-use marine protected areas after six years implementation. Mar. Policy 73, 138e145. Masud, M.M., Kari, F.B., Yahaya, S.R.B., Al-Amin, A.Q., 2014. Impact of residents' livelihoods on attitudes towards environmental conservation behaviour: an empirical investigation of Tioman Island Marine Park area, Malaysia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 93, 7e14. McAuliffe, S., Potts, J., Canessa, R., Baily, B., 2014. Establishing attitudes and perceptions of recreational boat users based in the River Hamble Estuary, UK, towards Marine Conservation Zones. Mar. Policy 45, 98e107. McCay, B.J., Jones, P.J.S., 2011. Marine protected areas and the governance of marine ecosystems and fisheries. Conserv. Biol. 25, 1130e1133. McKinley, E., Fletcher, S., 2012. Individual responsibility for the oceans? An valuation of marine citizenship by UK marine practitioners. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53, 379e384. Milfont, T.L., Duckitt, J., 2010. The environmental attitude inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 80e94. Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level e and effective? Environ. policy Gov. 19, 197e214. Newton, R.S., Stefanon, A., 1975. Application of side scan sonar in marine biology. Mar. Biol. 31, 287e291. Nesto, N., Moschino, V., Picone, M., Boldrin, A., Da Ros, L., 2014. Un database sui popolamenti macro-zoobentonici ed ittici degli habitat rocciosi subtitali al largo delle coste venete. Biol. Mararina Mediterr. 21 (1), 259e260. Nunes, P.A.L.D., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2001. Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecol. Econ. 39, 203e222. OECD, 2001. Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits. Selected Studies. OECD, Paris. Paterson, D.M., Hanley, N.D., Black, K., Defew, E.C., Solan, M., 2011. Biodiversity, ecosystems and coastal zone management: linking science and policy. Mar. Ecol. 434, 201e202. Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Corlian, M.E., Zaccarelli, N., Dadamoa, M., 2007. Tourist perception of recreational environment and management in a marine protected area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 79, 29e37. Pita, C., Theodossiou, I., Pierce, G.J., 2013. The perceptions of Scottish inshore fishers about marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 37, 254e263. Potts, T., O'Higgins, T., Mee, L., Pita, C., 2011. Public Perceptions of Europe's Seas e a Policy Brief. EU FP7 KNOWSEAS Project. Available from: http://www.knowseas. com/links-and-data/policy-briefs/Knowseas%20Marine%20Social%20Survey% 20Final-_ws.pdf/view. Schultz, P.W., 2011. Conservation means behaviour. Conserv. Biol. 25, 1080e1083. Schwartz, M.W., Brigham, C.A., Hoeksema, J.D., Lyons, K.G., Mills, M.H., van Mantgem, P.J., 2000. Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia 122, 297e305. Spash, C.L., 2002. Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation:
78
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
coral reef biodiversity. J. Econ. Psychol. 23, 665e687. Spash, C.L., 2009. Ecological Economics: Critical Concepts in the Environment, 4 Volumes. Routledge, London. Steel, B., Smith, C., Opsommer, L., Curiel, S., Warner-Steel, R., 2005. Public ocean literacy in the United States. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48, 97e114. Stump, N.E., Kriwoken, L.K., 2006. Tasmanian marine protected areas: attitudes and perceptions of wild capture fishers. Ocean Coast. Manag. 49, 298e307. Suman, D., Shivlani, M., Milon, J.W., 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean Coast. Manag. 42, 1019e1040. Trenouth, A.L., Harte, C., Paterson de Heer, C., Dewan, K., Grage, A., Primo, C.,
Campbell, M.L., 2012. Public perception of marine and coastal protected areas in Tasmania, Australia: importance, management and hazards. Ocean Coast. Manag. 67, 19e29. ^, F.G., Coulibaly, O., Ade gbidi, A., Sinsin, B., 2010. Community perception of Vodouhe biodiversity conservation within protected areas in Benin. For. Policy Econ. 12, 505e512. Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J., Watson, R., 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Sci. Mag. 314, 787e790.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Understanding social knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards marine biodiversity: The case of tegnùe in Italy Stefania Tonin*, Greti Lucaroni University Iuav of Venice, Department of Design and Planning in Complex Environments, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 20 June 2016 Received in revised form 15 February 2017 Accepted 22 February 2017 Available online 6 March 2017
The global decline of marine ecosystems may be partially ascribed to poor governance and to the lack of sustainable use and marine biodiversity conservation policy. Conservation success is strongly related to how people perceive marine biodiversity and those perceptions can change as a result of the accumulation of knowledge, the quality of the environment, and the appropriate and sustainable management of these areas. Engaging the targeted community in the process of promoting and planning safeguarding activities may also contribute to the acceptability and the dissemination of a shared culture of sustainability and a positive change in behavior. This study investigates people's knowledge, perceptions and feelings toward the protection and improvement of marine biodiversity of coralligenous areas in the North Adriatic Sea in Italy. Several focus groups were conducted in the major towns of the targeted area (N ¼ 107) to explore people's familiarity with marine biodiversity and ecosystem services, and to reveal their opinions and behaviours for certain protection strategies, such as the marine protected area (MPA). We found that coralligenous habitats are not very well known among the general people; in fact, only 42% of respondents had previously heard about biodiversity in these habitats. However, participants agreed that they provide important environmental services that benefit human wellbeing. Moreover, we found that 80% of respondents had heard before of MPA, and the majority of them were in favor of supporting interventions and policies to protect these areas. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Marine biodiversity People's perception and attitude Focus group Marine habitat management
1. Introduction Coastal and marine ecosystems provide goods and services that are essential for our well-being (Beaumont et al., 2008). However, they are strongly dependent on biodiversity (Schwartz et al., 2000), which makes them extremely vulnerable to environmental change (Nunes and van den Bergh, 2001). Human activities are degrading the quality of marine biodiversity and thus diminishing the ability of marine ecosystems to provide goods and services (Worm et al., 2006; Petrosillo et al., 2007). The observed global deterioration of marine biodiversity has resulted in a worldwide demand for changing the way the resources of oceans and seas are managed and conserved. Scholars agree that the governmental strategies implemented until now have failed to deliver sustainable use of these resources and to ensure marine biodiversity conservation in many regions of the world (Beaumont et al., 2008; Brooks et al., 2006).
