Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS One
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Effect of environmental education on the
knowledge of aquatic ecosystems and
reconnection with nature in early childhood
Maria João FeioID
1
*, Ana Isabel MantasID
1
, So
´nia R. Q. SerraID
1
, Ana Raquel CalapezID
1
,
Salome
´F. P. AlmeidaID
2
, Manuela C. Sales
2
, Ma
´rio Montenegro
3,4
, Francisca Moreira
4
1Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra,
Coimbra, Portugal, 2Department of Biology, GeoBioTec–GeoBioSciences, GeoTechnologies and
GeoEngineering Research Centre, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal, 3CEIS20—Centre of
Interdisciplinary Studies & MARIONET- Associac¸ão Cultural, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of
Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, 4MARIONET- Associac¸ão Cultural, Coimbra, Portugal
*mjf@ci.uc.pt
Abstract
Blue and green ecosystems are considered a key for the improvement of cities sustainabil-
ity, providing numerous ecosystem services and habitat for many species. However, urban
streams are still neglected and degraded, specially in southern European countries. One
important step towards the rehabilitation of these ecosystems is the awareness of their
importance by citizens. This study aimed to assess the effect of 1-year of activities (field and
laboratory) of an environmental education project on primary school children, in improving
their knowledge on urban stream ecosystems and their problems. We analyzed students’
questionnaires before and after field and laboratory activities, drawings and group inter-
views. Initially, most children had incipient contact with rivers and streams, showing fears
and lack of knowledge about them. As the project progressed, their perceptions changed,
with a clear increase in the proportion of students recognizing the biodiversity associated to
rivers (e.g., names of riparian trees, aquatic plants and invertebrates). Also, their fears
decreased significantly, while their awareness to the impacts of artificialization and lack of
riparian vegetation increased. Our results show that direct contact with nature have a posi-
tive role in the way it is understood by children, as well as promoting responsible and sus-
tainable behaviors, being effective from the early primary-school years.
Introduction
The process of urbanization witnessed since the second half of the 20th century has exerted a
major impact on natural resources. In urban areas, the construction of roads and residential
infrastructures has led to a progressive destruction of natural environments jeopardizing the
sustainability of cities from an environmental, social, and economic point of view [1–3]. Par-
ticularly the aquatic ecosystems have been highly neglected, and many are polluted, artificia-
lized, or fully covered as result of the increasing urbanization [4–8]. In consequence, the
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 1 / 20
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Feio MJ, Mantas AI, Serra SRQ, Calapez
AR, Almeida SFP, Sales MC, et al. (2022) Effect of
environmental education on the knowledge of
aquatic ecosystems and reconnection with nature
in early childhood. PLoS ONE 17(4): e0266776.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776
Editor: Luiz Ubiratan Hepp, Universidade Regional
Integrada do Alto Uruguai e das Missoes, BRAZIL
Received: November 13, 2021
Accepted: March 25, 2022
Published: April 27, 2022
Copyright: ©2022 Feio et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the manuscript and its Supporting
Information files - an excel file was provided with
the answers to the questionnaires.
Funding: SRQS was financed by a post-doc grant
in the Project "PHARA-ON: Pilots for Healthy and
Active Ageing" funded by the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
(H2020-SC1-FA-DTS-2018-2); ARC by a posdoc
grant of project RIVEAL - RIparian forest Values
and Ecosystem services in uncertain freshwater
population often ignores their existence, their functions and services and contribute to their
increasing degradation (e.g., [9,10]). However, urban rivers and streams and their ecosystems,
virtually present in all cities, offer blue (water) and green (riparian vegetation of the banks and
channel) areas with a great potential to promote cities sustainability. If well preserved, their
aquatic and terrestrial associated environments can support a wide biodiversity (e.g., birds,
amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants), green corridors
(through their riparian vegetation) among disconnected natural areas, and provide innumer-
ous services to cities’ population [11]. Among these ecosystem services are: the improvement
of cities resilience to climate changes, air, water and soil quality; providing a better city aesthet-
ics; and areas to practice sports, for relaxation, or educational activities near schools [11].
