Many students majoring in environment-related subjects are not aware of the reasons to a certain extent.

A survey of more than 4,000 students from 37 countries conducted by Goethe University Frankfurt shows that there is a clear gap in the understanding of students of environment-related majors around the world regarding the causes of global biodiversity loss.

The gaps varied between countries: in some countries, climate change was often underestimated as a cause of biodiversity loss, in others it was invasive species, and in still others it was pollution. The survey also showed that country-specific indicators greatly influenced students’ views.

There are about 10 million species of plants and animals on Earth, most of which have not yet been discovered, and one million of them could become extinct in the next few decades. The loss of biodiversity will have serious consequences because plants and animals provide multiple services. They maintain ecosystems, ensure a more balanced climate on Earth, and provide us with food and pharmaceutical active substances. Frankly speaking, without biodiversity, we humans cannot survive.

That is why resolute political action is urgently needed to tackle the “sixth mass extinction” in Earth’s history. Today’s environmental students are a particularly important group of people. It is foreseeable that many of them will occupy influential positions in environmental policy and business in the future and play a key role in determining whether global biodiversity decline can be effectively addressed.

But how well do future decision-makers know? Can they identify the main causes of biodiversity and distinguish them from factors that have no effect on biodiversity at all? “Our study is the first to examine these questions scientifically on a global scale,” says Dr. Matthias Kleespies from the Teaching Department of Biosciences at Goethe University Frankfurt.

This work was published in the journal npj Biodiversity.

Together with other researchers in Frankfurt, Kleispis conducted an online survey of around 4,400 students in environment-related degree courses from 37 countries, who were given a questionnaire listing eight drivers of global biodiversity loss. These included five practical causes: climate change (increasing droughts and other consequences of global warming), overexploitation (such as overfishing), habitat loss (for example due to deforestation), displacement by invasive species, and pollution (air pollution, plastic waste, oil spills).

The questionnaire also listed three factors that had little or no impact on biodiversity: electromagnetic smog, factory and traffic noise, and the Internet. Respondents were asked to indicate how much they believed these eight factors contributed to biodiversity decline. The scale ranged from 1 (little impact) to 5 (large impact).

To analyze the completed questionnaires, the researchers used a special method to identify patterns in the data. The result was eight different groups, each with a different and easily distinguishable type of responses.

“For example, in answering type 1, all main causes were recognized, except climate change, whose impact on biodiversity decline was underestimated by students,” explains Kleespies. In type 2, on the other hand, pollution played a minor role, and in type 7, invasive species played a minor role. Type 3 is a special form in which all main causes were underestimated and not even distinguished from irrelevant factors such as noise.

“Fortunately, the number of such reactions was relatively low,” Kleespies said. Overall, the eight reaction types occurred with varying frequencies across the countries studied.

In the next step of the assessment, the research team examined the context of the responses: What led to the different types of responses? Here, the researchers incorporated country-specific indicators: the country’s CO₂ emissions, as well as prosperity, environment and biodiversity indicators. “We found that these indicators had a strong influence on student perceptions across countries,” Kleespies said.

For example, in response type 1, climate change is underestimated as a driver. In countries with very high CO2 emissions,₂ However, this is more common in Category 1 emitters such as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

“While our data cannot explain why this is the case, we suspect that students in these countries are not well aware of this. They do not learn at university that climate change will also exacerbate biodiversity loss. Furthermore, this is related to their own country’s contribution to climate change. Perhaps people are still reluctant to acknowledge how serious climate change is.”

When answering Type 2 (pollution is an underestimated factor), the correlation between students’ perceptions and country-specific indicators was also identifiable, but in a different form. Students underestimated the pollution factor more often in wealthier countries with healthier ecosystems, such as Australia, Sweden, and Germany. Kleespies suggests that pollution may not be seen as a problem in these countries, and therefore not as one of the main causes of global biodiversity loss.

On the other hand, response type 7 significantly underestimates the impact of invasive species and is more common in countries with fewer invasive species, such as Nigeria and Kenya. In contrast, response type 7 is rare in Australia and Spain—even though invasive species are a major problem in both countries.

What does Kleispis conclude from this study? “This study shows for the first time that there are huge gaps in knowledge among the next generation of environmental decision-makers regarding biodiversity loss and its causes. We need to close these gaps.”

This is where today’s decision-makers in universities and politics come in. They must create overarching frameworks that address all the causes of this complex problem in the study of the university environment in their respective countries.

“Biodiversity loss affects us all; it is a global issue. That’s why students on environment-related degree courses need to think globally, no matter which country they come from.” This study is a call in that direction.