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Tonin). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.02.019 0964-5691/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Recent studies have found that biodiversity conservation success is often grounded in local population support, which in turn is strongly influenced by the perception of these resources and the effects that are experienced by local communities (Schultz, 2011; Jefferson et al., 2014). The challenge is to understand how to engage society and stakeholders in supporting biodiversity conservation strategies and sustainable behavior. This new approach to informing society on the importance of marine biodiversity conservation implies a strengthening of the positive connections between society and the sea (Jefferson et al., 2014). Empirical studies demonstrate that policies and activities are necessary to improve the relationship between public managers and communities and between socioeconomic and conservation outcomes (Abecasis et al., 2013; Atkins et al., 2011). Individual's attitudes are here defined as “psychological tendency expressed by evaluating the natural environment with some degree of favor or disfavor.” (Milfont and Duckitt, 2010). How the local community and users perceive marine biodiversity is fundamental for the social acceptance of any conservation policy and for monitoring and evaluating the effects of these policies (Paterson et al., 2011).
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
Since perceptions and attitudes towards marine ecosystem management play an important role in any conservation actions, it is fundamental to figure out how this ecosystem works. However, the functioning of marine ecosystems may be more difficult to understand than terrestrial ones due in part to what has been described as the “spatial and cognitive disconnection between society and the sea” (Jefferson et al., 2014). The marine environment is perceived by people living in cities or inland areas as being far away and thus its benefits, services, and impacts appear distant. On the contrary, Ahtiainen et al., 2012 demonstrated that citizens of coastal countries have positive attitude and perception towards improving the state of the resource and biodiversity conservation. In particular Newig and Fritsch (2009) underline the spatial relevance regarding stakeholders' perceptions, meaning that people living in proximity to a natural resource tend to favor its economic use, whereas those living at a greater distance tend to favor resource conservation. Finally, coastal residents reveal a deep connection to the marine environment in terms of different values such as aesthetics, lifestyle, and cultural identity. Marine environment is strictly connected with human activities, and the close interaction with man determines a variety of negative impacts in a range of temporal and spatial scales (Halpern et al., 2008). For all these reasons, we think that studies on the attitudes and perceptions of local communities are necessary to improve understanding of people's needs and aspirations and to reveal their ideas, opinions, and suggestions on how to protect the marine ecosystem. To our knowledge, there are few studies in the literature that consider people's perceptions and attitudes toward marine biodiversity and ecosystem quality, even if it is possible to find some papers related to marine environment (Hynes et al., 2014; Jefferson et al., 2014; Jacobs et al., 2015), fisheries (Alexander et al., 2013; Barley Kincaid et al., 2014; Barley Kincaid and Rose, 2014) and marine management options (Gelcich et al., 2009; Pita et al., 2013; McAuliffe et al., 2014; Masud et al., 2014; Engel et al., 2014; Giglio et al., 2015). Jefferson et al. (2014) highlights that the majority of these studies regard coastal or littoral marine ecosystems, where the high levels of biodiversity are strongly threatened by human presence and the effects of economic activities. In these areas, marine resource management assumes greater significance both for local stakeholders and government (Foster et al., 2011); consequently, we have closely examined and identified factors that may facilitate an effective marine resource management. This paper aims to address the research gap mentioned before by investigating the role of people's knowledge, perceptions and feelings toward the protection and/or improvement of biodiversity in a particular marine ecosystem, i.e., a coralligenous area locally named tegnùa in the North Adriatic sea in Italy. This marine ecosystem is also the case study analyzed in a wider EU project (http://www.life-ghost.eu) whose aim is to assess the impact of the so-called “abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gears” (ALDFG) on biodiversity and to promote concrete measures for the restoration of an optimal environmental quality. The objectives of this current study were (i) to understand people's knowledge about coralligeneous habitat and its biodiversity; (ii) to gather information on the attitudes of general people toward marine biodiversity; (iii) to identify the perceived impacts and ecosystems services associated with coralligenous habitat; and (iv) to investigate people's perception toward marine protected area as a strategy tool for its conservation. Focus groups were organized among citizens of four different Italian cities (Venice, Bari, Rome, and Livorno). In what follows, Section 2 will briefly review previous studies on people's perceptions toward marine biodiversity. Section 3 will introduce the case study and the methodology adopted. Section 4
69
will explain and discuss the results, and Section 5 will end the paper with some conclusions. 2. Previous studies that have examined perceptions and attitudes toward marine ecosystems and marine biodiversity Studies about attitudes and perception toward marine ecosystem and marine biodiversity are valuable due to their ability to increase awareness and to understand the existing beliefs regarding conservation efforts. The analysis of the existing scientific literature has the additional objectives of understanding which factors may influence marine biodiversity perception and how to increase society's knowledge and people's involvement in this issue. Moreover, through the review of the literature it is possible to understand which aspects of marine biodiversity have been previously examined and those still missing or underestimated, which methodological approaches have been utilized by researches and how to organize our own work on this field. To our knowledge, the first study that specifically considers the perception of marine biodiversity is a research project supported by Cobham Resource Consultants in 1996 regarding the attitudes and perceptions of Scottish people toward their marine environment. The study, based on literature review and an original survey, found that stakeholders appear to have a restricted understanding of biodiversity and of the importance of marine biodiversity but had a better knowledge of some negative environmental externalities related to the marine environment, such as pollution, waste disposal, and overfishing damage. Later, Suman et al. (1999), within a broader survey regarding the management plan of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, introduced the concept that different stakeholders hold different positions and perceptions toward biodiversity conservation activities and underlined the relevance of taking into account all the decisive groups in society for an effective management of biodiversity resources. In particular, the authors found that the main differences in stakeholder perceptions were principally attributed to the diverse ecosystem services they enjoyed in a consumptive or non-consumptive way; that is, in a way that determined whether or not there was a physical reduction of natural capital. A correct stakeholder analysis provides significant information on what the stakeholders want, who they interact with and how, and what problems they are experiencing related to marine biodiversity. Spash (2002) published a very seminal work in the economic valuation field in which he highlights how cognitive and social psychology provides potential insight into the information and preference formation process in the economic valuation of coral reef biodiversity. In a previous paper (1997), the author had already recognized that environmental attitudes and ethical beliefs were found to affect people's willingness to pay for. Later, Spash (2009) reaffirmed that perceptions and attitudes offer a better understanding of value formation, especially for policy purposes. The paper extended the standard contingent valuation method to the theory of planned behavior, using measures of attitudes and perceptions to assess the validity and reliability of willingness to pay a bid. Knowledge is another important element to consider in explaining people's perceptions and attitudes. For example, Steel et al. (2005) administered a national survey on public literacy about ocean and revealed that the people in the state of Oregon in the US felt they were not well informed about environmental issues and had very little knowledge of oceans and coastal areas. One might expect higher levels of knowledge concerning oceans and coastal management issues among those citizens who frequently visit or live in coastal areas for either recreational or commercial purposes and among those who have strong attitudes about ocean
