1. Introduction
The loss of biodiversity and the deterioration of ecosystems due to critical drivers, such as climate change, expansion of urbanized areas, intensive livestock production, and wildlife trade, present new occasions for human interactions with pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi, which also increase the possibility of spreading diseases, such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This consequence is not completely surprising because emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are expected. EIDs have been significantly increasing since 1940. The 1940s correspond to the agricultural revolution (or green revolution). During this era, it was possible to change the traditional agricultural production system from a system based on natural cycles to an actual intensive production system based on pesticides, fertilizers, and chemical utilization. If, on the one hand, the productivity change has provided the possibility of feeding a wider part of the global population and consequently guaranteed its increase and well-being; on the other hand, it has caused a constantly increasing need for natural space required for that development and has often been linked to environmental factors [
1,
2,
3,
4]. Even if the understanding of the mechanisms underlying EID occurrence remains rudimentary [
5], emerging pandemics and, consequently, their economic impact, are increasing in frequency [
6].
All the key drivers mentioned above have a deep impact on natural systems and ecosystems, which are constantly trying to adapt to the new pressures due to anthropogenic activities and, consequently, modifying their resilience [
7,
8].
Concerning the relationship between humans and nature, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us how much they are interconnected. As reported by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service [
9], the same human activities (e.g., changes in how we use land, agriculture expansion, unsustainable trade, etc.) that drive climate change and biodiversity loss also drive pandemics. As stated by many experts, the excessive exploitation of ecosystem services can produce negative externalities, increasing the risks of infectious disease [
10]. The scientific literature and scholars agree on the close relationship between humans, the environment, and health [
11].
The pandemic crisis has exposed people to high risks of disease. However, the pandemic has also highlighted how important it is to invest in natural capital, for example, the protection of ecosystems, to convey safety benefits and enhance disease regulation. Restoring ecosystem services may limit the health harms transferred from animals to humans [
10]. During 2020 and 2021, people appreciated nature and ecosystem services, especially those in their homes’ proximity, such as green spaces in urban areas, to help them face severe movement restrictions by governments promoting physical and psychic well-being [
12]. Paradoxically, several limitations adopted to manage COVID-19 have brought positive ecological effects, such as significantly better air quality in dense urban areas [
4]. Research by the Economist Intelligence Unit (2021) [
13] showed that, globally, millions of people deemed nature and biodiversity loss a priority, which affected their behavior. Moreover, a study sponsored by the Boston Consulting Group interviewed more than 3000 respondents in eight countries during the pandemic crisis (the survey was conducted among a sample of 3249 respondents in Brazil, France, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, the UK, and the US (see
https://www.bcg.com/it-it/publications/2020/pandemic-is-heightening-environmental-awareness, access on 22 November 2023)), and 70% of them believed that anthropocentric activities create environmental damage and health issues. Investment in conservation that can prevent biodiversity loss and ecosystem service decline could provide economic benefits and improve the health crisis [
14].
Ecosystem services, which comprise the benefits that ecosystems provide to people, play a key role in preserving and supporting human and economic well-being [
15]. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 [
16] identified four categories of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services.
Therefore, exploring people’s opinions, concerns, and knowledge regarding the contributions of ecosystem services to human life today is even more essential to designing policies that will protect nature and improve sustainable environmental conservation. Ref. [
17] indicate that the difficult task is to design an indicator to measure environmental attitudes that are, in turn, influenced by people’s experiences and personal perceptions. The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale, which was initially developed by [
18] and later modified by [
19], was successfully used to interpret and assess people’s ecological orientation. The NEP scale investigates people’s views about their ability to control nature, the finite nature of ecological resources, the equal rights between nature and humans, the harmful consequences of human behavior, and the belief that humans are not exempt from the constraints of nature. High values of the NEP scale indicate a “pro-ecological orientation”, which is a measure of how much people care about nature [
19]. The link between pro-environmental beliefs and pro-environmental behavior has to be demonstrated. However, since the studies conducted by [
20], which are related to the theory of planned behavior, and by [
21], scholars have proven that individuals with stronger environmental attitudes are more willing to pay for environmental resources. Similarly, the relationship between the environmental concerns of the general public and their support of environmental policies has been well-studied [
22,
23,
24,
25].
