Children’s environmental perception of protected areas in the Atlantic Rainforest / Percepción ambiental infantil en la selva tropical. Cómo los niños perciben las áreas protegidas de la selva tropical
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2015
Children’s environmental perception of protected areas in the Atlantic Rainforest / Percepción ambiental infantil en la selva tropical. Cómo los niños perciben las áreas protegidas de la selva tropical
Interaction between children and protected natural environments was analysed in an exploratory method investigation conducted by a multi-disciplinary team in the Atlantic Rainforest. The purpose was to understand the environmental perceptions of children about the natural environment of a biological reserve’s buffer zone in which they live. The specific objectives were: to outline a group profile on environmental perception based on the analysis of drawings made by children; to deepen the understanding of the environmental perception of participants through discussion groups; to compare children’s drawings with photographs. We found similarity between the real landscape and the drawings, betokening the empirical adequacy of environmental knowledge. We argue that protected natural environments provide opportunities for cognitive, affective and social development, in addition to being a direct source of personal significance for their conservation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AntonioD. G.GuimarãesS. T. L. (2005). Representações do meio ambiente através do desenho infantil: refletindo sobre os procedimentos interpretativos. Educação Ambiental em Ação, 14, 1–8.
2.
BarrazaL.AhumadaH.Ceja-AdameM. P. (2006). El dibujo como herramienta de análisis: conocimientos, percepciones y actitudes sobre la diversidad biológica de los niños en México. In CalixtoR. (Ed.), Educación ambiental para un futuro sostenible (pp. 271–282). Ciudad do México: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.
3.
Boeve-de PauwnJ.Van PetegemP. (2012). Cultural differences in the environmental worldview of children. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 2(1), 2–11.
4.
BrondiS.SarricaM.CibinNeresiniF.ContarelloA. (2012). The chiampo river 30 years later: Long-term effects of environmental regulations on social representations. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22, 283–299. doi:10.1002/casp.1111
5.
ChawlaL. (2002). Spots of time: Manifold ways of being in nature in childhood. In KahnP. H.Jr.KellertS. R. (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, socio-cultural and evolutionary investigation (pp. 199–225). Cambridge: MIT Press.
6.
ChawlaL. (2006). Learning to love the natural world enough to protect it. Barn (Children), 2, 57–78.
7.
ClarkA. (2001). How to listen to very young children: The mosaic approach. Child Care in Practice, 7, 333–341. doi:10.1080/13575270108415344
8.
CobbE. (1977). The ecology of imagination in childhood. Putnam: Spring.
9.
CorralizaJ. A.ColladoS.BethelmyL. (2013). Spanish version of the new ecological paradigm scale for children. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16(E27), 1–8. doi:10.1017/sjp.2013.46
10.
Corral-VerdugoV.ArmendárizL. I. (2000). The “new environmental paradigm” in a Mexican community. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3), 25–31. doi:10.1080/00958960009598642
11.
DarbyshireP. (2007). `Childhood’: Are reports of its death greatly exaggerated?Journal of Child Health Care, 11, 85–97. doi:10.1177/1367493507076056
12.
DarbyshireP.MacDougallC.SchillerW. (2005). Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: More insight or just more?Qualitative Research, 5, 417–436. doi:10.1177/1468794105056921
13.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176
14.
ElorantaV.Yli-PanulaE. (2005). Animals in the landscape drawings of Finnish and Russian young people – in the landscape they want to conserve. Nordina, 2, 5–17.
15.
EvansG.BrauchleG.HaqA.SteckerR.WongK.ShapiroE. (2007). Young children’s environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 39, 635–658. doi:10.1177/0013916506294252
16.
FandiA. C.GomesA. R. (2005). Transformando olhares: O mato que virou mata. Ilhéus: IESB/WWF.
17.
FandiA. C.MeloC. (2000). Desenhos como instrumentos de avaliação de um programa de educação ambiental para alunos das zonas rural e urbana. Espaços da Escola, 37, 23–28.
18.
GibsonE. (1991). The development of perception as an adaptive process. In An odyssey in learning and perception, A Bradford Book (pp. 175–195). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Originally published in 1970).
19.