70
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
and coastal management issues. The paper found that coastal residents are slightly more “well-grounded” than those living in noncoastal areas, but both coastal and non-coastal respondents showed some uncertainty when asked to answer specific questions or to explain particular terms concerning their familiarity with the ocean and coastal resources and their subjective or objective knowledge of these issues. The results obtained demonstrated that people in the US have a low level of knowledge about ocean and coastal issues, and for this reason, better information should be provided in a more effective manner. In Europe, Potts et al. (2011) recently explored the perceptions of lay people regarding the marine environment in seven countries (UK, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland) as part of KnowSeas EU project and found that people have a good understanding of marine resources and are relatively aware of the many benefits derived from marine ecosystem services. However, Potts et al. emphasized that the general public and the scientific community had differing perceptions of the marine problem. In relation to this difference in perceptions, Foster et al. (2011) interviewed informed stakeholders, i.e., people engaged in environmental policy or governance in the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs), in order to investigate their perception of marine biodiversity in their islands and to identify the main short-term and long-term threats to the marine environment. The results highlighted the delicate environmental status of the Caribbean areas and the decline of marine ecosystem health in these areas, which are not adequately supported by appropriate legislation and financial aid. Perception of environmental goods may be positive or negative, while perceptions of marine biodiversity quality and marine ecosystem governance and management are generally negative (McCay and Jones, 2011; McKinley and Fletcher, 2012; Baral and Heinen, 2007). This is because people generally do not have a good opinion about issues concerning marine ecosystems: people perceive marine ecosystems as polluted or not well preserved or they think that biodiversity conservation requires significant costs. A negative perception stimulates negative behaviors toward the environment and local people do not support or participate in protection activity; on the other hand, a positive perception procures the support of local people, stimulates environment-friendly behaviors, reinforces cooperation with the conservation management of marine ecosystems, and ensures an effective policy implementation (Cihar and Stankova, 2006). For these reasons, policy makers should strengthen the positive perceptions that people already have by increasing the level of public awareness; in the case of negative perceptions, they should work to mitigate them and to increase the knowledge of marine biodiversity and marine ecosystem services. Other scholars analyzed the role of proximity to explain the different attitudes toward environmental resources in general and found that people living in proximity to a natural resource tend to favor its economic use, whereas those living at a greater distance tend to support resource conservation (Newig and Fritsch, 2009). However, in general, coastal residents reveal a strong connection to the marine environment in terms of aesthetics, lifestyle, and cultural identity (Abecasis et al., 2013). The direct use of the resource and the proximity to the marine environment positively affect the level of perception, the level of involvement, and the attitude toward the preservation of marine biodiversity (Jefferson et al., 2014; Engel et al., 2014). Local support and the commitment of citizens to protect the environment are essential for safeguarding biodiversity, and the positive perception of local communities toward biodiversity conservation is strictly correlated with the management strategy ^ et al., 2010; Booth et al., 2009; Trenouth et al., provided (Vodouhe
2012). Biodiversity perception is not uniform across the population and such diversity may affect the different methods used to catalyze societal engagement with marine conservation. Again, we can say that those who never visit the coast or engage in coastal activities demonstrate disinterest toward marine conservation issues (Jefferson et al., 2014). Other studies have examined the attitudes, perceptions, and preferences of individuals regarding marine protected areas (MPA) as a management tool for marine conservation. Stump and Kriwoken (2006) conducted structured interviews with Tasmanian commercial fishers to elicit perceptions and attitudes towards MPA strategy and to identify the key issues that influence fisher support or opposition to it. They found that a correct use of MPAs as a management tool needs the adoption of a holistic approach. The majority of fishers interviewed stated that they can give conditional support for an expansion of the number of MPAs if able to sustain or increase fish populations, support scientific research, allow fishing in multiple use areas, and if multiple use areas contained small ‘no-take’ zones. Similarly, Leleu et al. (2012) investigates the value of fishers' perceptions as indicators of social acceptance and compliance in a north-western Mediter^te Blue. Their study showed ranean MPA, the Parc Marin de la Co that MPA acceptance improves when fishers are directly involved in MPA establishment and management. In another part of the world, in Scotland, Pita et al. (2013) interviewed fishers to measure their opinions about MPA, state of resources, fisheries regulation, conflicts, and current and future fisheries management measures. Mangi and Austen (2008) investigated the perceptions of stakeholders towards objectives and zoning of MPAs in southern Europe. They found that most stakeholders think that MPAs can offer more conservation than fisheries benefits. Moreover, their results show that people have strong preference for MPAs that present mixed use-zonations: from recreational fishing to diving and the full protection of species and ecosystems. A survey to different stakeholders, living close to a MPA in Tasmania, was administered by Trenouth et al. (2012) with the purpose to understand if the connection between demographic and social factors with environmental awareness can provide valuable insight to improve MCPA management. Abecasis et al. (2013) used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to understand the community and local stakeholders' attitudes and expectations towards MPAs as instrument for marine conservation in the Azores Archipelago. They found strong local support for MPAs and that shared vision on marine values can contribute to MPA success. Benett and Dearden, 2014 examined respondents' perception of the MPA impacts on neighbouring communities on the Andaman Coast of Thailand as well as perceptions of governance and management processes. They found that Conservation outcomes were perceived quite mixed for marine environments. Opinions of Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation governance and management were quite negative. Moreover, they found that there is little incentive for local people to participate in, or support, conservation. Finally, people's attitudes and perceptions are influenced by demographic and socioeconomic conditions, such as their level of education and their geographical origin (see, for example, Badola et al., 2012; Abecasis et al., 2013; Jefferson et al., 2014; and Engel et al., 2014). To conclude, to our knowledge, no previous research on this topic has been undertaken in Italy and the review of the literature presented in this Section highlighted that the issue of marine biodiversity, and its many aspects, is still not well known outside the technical and scientific expert's sphere. Moreover, our study
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