In the last 40 years, the NEP scale has been adopted in several fields of research and different geographical areas (see [
26]) for a meta-analysis of studies using the NEP scale (see [
27]) for a comprehensive overview of recent studies, or [
28]. In addition, [
29] provided information about the different numbers of items considered to construct the NEP scale (5, 6, 10, or 15 items) and some methodological details, such as the number of ordered response categories used for the NEP items (five-point, four-point or seven-point scale), or how to phrase the items (negative or positive meaning). The field of application covered by the NEP studies varies from environmental behavior regarding students, consumers, managers, and citizens [
30,
31,
32,
33] to pro-environmental behavior toward green buildings, energy-saving, and planning actions [
34,
35,
36,
37,
38]. Other studies have used the NEP scale to investigate public perceptions and attitudes toward ecosystems or environmental resource protection [
17,
39,
40,
41,
42,
43,
44,
45,
46,
47,
48,
49,
50].
This paper reports the results of an online survey administered to a sample of the Italian population (1517 respondents) between January 2021 and July 2021. This work is part of a broader research program on the economic valuation of marine ecosystem services in the Italian coastal habitats that are experiencing environmental and anthropic pressures (the scientific research program for a “regulated” lagoon called Venezia 2021 is coordinated by CORILA and defines an integrated set of observational tools and data to contribute to the correct balance of the lagoon ecosystem). This paper will discuss the results related to the investigation of (1) people’s perception and attitudes toward the environment and the ecological status of natural resources such as ecosystem services and (2) the perceived relationship between ecosystem loss and the COVID-19 pandemic.
This paper will contribute to the literature in three ways. First, we will provide further insights into the reliability of the NEP scale as a tool for measuring environmental attitudes and its internal consistency, significance, and dimensionality. Second, we will enable a better understanding of the factors that explain pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, which will support the conservation of coastal ecosystem services in Italy. Last, we will test the possible differences between the results obtained with the NEP scale mean scores and the main socio-demographic variables, as well as the respondents’ opinions on possible human-related factors of the transmission of COVID-19.
The paper is structured as follows:
Section 2 provides information about the questionnaire and describes the main socio-characteristics and beliefs of the respondents.
Section 3 describes the principal component analysis (PCA) results, and
Section 4 discusses the principal outcomes. The
Section 5 oncludes the paper and offers insights and future research directions.
4. Discussion
The present study employed the NEP scale in Italy to investigate people’s attitudes and beliefs about nature and ecosystem services in particular. Our objective was to better understand the familiarity of respondents toward ecosystem services and to determine people’s opinions about the possible link between the loss of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the proliferation of diseases such as COVID-19. In addition to posing direct questions to respondents, we adopted the NEP scale since it is one of the most accepted indicators for measuring people’s attitudes. In general, the current study revealed that people think that it is highly probable that ecosystem loss or degradation is a driving factor in the occurrence of diseases such as COVID-19. Moreover, respondents demonstrated familiarity with the concept’s ecosystem and ecosystem services in Venice. The awareness and knowledge of citizens toward ecosystem services will increase the acceptance of targeted conservation policy and guide the involvement of the general public and other stakeholders in supporting ecosystem conservation strategies and sustainable behavior [
59].
The study acquired essential findings concerning the NEP scale that can have significant implications for its use in future research.
First, the results showed that in our case study, the NEP scale was multidimensional; it measured three dimensions. This outcome is consistent with previous studies on the NEP scale dimensionality [
17,
60,
61,
62,
63,
64]. Nevertheless, many studies have revealed two dimensions [
65,
66,
67,
68,
69] or four dimensions [
27,
52,
70,
71] in their samples. Dimensions that constitute an environmental worldview differ in a historical, sociocultural, and spatial context [
72]. The NEP scale was created based on a developed country’s perspective of the environment. The genesis of widely utilized theoretical concepts and terms, such as the DSP and NEP, was defined according to a Western environmental view [
68].