People living in urban areas are affected by the environmental and social degradation being
subject to daily constraints, obstacles, and pollution (e.g., noise or vehicle emissions, light pol-
lution) with negative effects on their physical and mental health [12,13]. The exposure to natu-
ral environments can compensate for these drawbacks, promoting human health and
wellbeing through physical activity, stress reduction, social integration, and cooperative and
environmentally sustainable behaviors (e.g., [14–17]). This beneficial and restorative effects
associated to natural environments can be a result of conditioning and associative learning
[18]. Thus, the early exposure of children to nature is fundamental for the creation of a positive
experience, establishing the basis for sustainable behaviors [17,19,20]. However, in the cities
children spend most of their time indoors and have little opportunity to learn in natural envi-
ronments [21–25]. A survey carried out in the United Kingdom in 2009 shows that less than
10% of the children play in nature, while 40% of the adults said they did it when they were chil-
dren [26]. In Portugal, as in many southern European countries, classes or school activities in
natural environments are still rare as are the scientific experiments carried out during primary
school years.
Building engagement with nature into school curricula has been proposed as a low-cost
method to improve children’s psychological wellbeing [27,28] and even academic attainment
[29]. One way of achieving that is by bringing children to natural areas and implement hands-
on activities. The opportunity to experiment facilitates the creation of bonds with the environ-
ment, and the community (e.g., [20,23,30]). Also, children must have the opportunity to act
and contribute to transformation from an early age and actively participate in decision-making
processes [31]. However, they are usually not included in discussions about problems, which
limits their civic participation and their connection to the place [20,32,33].
In view of these, the environmental educational project CresceRio was created in 2018 in
the city of Coimbra, Portugal, assuming the urgency to promote the preservation and restora-
tion of urban streams, to reconnect the population of the city with nature, and the importance
of children as present and future agents of transformation of societies ([34]; https://www.
facebook.com/cresceriocoimbra/). During their primary school years, the same children par-
ticipate in field and laboratory activities aiming to show them: 1) the unknown urban stream
ecosystems near their schools and homes, their biodiversity and services; and 2) the problems
of these streams resulting from anthropogenic pressures, and plan solutions through hands-on
activities.
Here, we investigated the effect of this project on 6–7 years old children, aiming to assess if
this could be a useful approach to be integrated in future educational programs in early pri-
mary school years. We expected an increased engagement with nature over time, scientific
knowledge on freshwater ecosystems, and understanding of their problems associated to the
urbanization process.
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 2 / 20
futures and Altered Landscapes (LISBOA-01-0145-
FEDER-029790; FCT). MJF by FCT through Norma
Transito
´ria do DL 57/2016 changed by law 57/
2017). The funders had no role in study design,
data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Materials and methods
Project actions
The project CresceRio was implemented in the primary schools of Euge
´nio de Castro, located
in the center of the city of Coimbra (Central Portugal) by researchers of the University of
Coimbra and the Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre (MARE), and two non-profit
associations (the cultural association MARIONET and the environmental association PROA-
QUA). The city of Coimbra, with ca. 150.000 inhabitants, has temperate Atlantic climate and a
hilly orography, being rich in stream catchments that flow into the main river that crosses the
city, the Mondego River. Many of the streams are channelized and altered by centuries of
urbanization (since pre-roman age), while others, in more recent urbanized districts are better
preserved. Therefore, they have different ecological quality, biodiversity and provide different
ecosystem services [11,35,36].
This study is focused on the activities undertaken with one class of 24 students over ca. 1
year. The hands-on activities included: 2 field trips and 1 laboratory class and 1 workshop
undertaken in the 1st school year (2018–2019); and 1 field trip undertaken in the 2
nd
school
year (Fig 1). The progress of the students was assessed at 4 survey moments by questionnaires
(3) and group interviews (1).
Fieldwork consisted in sampling two major elements of stream communities and bioindica-
tors, the microalgae (diatoms) and benthic aquatic macroinvertebrates. In addition, the diver-
sity of riparian vegetation, amphibians, terrestrial insects and birds and the presence of non-
native and invasive species was also investigated in situ by the students, with the help of
researchers, and registered. The most representative species were identified using simplified
guides designed for children by the teams. Finally, the anthropogenic alterations in the channel
and margins, such as cuts of vegetation, presence of weirs and dams, impervious surfaces, pres-
ence of litter, among others were also analyzed.