investigates the issues, previously introduced, inviting respondents to discuss the circumscribed topics, and not as part of wider discussion or questionnaire. The literature review was helpful to design the questionnaire used in focus group rounds and to support the findings of the empirical research. 3. Materials ad methods The present work is part of a broader EU Life project regarding the economic valuation of an improvement in marine biodiversity in the tegnùe area of the Veneto Region. In this paper, we will describe the results of a preliminary work undertaken to better understanding the attitudes and perceptions of people toward biodiversity. We used focus group methodology, which is considered as an important tool in questionnaire design and testing (Malhotra, 1996), to explore a new research area that is difficult to observe. In particular, the purpose was to reveal the extent to which lay people are in favor of restoring and enhancing the biodiversity in the tegnùe ecosystem and to explore people's preferences for biodiversity conservation instruments and policies. 3.1. Case study 3.1.1. Location and general description The study area (Fig. 1) is a coralligenous habitat locally named “Tegnùe” and located in the North Adriatic sea of Italy along the coast, from the mouth of the river Brenta to Grado in front of the Lagoon of Venice. The word “tegnùe” derives from the Venetian dialect and means “hold” because since ancient times, fishermen have experienced frequent loss of their nets and fishing gears, which remain trapped in the irregularities of the rocks (Casellato et al., 2006). The tegnùe are submarine rocky substrates, a specific habitat similar to coral reefs with dense and diversified benthic communities. The dimensions of these outcrops vary widely; their distribution is discontinuous, from a few m2 up to a few km2; and they have an elevation from the bottom ranging from a few decimeters up to some tens of meters in the case of those located at greater
71
depths. While the existence of this particular ecosystem has been known among local fishermen since the eighteenth century, it was documented by underwater explorations only 40 years ago (Newton and Stefanon, 1975). The rocky habitats evidence high geological and biological variability and are important for their exceptional biodiversity and their fundamental role in the coastal ecosystem (Casellato et al., 2005). The ecological and environmental role played by the tegnùe is unique because in addition to being true oases of biodiversity, they are naturally protected areas against bottom trawl fishing. They offer refuge and reproduction sites for a large number of fish and invertebrate species. Research studies carried out over the last few years in the Adriatic sea have underlined the scientific importance of this rocky habitat and permitted the discovery of many zoobenthic species, some of which are now considered rare and are therefore protected in Italian seas (Casellato et al., 2006). In particular, a recent survey carried out in fifty sites within the framework of the EU Life Project found that about 740 species of fish and macro-zoobenthic communities colonize the area of the tegnùe. Among the species observed, 12 appear to be on the list of protected species and 97 have a commercial interest (Nesto et al., 2014). The map in Fig. 1 above is the result of a recent survey of the main tegnùe locations. While the exact number is still unknown, it is claimed to be more than 3000 for the Veneto Region alone (Casellato et al., 2007). The survey of these areas was also helpful to better identify the types of ALDFG that most significantly affected the tegnùe. Tegnùe and coral reefs belong to the same family and perform the same functions and environmental servicesdalbeit on a different dimensional scale and with a different intensity. Coral reefs play a relevant role on a global scale because they influence the oceans, whereas the tegnùe areas have a local but nonetheless important role limited to the Adriatic sea. In particular, these ecosystems, besides being a refugee for numerous sponges, molluscs, and fishes, have productive and informative functions and also perform an important role in relation to regulation processes, the nutrient cycle, and waste treatment. However, these ecosystems have a limited function in sediments retention and erosion control
Fig. 1. Location of the tegnùe areas in Venice, Italy.
72
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
since they are located at a greater depth than coral reefs and are not continuous but instead appear as small islands. Finally, tegnùe ecosystems provide a climate and gas regulation function like every marine ecosystem, even if the benefit intensity is significant only for the existence of the habitat itself (Fondazione Musei Civici e Arpav, 2010). Table 1 summarizes the main environmental and ecological functions and services provided by the tegnùe areas. Habitats similar to tegnùe have been localized in Southeast Florida, the FrencheItalian Riviera, Corsica, Croatia, the northern Baltic areas, the Oslo Fjords, and Greenland (Casellato et al., 2007). In Italy, coralligeneous habitats are located in Sardinia, the Sicilian islands, along the southern Italian coasts, the Tyrrhenian, and the Adriatic coast (Giaccone, 2007) (see Fig. 2). Unfortunately, the coralligneous areas are currently experiencing a loss of biodiversity as a consequence of human activities, such as overfishing and environmental contamination. In particular, among the causes of negative impact on the local biodiversity, the loss of fishing equipment (e.g., nets, traps, metal tools) is a serious and ongoing problem. The ALDFG cause considerable damage to the natural environment, including the destruction of nursery areas and the accidental entanglement of marine protected species. In general, the main threats recognized in the tegnùe area are the degradation due to waste water, the damage caused by destructive fishing methods, the negative impact of divers' activities, the effects of the invasion of alien species, non-sustainable tourist practices, water turbidity, and alluvial sediments (Ballesteros, 2006). 3.2. The focus groups We organized 13 focus groups in four different Italian cities between February 2014 and September 2015: Venice, Rome, Livorno, and Bari (see Table 2). In addition to Venice where the case study is based, we selected other cities with the aim of investigating people's altruism in supporting restoration interventions in marine areas located in other regions and took into account various individual characteristics in terms of attitudes, income, education, culture, and geography (from the North to the South of Italy). In total, we selected 107 participants from the abovementioned four cities with the help of a professional marketing research firm. In particular, we asked to select eight people per group who were representative of the local population in terms of gender, profession, educational level, and age. Moreover, we asked to involve at least one person who practiced fishing or diving activity. All the focus groups took place in the evening; the participants were informed that the scope of the study would be marine biodiversity in Northern Adriatic Sea. The sessions lasted 90 min
and were conducted under the supervision of a moderator and two-notes takers. Moreover, each session was video-recorder and the full transcripts were used as an input for the analysis. In each focus group, we asked participants to complete time-bytime small parts of a pre-designed questionnaire, divided by topic, then, together with a moderator, they were solicited to discuss their answers and exchange opinions. The questionnaire included several topics: in the first part, participants were asked about their feelings and beliefs toward marine areas and in particular, how often they go to the sea; what they do and what they think about the quality of the marine areas they visited; and how this quality can affect their activities. Then we asked about people's knowledge regarding marine biodiversity and about the reasons they would like to protect it and how. In the third part, we introduced the issue of coralligenous areas, such as tegnùe habitats, to identify their direct and indirect knowledge of this ecosystem. We were also interested in understanding people's familiarity with and awareness of the wide variety of species living in this coralligenous area and their perception of the environmental services and goods provided by such areas. Gradually, we introduced the problem of biodiversity degradation and the main threats to this habitat, asking our interviewees for opinions, personal experiences, and even possible solutions. Indeed, we proposed some potential instruments and policies to protect biodiversity in these habitats and we challenged our respondents to express which of those actions would be the best option for safeguarding and improving the quality of the coralligenous areas, such as the tegnùe. In particular, we proposed to our respondents to think about the creation of a marine protected area (MPA) and to reveal their perception toward MPAs and their effectiveness as a biodiversity conservation tool. Moreover, we wanted to test the levels of support for this policy and to identify people's preferences for who should manage and plan the MPA. The questionnaire then ended with the usual sociodemographic questions. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Sample demographics The average age of the participants was 39, and 51% of our respondents were male. The average annual household income was approximately V24,486.37 (std. dev 17,516.09), which is lower than the national average (V30,500, Banca d’Italia, 2015). Almost 55% of our sample had a high school diploma and 33% had a college degree (the statistics for the entire Italian population are 57% and 20%,