GoldbergL. G.YunesM. A. M.FreitasJ. V. D. (2005). O desenho infantil na ótica da ecologia do desenvolvimento humano. Psicologia em Estudo, 10, 97–106. doi:10.1590/S1413-73722005000100012
20.
GulayH. (2011). Reliability and validity studies of the Turkish version of the children’s attitudes toward the environment scale-preschool version (CATES-PV) and the analysis of children’s pro-environmental behaviors according to different variables. Asian Social Science, 7(10), 1–8. doi:10.5539/ass.v7n10p229
21.
GüntherH.ElaliG. A.PinheiroJ. Q. (2008). A abordagem mutimétodos em Estudos Pessoa-Ambiente: Características, definições e implicações. In PinheiroJ. Q.GüntherH. (Eds.), Métodos de pesquisa nos estudos pessoa-ambiente (pp. 369–396). São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo.
22.
HeftH. (2001). Ecological Psychology in context: JamesGibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James´s radical empiricism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
IBGE, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2007). ContagemPopulacional. Source: Retrieved from March, 11 2008, http://www. ibge. org. br.
24.
IESB. (2009). Informações Biológicas sobre a Região Sul da Bahia. In MartiniA. M. Z.CoelhoG. M. (Eds.), Biológicas sobre a Região Sul da Bahia, Ilhéus: IESB.
25.
IttelsonW. H. (1973). Environment perception and contemporary perceptual theory. In IttelsonW. H. (Ed.), Environment and cognition (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Seminar Press.
26.
KahnP. H.Jr. (2002). Children’s affiliations with nature: Structure, development and the problem of environmental generational amnesia. In KahnP. H.Jr.KellertS. R. (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural and evolutionary investigations (pp. 93–116). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
27.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KellertS. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. In KahnP. H.Jr.KellertS. R. (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural and evolutionary investigations (pp. 117–151). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
29.
KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (Eds.). (1993). Thebiophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
30.
LewisJ. L. (2006). Challenges of interdisciplinarity for forest management and landscape perception research. In TressB.TressG.FryG.OpdamP. (Eds.), From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education and application (pp. 83–94). Wageningen: Softcover.
31.
MartinO.PiattiG. (2009). MAB Position Paper. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones (pp. 73–73). Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
32.
MartinhoL. R.TalamoniJ. L. B. (2007). Representações sobre meio ambiente de alunos da quarta série do ensino fundamental. Ciência & Educação, 13, 1–13.
33.
MyersN.MittermeierR. A.MittermeierC. G.FonsecaG. A. B.KentJ. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858. doi:10.1038/35002501
PyleR. M. (2003). Nature matrix: Reconnecting people and nature. Oryx, 37, 206–214. doi:10.1017/S0030605303000383
36.
SchwarzM. L.SevegnaniL.AndréP. (2007). Representações da mata atlântica e de sua biodiversidade por meio dos desenhos infantis. Ciência & Educação, 13, 369–388.
37.
SnaddonJ. L.TurnerE. C.FosterW. A. (2008). Children´s perceptions of rainforest biodiversity: Wich animals have the lion´s share of environmental awareness?PlosOne, 3(7), 1–5. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002579
StrommenE. (1995). Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Children´s conceptions of forests and their inhabitants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 683–698. doi:10.1002/tea.3660320704
40.
TabarelliM.PintoL. P.SilvaJ. M. C.HirotaM. M.BedêL. C. (2005). Desafios e oportunidades para a conservação na Mata Atlântica brasileira. Megadiversidade, 1, 132–138.
41.
TuanI. F. (1978). Children and the natural environment. In AltmanI.WohlwillJ. F. (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Vol. 3. Children and the environment (pp. 5–32). New York, NY: Plenum.
42.
ViningJ.MerrickM. S.PriceE. A. (2008). The distinction between humans and nature: Human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and unnatural. Human Ecology Review, 15, 1–11.
43.
VitalliP. L.ZakiaM. J. B.DuriganG. (2009). Considerações sobre a legislação correlata à zona tampão de unidades de conservação no Brasil. Ambiente & Sociedade, XII, 67–82.
44.
WellsN.LekiesK. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments, 16(1), 1–24.