The first field trip (October 2018) was to a well-preserved reference stream located outside
the city. This visit intended to provide the perception of a non-impacted stream ecosystem and
its components (e.g., riparian gallery, diversity of aquatic habitats, flow conditions, substrate
diversity, banks material, fauna and flora). The second field trip (November 2018) was to an
urban stream near the school (ca. 1 km) with significant visible alterations. The stream is sur-
rounded by buildings, roads and bridges, is linearized, has cuts in the riparian vegetation, pres-
ence of invasive species, and evidence of eutrophication. In a third activity (February 2019),
samples of benthic invertebrates and diatoms were taken to the school and a laboratory envi-
ronment was created in the classroom. The researchers guided the students through the pro-
cesses of sorting and identification of macroinvertebrates and diatoms with stereo and
binocular microscopes. In addition, they identified fallen leaves of the typical riparian trees
collected by the students during the field trips. Then, the official biological quality indices used
in Portugal for invertebrates and diatoms were calculated [37], the results discussed and com-
pared to their observations in the field and photographs. In June 2019, end of the 1
st
school
year, the students participated in a workshop (that was also intended for other students that
were not directly involved in the project) where they revisited their previous activities through
photos and videos, saw again the benthic invertebrates and microalgae, and discussed the
problems of urban streams. Finally, in the 2
nd
school year the same students participated in a
third field trip (October 2019) to a different urban stream, where they performed similar activ-
ities to those undertaken in previous ones (Fig 1). This second urban stream was less altered
than the first, had a higher biodiversity, but still had visible signs of the impact of urbanization
(crossed by a bridge and a road, stone walls in a small river stretch and cuts of riparian
vegetation).
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 3 / 20
Assessment of students’ perceptions and evolution
Questionnaires, interviews, and drawings were used at 4 survey moments (M; Fig 1) to assess
the student’s evolution in terms of knowledge and awareness on urban freshwater ecosystems
gained over the project. The questionnaires were made in a simple and direct language, in Por-
tuguese (children’s native language) and employed common names of the species or large tax-
onomic groups, using the same terms that they heard in the field trips and laboratory classes.
To simplify the term “river” was used throughout the questionnaires. Considering the difficul-
ties that children could have in filling the questionnaires, given that they were carried out at
Fig 1. Timeline of CresceRio actions (field trips and laboratory class) and surveys to students (inquiries– M1-M3 and interviews—M4).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776.g001
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 4 / 20
the beginning of their literacy, we used symbols instead of writing (for example, smiling faces
for yes and sad faces for no). Emotions are increasingly used as a communication system rec-
ognized by both children and adults [38]. Also, the teacher in the classroom administered the
questionnaires but was not allowed to explain the meaning of the terms used in the question-
naires. The first questionnaire was conducted before the first field trip (September 2018, M1);
the second, after the first field trip (November 2018, M2) and the third after the second field
trip and the laboratory class (March 2019, M3) (Fig 1). In M1, 23 children (14 girls; 9 boys)
with 5–6 years old were surveyed; in M2, 22 children (13 girls; 9 boys) and in M3, 24 (14 girls;
10 boys) with 6–7 years old.
The questionnaire was composed of five groups of questions (Q): 1) students’ identifica-
tion and background: student number–Q1, age–Q3, gender—Q4; where the student live—
municipality–Q2 and country or city—Q5; 2) awareness of streams and rivers: if there is any
river/stream near their homes–Q6 and its name–Q7; if they know any a river–Q8 and where it
is located–Q9; if they visit rivers/streams- Q10 and with whom—Q11 (4 options) and when
they go–Q12 (4 options); and what they do in the rivers/streams–Q13 (8 options); if they think
it is dangerous to go to a river/stream—Q14, and what could constitute a risk–Q15 (4 options);
3) recognition of the biodiversity associated to rivers: if there are animals in the rivers–Q16
and which ones—Q17 (11 options corresponding to large groups, e.g., fish, mosquitos, dragon-
fly, amphibians); if there are plants inside the rivers (aquatic plants)–Q18 and which ones (3
options)–Q19, if there should be trees in the river banks (riparian vegetation)–Q20, and which
ones (5 options—common names of tree species)–Q21; 4) awareness of stressors and alter-
ations affecting rivers: what is wrong in a river/what should not be present—Q22 (29 options
that included natural features, such as mud, sand, stones or boulders and also indicators of
impairment such as colors in the water, absence of curves, presence of litter, construction in
the banks and margins, artificialization of the channel and banks); and 5) awareness of the
ecosystem services provided by rivers to the population–Q23 (11 options). In most of
options the students needed to choose the categories “Yes” or “No” and in some cases any of
those (no selection). All questions are listed in S1 Table.