Table 1 Services provided by tegnùe areas. Ecosystem services classification
Tegnùe ecosystem services
Description
Provisioning services
Food provision Raw materials Lifecycle maintenance Nutrient cycling
Fish and other seafood products The extraction of any material from coastal/marine environments for all purposes except human consumption. The contribution of a particular habitat to migratory species' populations through the provision of an essential habitat for reproduction and juvenile maturation. The contribution of the biotic elements of a coastal/marine ecosystem to regulate the flows and concentrations of nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, through a number of complex processes. The contribution of the biotic elements of a coastal/marine ecosystem to the maintenance of a favorable climate via their impact on the hydrological cycle and their contribution to the climate-influencing substances in the atmosphere. Removal of pollutants through storage, dilution, transformation, and burial. The provision of opportunities for recreation and leisure that depend on a particular state of marine/coastal ecosystems.
Habitat services Regulating services
Climate regulation
Cultural services
Waste treatment Leisure and recreation Cultural heritage and The contribution that a coastal/marine ecosystem makes to cultural heritage and identity. This includes the importance of identity marine/coastal environments in cultural traditions and folklore.
€hnke-Henrichs et al. (2013). Source: The researcher's own elaboration based on Bo
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
73
Fig. 2. Distribution of coralligenous habitats in Italy.
Table 2 Respondents' sociodemographic characteristics.
Average annual household income Average age College degree High school diploma Employed Family members (n) Average distance from the sea (km) Recreational purpose
Bari (N ¼ 17)
Livorno (N ¼ 18)
Roma (N ¼ 16)
Venezia (N ¼ 56)
24,118.03 (17,137.92) 39.41 (13.08) 0.35 (0.49) 0.53 (0.51) 0.59 (0.51) 2.88 (0.99) 8.47 (5.73) 0.88 (0.33)
20,278.14 (9467.20) 37.00 (13,35) 0.33 (0.49) 0.39 (0.50) 0.83 (0.38) 2.89 (1.13) 7.06 (3.81) 0.66 (0.48)
23,906.59 (19,684.56) 41.94 (14.05) 0.37 (0.50) 0.50 (0.52) 0.94 (0.25) 3.06 (1.06) 11.00 (4.34) 0.81 (0.40)
26,116.48 (19,074.85) 39.37 (12.06) 0.30 (0.46) 0.62 (0.49) 0.70 (0.46) 3.19 (1.11) 7.41 (2.78) 0.96 (0.20)
respectively). Table 2 shows the main descriptive statistics for each city. Participants lived within an average of 8 km from the sea. Eighty-four percent of respondents went to the sea for recreational purposes and 43% always go to the beach, including during the summer and the winter. 4.2. Participants' views, attitudes and knowledge about marine biodiversity The perceived environmental quality of marine areas among
respondents that always go to the beach was quite satisfying (50%); only 5% were “not at all” satisfied. Respondents from Livorno and Bari were more satisfied with the quality of their sea (the percentage of “very satisfied” was 33% and 44%, respectively). However, 67% of respondents affirmed they would go to the sea more often if the environmental quality of the water was improved. Almost 70% of participants had already heard about the issue of “marine biodiversity” but only 26% knows what it meas. The knowledge increases with people's level of education and income. In terms of the general quality of Italian marine biodiversity, 34% of respondents deemed it “good” (36% think it is “enough good”),
74
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
while 8% considered it “bad.” When asked to compare the quality of the Italian marine biodiversity with that of the other Mediterranean areas, 30% judged it as identical, but almost 40% of participants thought that it is worse. The negative perception of Italian marine biodiversity compared to Mediterranean marine biodiversity was stronger among people living in Bari and Livorno, where the quality of the sea is generally assessed as good. Next, we asked participants to choose the most relevant reason why marine biodiversity is important; food supply, sustainable development, and scientific research scope were the most selected items. Our respondents affirmed that science and research in general allow having a better knowledge of the environment, and the sustainable development is intended as a mean to realize and develop human activities in respect of the nature. Safeguarding biodiversity plays an important role in protecting human health. In coastal areas, there are many activities related to the sea and these activities can play an important role for local people and may help in developing a better understanding of the people's bond with the sea environment. Thus, respondents were asked to rank (from 1 to 3) the activities related to the Italian sea in terms of their personal importance. Respondents ranked “recreational activities and tourism” as the first most important activity, which was especially true for those participants living in a “sea city” (Bari, Livorno, and even Venice) where these activities are one of the primary sources of income. As already demonstrated by Abecasis et al. (2013) people leaving in close proximity to the sea revealed a deep connection to it, in terms of economic and cultural value. Moreover, participants declared that “sustainable tourism has to be incentivated, but not in disrespectful way.” The second most important reason was “educational activities and scientific research” because “people need to be educated about respecting the sea and the environment”, and again “people have to reflect that if humanity does not respect the sea, there will be severe damages for us and for the future generations.” Fig. 3 illustrates the results of this question. 4.3. Awareness and views regarding functions and services of coralligeneous areas We observed that a remarkable quota of our participants (58%) had never heard of biodiversity in coralligeneous areas. In Venice, only 46% of participants (26 out of 56) had already heard about
tegnùe; as a result, very few people had some personal, direct, or indirect experience of this habitat (such as through diving, watching a documentary, attending conferences and workshops on this issue, etc.). Because this was an expected result, the questionnaire provided basic information for understanding the coralligenous habitat, the variety of species hosted by it, and the known threats. People during the discussion and the sharing of opinions revealed their surprise in believing that such a variety of biodiversity could be found in the Italian Adriatic sea, which is generally perceived as a polluted, low-quality sea. All participants agreed that a coralligenous ecosystem also has many vital functions and provides important environmental services and goods. Above all, 36% of participants indicated the habitat for resident and transient species as the most important service provided by this ecosystem. The reason they gave can be summarized as follows: “protecting this ecosystem means protecting our life too.” Fig. 4 shows respondents' perceptions of the importance of the services we mentioned in the questionnaire. The different locations do not present statistical significant difference between the means when checked with anova statistics. Only the item related to cultural activities shows a statistical significant difference between the means of the different groups. In Venice, people chose with more intensity cultural activity as an important coralligenous service to improve (17% in Venice and 9% in the rest of the cities). The coralligenous area, and the tegnùe habitat in particular, is a delicate and vulnerable environment that is threatened in different ways. We told participants that some human activities and natural phenomena can have negative effects on the environment of the coralligenous area and we invited them to rank the three most damaging activities/phenomena. Results show that 32% of respondents ranked human activities in general first (respondents specified: “humans are the cause of all damages to the environment” or “human activities encompass all other causes”), while 24% chose the industrial wastewater treatment and an additional 24% of the respondents chose the commercial fishing activities. In relation to the most damaging activities chosen by participants, the analysis of variance shows that there is statistical difference between the means for each of geographical location groups (F ¼ 20.7 with Prob > F ¼ 0.000). We were also interested in understanding people's opinions toward the main instruments and policies for reducing the decline of biodiversity and the environmental damage to the coralligenous