Second, our results support the findings of previous studies suggesting that the NEP scale is internally consistent in its ability to display environmental attitudes. The total Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was 0.83, and according to previous studies, a reliability coefficient between 0.70 and 0.80 or greater is generally considered acceptable [
19,
73,
74]. However, this coefficient alone does not indicate if the scale is unidimensional or multidimensional.
Although most of the available evidence suggests the general validity of the NEP scale, greater consensus on whether the scale measure can be considered unidimensional or multidimensional is needed [
19].
Third, the total NEP score (56.09) indicated ecological concern and engagement by respondents, similar to other studies [
52].
Empirical results found a connection between environmental attitude and people’s socio-economic characteristics, territorial, and sociocultural context [
19,
26,
75,
76,
77]. Socio-economic characteristics include age, level of education, household income, and occupational status. Territorial and sociocultural contexts include the country in which the survey was administered, the historical context of the survey (considering that the NEP scale with 12/15 items has been used for four decades), and the language in which the survey and the statements are administered. Further, the type of sample used in the different surveys must be considered regarding the method of administration and the representativeness and heterogeneity of the selected sample. We found that women are more concerned with the environment than men. This result is consistent with other research findings in different geographical contexts, such as Greece, the US, India, and Brazil, demonstrating that women care more about the environment than men and score higher on the NEP scale [
17,
78,
79,
80,
81]. This finding can be attributed to gender roles, societal expectations, and women’s perceived responsibility for household and community well-being. Other significant determinants were people who work, are married, were familiar with the term ecosystem, and thought there was a high probability that the deterioration of ecosystem quality could lead to the spread of diseases similar to COVID-19. All these aspects can significantly affect the study results, and a cautious approach should be taken when comparing different samples. Parenthood and family planning can shape pro-environmental attitudes. Married people, especially those with children, may become more conscious of environmental issues as they consider the long-term impact on future generations. People who have a regular and long-term job may consider contributing to environmental sustainability and positively engage in pro-ecological behaviors. A higher level of environmental knowledge is often associated with more positive and pro-ecological attitudes. When individuals have a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of human activities with the environment and the potential consequences of unsustainable practices, they are more likely to express concern and support for environmental conservation [
82].
Some studies have found a correlation between NEP scores and behavior [
83]. Other studies argue that even if the results indicate that most of the population has a pro-NEP worldview, their behavior may substantially differ from the statements presented in the survey [
84]. This premise would indicate that a quantitative measurement (through the NEP method) may not be sufficient to determine people’s factual behavior. Attitudes and values do not necessarily lead to environmentally conscious behavior. Numerous elements, personal interests, ethics, and fear can directly or indirectly influence individual behavior [
73]. These elements deserve to be more clearly identified and analyzed.
Empirical research in other geographical and demographic areas is needed to understand the scale’s effectiveness and quality.
5. Conclusions
In this study, we administered a survey to investigate people’s views about the connection between ecosystem service and their attitude and engagement with nature. Moreover, we adopted the NEP scale to assess Italians’ environmental perceptions and attitudes, a prerequisite for designing appropriate conservation policies and preventing biodiversity and ecosystem service losses. Specifically, through applying the NEP scale and specific questions about the environment and ecosystem services, this research also explored the latent motivations useful to explaining individuals’ propensity for marine ecosystem protection and policy-making. Future research will investigate how the intimate connection between humans and nature may guide people in taking action or participating in specific projects aimed at safeguarding and improving ecosystem services.
According to the study results, Italian people (more than 80% of the sample) recognized a link between ecosystem health and the spread of diseases. People expressed a specific awareness and recognized the importance of the marine ecosystem in providing a wide variety of ecosystem services that derive, directly or indirectly, multiple benefits for humans and territorial development. Our findings reveal that the current pandemic may positively affect people’s perception of the importance of the environment and ecosystem services. Thus, by heightening people’s environmental awareness, our results suggest that the conservation of marine natural heritage is related to how people perceive the environment.