As a part of the questionnaires at M2 and M3, children were asked to draw what they
expected to find in a river, given that at this age they are more used to drawing than to writing
and would give them more freedom to represent what they learned and remember. The ele-
ments represented in the drawings were listed and analyzed.
In addition, in November 2019 (2nd of the project) students were interviewed in groups
(M4; Fig 1). By this time the students had turned 7 years old. The group interviews allowed to:
1) test the consistency of the responses to the questionnaires; 2) evaluate the result of the activi-
ties carried out up to that time and not included in the interviews; 3) to further investigate
some questions, namely their awareness of river conservation and protection actions, as these
aspects were discussed with them during the last activities. The interviews were carried out in
four groups (G) of students composed of five children and one by four, for a total of 24 stu-
dents. All groups included boys and girls. The focus groups lasted 30 minutes and took place
in a room provided for this purpose at the school. The interviews focused on the questions of
the survey, which were deepened. Students were left free to speak and introduce new topics.
All interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Data analyses
The characterization of the target group—students and their habits (e.g., where they live, how
they travel to the school, if they visit streams and rivers or not) resulted from the joint analysis
of the results of all questionnaires for these questions and interviews. The questions with their
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 5 / 20
various options were used as variables (except for gender and home location). To evaluate the
significance (p<0.05) of differences in the recognition of the biodiversity associated to rivers,
paired t-tests were applied to the answers of the first questionnaire moment (M1) and the last
questionnaire moment (M3). The results between the three questionnaires (M1, M2 and M3)
were compared through graphical analyses, a Multiple Correspondence Analyses (MCA) and
associated Chi-Square tests.
To assess the existence of a global temporal pattern we used the Multiple Correspondence
Analysis (MCA) based on the answers of the students to the categorical variables in questions
Q6—Q23. Moment (M) and Gender were treated as supplementary variables (thus not con-
tributing to the spatial patterns). An absence of reply was treated as missing value. The infor-
mation from one student in M2 was eliminated due to the high number of missing values. The
missing values were not replaced by simulated values because they may be an indicator of hesi-
tation and lack of confidence. The correlation coefficients (R
2
) of the supplementary variables
Moment and Gender with the MCA first dimensions were used to assess the importance of
these in explaining the students’ answers. Finally, Chi-square tests were used to test if the cate-
gorical variables have significant variation (p<0.05) over time (M). The more significant the
test is, the more Ms and answers are linked.
For graphical and statistical outputs, we have used Microsoft Office 365 and R software [39]
using FactoMineR [40], and ggplot2 [41] packages. The treatment of the interviews and their
consequent systematization was done based on the technique of content analysis, which aims
to simplify and organize the raw data.
Ethics statement
This study was approved by the board of the school to which the students belonged too (Agru-
pamento de Escolas Euge
´nio de Castro). The parents or tutors of the children involved in this
study gave their written consent to the participation of students in the study. This study was
fully performed in the presence of the responsible teacher and in the context of the program-
matic content of primary school years, and following the rules a priori established by the
school board and teacher (for field, laboratory and surveys). The data was analysed anony-
mously (S1 Data).
Results
Students’ background
According to the results of the questionnaires 83% of the students live in urban areas. The
interviews with the focus groups revealed that most children travel to school by car (14). They
are more used to play indoors, although they find more attractive to play outside their homes
to have more freedom. The different answers provided were:
i. There are more things at home, at home we have our toys; but on the street we can climb
trees, we can play
ii. On the street, because we can investigate things and we can see new things that we’ve never
seen before
Awareness of streams and rivers
In M1, when the project began, most children (78%) said that there is no river close to home, but
this number decreased over time to 50 and 54% in M2 and M3, respectively. There was also an
increase in the number of children who claim to know a river (from 56% in M1 to 82 and 83% in
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 6 / 20
M2 and M3, respectively). Yet, most children say “They usually go to the river” (61% in M1, 68%
in M2 and 58% in M3) and this activity is done with family and friends. Almost all activities that
can be done in the river (e.g., walk the dog, picnic, swimming) are mentioned by the students
although the most frequent one is family outings (between 39% in M1, 50% in M2 and 54% in
M3). Over time, more students started to report more activities at the river (from 24 activities cho-
sen by the class in M1 to 59 in M3). In the interviews, when asked about what they do in the river,
children showed a great attraction for water by answering:
i. I put my hand in the water, almost the whole arm
ii. I swim and dive
iii. I go to the river beach on the Mondego River, dive, (. . .)