Fig. 3. Sea-related activities.
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
75
Fig. 4. Functions and services of coralligenous ecosystem.
area. Among the main alternative actions to preserve marine biodiversity, participants favored the imposition of stricter rules on those economic sectors that negatively impact biodiversity (37.8%), the creation of a marine protected area (27%), and the provision of more information about the importance of marine biodiversity. The results are shown in Fig. 5. Analogously to other likert scale questions, we tried to understand if there was statistical difference among the four geographical location using the analysis of variance. We found that only the item related to “allocate more financial resources to the implementation of policy to protecting marine biodiversity” is statistically significant different between the means for each of the groups (F ¼ 24.57 with prob > F ¼ 0.000). The majority of people from Livorno and Roma selected this item as an important action to preserve marine biodiversity (46% and 56% respectively and 15% on average for the other cases). In literature, MPAs are considered important tools for marine conservation (Abecasis et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2016) and are an important component of the ecosystem-based approach to conserving marine resources (Angulo-Valdes and Hatcher, 2010;
Carcamo et al., 2014). Several rounds of focus groups revealed that our participants considered MPAs as an important instrument to preserve marine biodiversity too. Thus, we asked participants to select which effect related to the creation of a new MPA they deemed as the most important. We found that 88% of respondents considered the “protection and conservation of biodiversity along the sea and coastal areas belonging to the MPA” as the most important effect. Most of the participants supported the creation of an MPA and 90% of them were willing to pay an entry ticket to visit the area. Moreover, 76% of respondents were well disposed to donate money to help preservation in other marine areas of the Adriatic sea. This altruistic attitude is the basis for also considering the indirect-use values of biodiversity, i.e., the resources that are not directly used in a consumption or production activity, but which still provide value (OECD, 2001). Finally, we asked respondents to choose who should manage and plan an MPA. Participants were more inclined to select research centers or environmental organizations to manage the MPA than central government and local administrations. For these options, there is no statistical difference among the four cities, however
Fig. 5. Actions to preserve marine biodiversity.
76
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
option such as Region and Local Institution present statistical significant difference between the means for each of the groups. People from Venice demonstrated more trust in local institution and Region in comparison with the other three cities. In general, participants demonstrated distrust and disappointment in government (central and local), possibly as a result of the current political crisis in Italy. In addition, participants affirmed that the management of MPA should be entrusted to scientists or researchers because they have the necessary expertise. The results of this question are illustrated in Fig. 6. 5. Conclusions The concept of marine biodiversity is very well known in scientific, expert, and academic circles, but is poorly understood among the general public. Nevertheless, the support of local people is fundamental for the widespread acceptance of conservation efforts and safeguarding policies meant to protect marine biodiversity, including coralligenous biodiversity. Importantly, this support is strongly influenced by people's perceptions, motivations, and awareness levels towards their marine resources. There has been little systematic investigation regarding citizens' viewpoints concerning marine environments in general and marine biodiversity in particular. The present study aimed to fill that gap by analyzing the understanding and perceptions of Italian residents towards the importance of marine biodiversity, healthy ecosystems, and the benefits provided by healthy marine environments. During the course of the research, we also aimed to increase participants' knowledge about the functions and benefits of marine biodiversity to allow for a better understanding of the policies and instruments that can guarantee the effective conservation of a specific marine habitat that is rich in biodiversity. Indeed, the local population's perceptions and attitudes are important to conservation efforts, as they underpin the ways that people interpret and engage with environmental issues. An accurate understanding of biodiversity among a target audience is useful for identifying the numerous reasons that might influence individuals to accept conservation policies, to adopt personal behaviors to preserve marine ecosystems, and to promote community engagement. There is growing evidence that communications and education have a strong impact on the protection of natural resources and on
long-term environmental sustainability, including in marine environments. However, creating change at the individual and community levels requires a significant effort, not only to convey and expand upon correct scientific information, but also to understanddand then tap intodwhat moves people on an emotional and practical level. Thus, the first step in this research was to learn more about both the social and educational contexts within which the issues of marine environments, marine biodiversity, and coralligenous biodiversity are rooted. Our results showed that while the majority of participants judged the quality of the marine environments around the Italian coasts to be “good” or “good enough,” almost 40% of participants were of the opinion that marine biodiversity in Italy is worse than in other Mediterranean areas. This negative perception is stronger among people living in a coastal city, where the attachment to the sea is deep because of economic and cultural values. The outcomes of focus group discussions and questionnaires confirm our previous hypothesis that coralligenous habitats are not very well understood among the general people; in fact, only 42% of respondents had previously heard about biodiversity in these habitats. However, participants did demonstrate a good comprehension of the different topics explained in the questionnaire and discussed in the focus groups. In particular, they agreed that coralligenous habitats provide important environmental services and products (i.e., ecosystem services) that benefit human wellbeing; for this reason, they were in favor of supporting interventions and policies to protect these areas. For example, people strongly agreed with the establishment of a marine park. They were also firmly convinced that the best managing authorities would be environmental organizations or research institutions rather than the central or regional government. This particular result highlights a general mistrust among Italian people towards their central and regional governments, while also showing their preferences for the local expert management of their natural resources. The results also suggested that the good environmental quality of marine areas is important for stimulating positive behaviors and incentivizing the frequency of the local population's direct experiences with its marine resources. Moreover, we also found that people living in coastal cities highly value the recreational and touristic activities offered by their marine locations, demonstrating a strong and direct bond between a region's marine resources and the availability of opportunities to improve the welfare of nearby
Fig. 6. AMP management.