The results of the NEP scale (pro-NEP score of 60.18%) and the mean NEP score (56.09) demonstrated that respondents have a high level of environmental concern for most scale issues. This outcome is indicative of the embracement of the NEP statements by the majority of respondents for most issues on the scale. However, attitudes, beliefs, and mindsets are not the only drivers of proper pro-environmental behavior. Although they are significant in the underlying set of factors of these behaviors, it has been shown that direct experience of environmental relevance influences ecological worldviews, and presumably, direct experience of environmental education can also induce pro-environmental attitudes. A combination of different individual factors can lead to differences in ecosystem service perception. We found that women, people who worked, and those who were married were environmentally sympathetic. Similarly, persons who think that the deterioration of ecosystem quality led to a higher probability of virus and disease transmission showed strong biocentric attitudes.
The PCA reveals that the Italian NEP scale has three dimensions that are consistent with several previous studies on NEP scale dimensionality. The investigation of the multidimensional nature of the NEP scale has shown the complexity of analyzing environmental attitudes. More scientific evidence on a defined number of dimensions is needed; hence, further research is recommended. In addition, generalizing our study’s results to a larger population or other geographical context requires caution.
The study’s results may be helpful to policymakers in integrating people’s environmental concerns and perceptions into relevant decision-making processes. For example, it is possible to include specific educational initiatives aimed at raising awareness about environmental issues in different types of schools, emphasizing the interdependence of human–environment actions. Targeting schools, communities, and even workplaces can enhance knowledge and foster a sense of responsibility. Local and central governments can also design specific economic instruments, such as taxes, subsidies, or even tailored environmental agreements, to encourage citizens and enterprises to adopt sustainable practices. In general, the pro-ecological attitudes demonstrated in this study may be incentivized and integrated into various policy sectors intertwined with real ecosystem services such as tourism, energy, transportation, and waste management. Cooperation among different sectors can create cohesive policies that address multiple facets of environmental sustainability, reinforcing the alignment with public attitudes. Horizontally, the public and private sectors may finance research and innovation programs to create new sustainable products and processes and to support initiatives that explore and develop sustainable technologies, conservation strategies, and ecosystem restoration methods. This approach can contribute to the advancement of practices that favor positive behaviors toward environmental protection.
The results of this study will also guide future research in investigating how much environmental attitudes and beliefs guide people’s willingness to contribute to ecosystem services protection in future research. The pandemic crisis can increase the chance for radical policy change, assigning to nature and ecosystem services protection a strategic role for health security and a better quality of life.
The study’s results could support the current debate on the relationship between people’s attitudes toward the environment and public involvement in marine ecosystem conservation policies. However, this study has two shortcomings. First, to effectively prove the relationship between ecosystem services and people’s eco-centric views, we should have adapted the conventional 15 items to describe the critical issues of marine ecosystem services, similar to the work of [
44]. The NEP scale, which was revised in the 2000s, considered people’s views on the human–nature relationship during that era. This temporal context might impact the scale’s ability to fully capture contemporary perspectives on the people–ecology dualism. Future research could explore the development of an updated NEP scale that reflects a new viewpoint on environmental issues and ecosystem services, ensuring its relevance to the dynamic nature of attitudes in the Anthropocene. However, longitudinal studies are essential for tracking changes in environmental attitudes over time and thus provide valuable insights. Moreover, undertaking this study in different geographical and cultural contexts can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of global attitudes.
The second drawback is related to the survey organization. Although our two-wave design was inevitable, it would have been ideal to have simultaneously surveyed all respondents with a balanced sample, avoiding the relatively large percentage of people with higher education. Moreover, future research could combine self-reported data with observational or behavioral measures to better understand participants’ environmental behaviors. Additionally, exploring alternative survey methodologies or incorporating qualitative methods may mitigate biases associated with self-reporting.
The future and availability of natural resources are extremely uncertain, and good communications and solid education can lead to a decisive breakthrough. Involving all citizens, including our children and students, in environmental activities is the proper way to inform and teach how to behave to protect the planet and contribute to long-term environmental sustainability. However, creating change at the individual and community levels requires a considerable effort in understanding what really matters to people and, second, in identifying the suitable instruments to make participation possible.