No abstract

It is essential to engage the public in conservation measures to conserve insects. We investigate the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), as well as knowledge, attitudes, and sociodemographic variables (gender, age, education level, and income) as predictors of willingness to donate (WTD) and actual donations to insect conservation for a representative German sample (N = 515; MAge = 49.36, SD = 16.73; female = 50.1%). The PMT subcomponents severity, self-efficacy, and response efficacy, as well as attitudes toward insects, income, and education level, significantly predicted WTD. In contrast, severity, response barriers, age, gender, and the WTD significantly influenced actual donations. Overall, components of the PMT have high predictive power for both dependent variables. Our results suggest that an intention-behavior gap exists between the intention to donate and the actual donation toward insect conservation. Measures to increase WTD and actual donations for insect conservation are discussed.

In this paper, the results of two free word association tests were analyzed to gain insight into Germans' attitudes toward insects. We used a novel approach in the form of an association network with the help of the software “Gephi” that was originally developed for social network analysis. The influence of attitude on the willingness to donate (WTD) and actual donation to an insect conservation project was investigated as well. Data collection was conducted via an online questionnaire (n = 515; Mage = 49.36, SD = 16.73; female = 50.1%). For the first test, participants listed three associations for the prompt “insect.” The associations were assigned to the three components of attitude: affective, cognitive, and behavioral. For the second test, participants named insects they pictured when thinking about “insects.” The results were taxonomically classified. The WTD was assessed with a Likert‐type scale and an actual donation could be made at the end of the online questionnaire. “Bee” was the most frequently named association, followed by “useful,” “nature,” “pollination,” and “pesky.” “Pesky” was most often named with “useful,” indicating that being aware of insects' usefulness is not enough to supersede negative associations. In the second test, only 6% of the associations were on the species level, which suggests little taxonomic knowledge about or interest in insects. Linear regression revealed that positive affective associations had a positive influence on the WTD and negative affective associations had a negative influence on the WTD, both with a small effect size. We advise educating people not only about the usefulness of insects but also fostering positive, personal encounters to increase positive affective associations and decrease negative ones.

Due to the dramatic biodiversity crisis, it is crucial to understand how people perceive biodiversity. Knowledge of how thoughts are organized around this concept can identify which ideas are best to focus on biodiversity conservation information campaigns. The primary aim of the present study was to identify social representations of the German public regarding the concept of biodiversity and its loss using a free word association test. Furthermore, unique association networks were analyzed. For this purpose, data collection was performed in September 2021 in Germany using an online questionnaire to assess participants’ associations with the prompt “biodiversity” (n  = 131) and “biodiversity loss” (n  = 130). Additionally, we used the social network software Gephi to create biodiversity (loss) association networks. The five most commonly mentioned associations for biodiversity were “animal,” “plant,” “nature,” “human,” and “flower.” For biodiversity loss, the five most commonly mentioned associations were “species extinction,” “climate change,” “plant,” “insect,” and “bee.” Neither “land use change” nor “invasive species,” as key drivers of biodiversity loss, were present in social representations of the German public. A difference was observed in the total number of mentioned associations between biodiversity and biodiversity loss. For both, the associations “plant” and “animal” were related. However, participants associated specific taxa only with animals, such as “insects” and “birds.” For plants, no specific taxa were named. Based on the network analysis, the most commonly mentioned word pairs for biodiversity and biodiversity loss were “plant – animal” and “species loss – climate change,” respectively. Based on our statistical network analysis, these associations were identified as the most central associations with the greatest influence in the network. Thus, they had the most connections and the function of predicting the flow in the network. In sum, the public’s multifaceted views on biodiversity and its loss, as well as the aforementioned central associations, hold great potential to be utilized more for the communication and education of biodiversity conservation. In addition, our findings contribute to the scientific community’s understanding of social representations and perceptions of biodiversity and its loss.