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
residents. Notably, the results of this study can be used by policy makers to enhance local populations' awareness and knowledge about these habitats through educational campaigns in order to encourage better personal conservation behaviors and to change behaviors that harm marine biodiversity, including coralligenous biodiversity. In fact, we learned that people not only need, but also want, more information on these important habitats, and that they want to have special education programs on this topic, especially for children. This public will is a very optimistic sign for our marine environments, for social change is not a linear process; it starts slowly and requires many investments (i.e., money, time, etc.), but then suddenly it reaches a turning point and the desired change begins to become evident throughout all levels of society. Acknowledgements “This work was supported by the European Commission under Grant LIFE12BIO/IT/00556.” References Abecasis, R.C., Schmidt, L., Longnecker, N., Clifton, J., 2013. Implications of community and stakeholder perceptions of the marine environment and its conservation for MPA management in a small Azorean island. Ocean Coast. Manag. 84, 208e219. € m, L., Hyyti€ Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Czajkowski, M., Hasler, B., Hasselstro ainen, K., €derqvist, T., Zimmer, K., 2012. Public preferences Meyerhoff, J., Smart, J., So regarding use and condition of the Baltic Sea e an international comparison informing marine policy. Mar. Policy 42, 20e30. Alexander, K.A., Wilding, T.A., Heymans, J.J., 2013. Attitudes of Scottish fishers towards marine renewable energy. Mar. Policy 37, 239e244. Angulo-Valdes, J.A., Hatcher, B.G., 2010. A new typology of benefits derived from marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 34, 635e644. Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Gregory, A.J., 2011. Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (2), 215e226. Badola, R., Barthwal, S., Hussain, S.A., 2012. Attitudes of local communities towards conservation of mangrove forests: a case study from the east coast of India. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 96, 188e196. Ballesteros, E., 2006. Mediterranean coralligenous assemblages: a synthesis of present knowledge. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 44, 123e195. Banca d’Italia, 2015. I bilanci delle famiglie italiane nell’anno 2014. Available from: https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/indagine-famiglie/bil-fam2014/ suppl_64_15.pdf. Baral, N., Heinen, J.T., 2007. Resources use, conservation attitudes, management intervention and park-people relations in the Western Terai Landscape of Nepal. Environ. Conserv. 34, 64e72. Barley Kincaid, K., Rose, G., Mahudi, H., 2014. Fishers' perception of a multiple-use marine protected area: why communities and gear users differ at Mafia Island, Tanzania. Mar. Policy 43, 226e235. Barley Kincaid, K., Rose, G., 2014. Why fishers want a closed area in their fishing grounds: exploring perceptions and attitudes to sustainable fisheries and conservation 10 years post closure in Labrador, Canada. Mar. Policy 46, 84e90. Beaumont, N.J., Austen, M.C., Mangi, S.C., Townsend, M., 2008. Economic valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 386e396. Benett, N., Dearden, P., 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Mar. Policy 44, 107e116. €hnke-Henrichs, A., Baulcomb, C., Koss, R., Hussain, S.S., 2013. Typology and inBo dicators of ecosystem services for marine spatial planning and management. J. Environ. Manage. 130, 135e145. Booth, J.E., Gaston, K.J., Armsworth, P.R., 2009. Public understanding of protected area designation. Biol. Conserv. 142, 3196e3200. Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J.F., Mittermeier, C.G., Pilgrim, J.D., Rodrigues, A.S.L., 2006. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58e61. Carcamo, P.F., Garay-Flu, R., Squeo, F.A., Gaymer, C.F., 2014. Using stakeholders' perspective of ecosystem services and biodiversity features to plan a marine protected area. Environ. Sci. Policy 40, 116e131. Casellato, S., Sichirollo, E., Cristofoli, A., Masiero, L., Soresi, S., 2005. Biodiversit a delle Tegnùe di Chioggia, Zona di tutela biologica nel Nord Adriatico. Biol. Mar. Mediterr. 12 (1), 69e77. Casellato, S., Soresi, S., Masiero, L., Stefanon, A., 2006. The “Tegnùe”: unique outcrops in the gulf of Venice. Biol. Mar. Mediterr. 13, 234e235. Casellato, S., Masiero, L., Sichirollo, E., Cristofoli, A., Soresi, S., 2007. Hidden secrets of the Northern Adriatic: tegnùe, peculiar reefs. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2 (1), 122e136. Cihar, M., Stankova, J., 2006. Attitudes of stakeholders towards the Podyji/Thaya
77
River Basin National Park in the Czech Republic. J. Environ. Manag. 81, 273e285. Cobham Resource Consultants, 1996. Review of the attitudes and aspirations of people towards the marine environment of Scotland with respect to its uses, controls and conservation importance. Scott. Nat. Herit. Rev. 67. Engel, M.T., Marchini, S., Pont, A.C., Machado, R., de Oliveira, L.R., 2014. Perceptions and attitudes of stakeholders towards the wildlife refuge of Ilha dos Lobos, a marine protected area in Brazil. Mar. Policy 45, 45e51. Fondazione Musei Civici e Arpav, 2010. Le Tegnùe dell’Alto Adriatico, ISBN 978-887504-151-9. Foster, J., Lake, I.R., Watkinson, A.R., Gill, J.A., 2011. Marine biodiversity in the Caribbean UK overseas territories: perceived threats and constraints to environmental management. Mar. Policy 35, 647e657. Gelcich, S., Defeo, O., Iribarne, O., Del Carpio, G., DuBois, R., Horta, S., Isacch, J.P., Godoy, N., Penaloza, P.C., Castilla, J.C., 2009. Marine ecosystem-based management in the Southern Cone of South America: stakeholder perceptions and lessons for implementation. Mar. Policy 33, 801e806. Giaccone, G., 2007. Il coralligeno come paesaggio marino sommerso: distribuzione sulle coste italiane. Biol. Mar. Mediterr. 14 (2), 126e143. Giglio, V.J., Luiz, O.J., Schiavetti, A., 2015. Marine life preferences and perceptions among recreational divers in Brazilian coral reefs. Tour. Manag. 51, 49e57. Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., Watson, R., 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948e952. Hynes, S., Norton, D., Corless, R., 2014. Investigating societal attitudes towards the marine environment of Ireland. Mar. Policy 47, 57e65. Jacobs, S., Sioen, I., Pieniak, Z., De Henauw, S., Maulvault, A.L., Reuver, M., Fait, G., Cano-Sancho, G., Verbeke, W., 2015. Consumers' health riskebenefit perception of seafood and attitude toward the marine environment: insights from five European countries. Environ. Res. 143 (B), 11e19. Jefferson, R.L., Bailey, I., Laffoley, D., Richards, J.P., Attrill, M.J., 2014. Public perceptions of the UK marine environment. Mar. Policy 43, 327e337. Leleu, K., Alban, F., Pelletier, D., Charbonnel, E., Letourneur, Y., Boudouresque, C.F., 2012. Fishers' perceptions as indicators of the performance of Marine protected Areas (MPAs). Mar. Policy 36, 414e422. Malhotra, N.K., 1996. Marketing Research: an Applied Orientation, second ed. Prentice-Hall International, Inc. Mangi, S.C., Austen, M.C., 2008. Perceptions of stakeholders towards objectives and zoning of marine-protected areas in southern Europe. J. Nat. Conserv. 16, 271e280. Martin, C.L., Momtaz, S., Jordan, A., Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., 2016. Exploring recreational fishers' perceptions, attitudes, and support towards a multiple-use marine protected areas after six years implementation. Mar. Policy 73, 138e145. Masud, M.M., Kari, F.B., Yahaya, S.R.B., Al-Amin, A.Q., 2014. Impact of residents' livelihoods on attitudes towards environmental conservation behaviour: an empirical investigation of Tioman Island Marine Park area, Malaysia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 93, 7e14. McAuliffe, S., Potts, J., Canessa, R., Baily, B., 2014. Establishing attitudes and perceptions of recreational boat users based in the River Hamble Estuary, UK, towards Marine Conservation Zones. Mar. Policy 45, 98e107. McCay, B.J., Jones, P.J.S., 2011. Marine protected areas and the governance of marine ecosystems and fisheries. Conserv. Biol. 25, 1130e1133. McKinley, E., Fletcher, S., 2012. Individual responsibility for the oceans? An valuation of marine citizenship by UK marine practitioners. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53, 379e384. Milfont, T.L., Duckitt, J., 2010. The environmental attitude inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 80e94. Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level e and effective? Environ. policy Gov. 19, 197e214. Newton, R.S., Stefanon, A., 1975. Application of side scan sonar in marine biology. Mar. Biol. 31, 287e291. Nesto, N., Moschino, V., Picone, M., Boldrin, A., Da Ros, L., 2014. Un database sui popolamenti macro-zoobentonici ed ittici degli habitat rocciosi subtitali al largo delle coste venete. Biol. Mararina Mediterr. 21 (1), 259e260. Nunes, P.A.L.D., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2001. Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecol. Econ. 39, 203e222. OECD, 2001. Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits. Selected Studies. OECD, Paris. Paterson, D.M., Hanley, N.D., Black, K., Defew, E.C., Solan, M., 2011. Biodiversity, ecosystems and coastal zone management: linking science and policy. Mar. Ecol. 434, 201e202. Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Corlian, M.E., Zaccarelli, N., Dadamoa, M., 2007. Tourist perception of recreational environment and management in a marine protected area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 79, 29e37. Pita, C., Theodossiou, I., Pierce, G.J., 2013. The perceptions of Scottish inshore fishers about marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 37, 254e263. Potts, T., O'Higgins, T., Mee, L., Pita, C., 2011. Public Perceptions of Europe's Seas e a Policy Brief. EU FP7 KNOWSEAS Project. Available from: http://www.knowseas. com/links-and-data/policy-briefs/Knowseas%20Marine%20Social%20Survey% 20Final-_ws.pdf/view. Schultz, P.W., 2011. Conservation means behaviour. Conserv. Biol. 25, 1080e1083. Schwartz, M.W., Brigham, C.A., Hoeksema, J.D., Lyons, K.G., Mills, M.H., van Mantgem, P.J., 2000. Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia 122, 297e305. Spash, C.L., 2002. Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation:
78
S. Tonin, G. Lucaroni / Ocean & Coastal Management 140 (2017) 68e78
coral reef biodiversity. J. Econ. Psychol. 23, 665e687. Spash, C.L., 2009. Ecological Economics: Critical Concepts in the Environment, 4 Volumes. Routledge, London. Steel, B., Smith, C., Opsommer, L., Curiel, S., Warner-Steel, R., 2005. Public ocean literacy in the United States. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48, 97e114. Stump, N.E., Kriwoken, L.K., 2006. Tasmanian marine protected areas: attitudes and perceptions of wild capture fishers. Ocean Coast. Manag. 49, 298e307. Suman, D., Shivlani, M., Milon, J.W., 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean Coast. Manag. 42, 1019e1040. Trenouth, A.L., Harte, C., Paterson de Heer, C., Dewan, K., Grage, A., Primo, C.,
Campbell, M.L., 2012. Public perception of marine and coastal protected areas in Tasmania, Australia: importance, management and hazards. Ocean Coast. Manag. 67, 19e29. ^, F.G., Coulibaly, O., Ade gbidi, A., Sinsin, B., 2010. Community perception of Vodouhe biodiversity conservation within protected areas in Benin. For. Policy Econ. 12, 505e512. Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J., Watson, R., 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Sci. Mag. 314, 787e790.