iv. I like to put my feet in the water
v. I like to put my hand on the river and play by the river and see the little fish
vi. To set foot in the water
Although these numbers are not consistent over time, most students (70% in M1, 46% in
M2 and 83% in M3) think that rivers are not dangerous. But when questioned about what can
be dangerous in a river, they point out more frequently falling into the water and the aquatic
animals, followed by terrestrial animals (Fig 2). Individually, the importance of these dangers
decreases over time in a consistent way, except for the risk by plants that is always low.
The interviews support these conclusions, but it should be noted that some animals that
they are afraid of, are not actually found in Portuguese rivers, such as sharks, or alligators, ani-
mals linked to their imaginary. To the question “Are you afraid of anything?” they answered:
i. Lesser weever
ii. Piranhas
iii. Fishes, sometimes.
Fig 2. Percentage of children referring dangers in the rivers/streams (falling into the water, aquatic animals,
terrestrial animals, and plants) over time in the questionnaires (M1-M3).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776.g002
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 7 / 20
iv. I’m afraid of. . . I’m afraid of very big fishes
v. I’m afraid of eels, (. . .)
vi. Fishes
vii. Bees
viii. Sharks and eels
Recognition of river biodiversity
Between M1 and M3 there was an increase in the proportion of students recognizing the exis-
tence of animals, aquatic plants, and trees near or in the river: 57% in M1, 86% in M2 and 96%
in M3. The most notorious increase of awareness was in aquatic invertebrates, followed by
dragonflies but there were also increases in amphibians and birds (Fig 3A). The same also
applies to aquatic plants (algae, filamentous algae and aquatic plants/macrophytes; Fig 3B):
39% in M1, 68% in M2 and 92% in M3. And for riparian vegetation, the recognition that they
are part of the riverine ecosystems increased from 35% in M1 to 46% in M2 and 88% in M3,
with a similar tendency for all categories (alders, willows, poplars, oaks and ash trees; Fig 3C).
When asked during the interview whether there should be trees by the river and why, most
children answered affirmatively, emphasizing its importance for the survival of animals and
humans by replying:
i. Because invertebrates can eat leaves
Fig 3. Percentage of students recognizing the existence of elements of the fauna and flora of stream ecosystems
over time (M1-M3) in the questionnaires.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776.g003
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 8 / 20
ii. When they fall
iii. For us
iv. They give us oxygen.
In addition, the students recognize the importance of not cutting the riparian vegetation,
when asked if they could be cut by answering:
i. No, because otherwise we don’t have oxygen and we die
ii. And the reeds appear and destroy the rivers
The analysis of the drawings (Fig 4) made by the students also showed that there was a clear
change in the perception of riverine biota over time. One of the greatest differences was the
fact that the imaginary and the common ideas of what a river is, gave way to the reality
observed during the field trips and laboratory class. Between M2 and M3, the main change
Fig 4. Examples of drawings made by children in the M2 –after the first field trip (a, b) and M3 –after the second
field trip and laboratory class (c, d).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776.g004
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 9 / 20
observed is related to the introduction of invertebrates, which are represented in detail in most
drawings of M3 (92%). Also, the proportion of drawings in which trees and birds are repre-
sented also increased considerably (Fig 5). Insects, birds and mammals that did not come out
in the first drawings appeared also in the second ones. On the other hand, the proportion of
drawings depicting fishes and people decreased. In turn, elements such as bridges, houses and
boats are no longer represented in M3.
Awareness of stressors and alterations affecting rivers
The students revealed some difficulties in distinguishing stressors and alterations of rivers
(what shouldn’t be there) against natural features (that could be there). Yet, when looking
into individual items, there was also a clear evolution over time, specially between M1 and
M2 (Fig 6). This is more evident regarding the natural substrates in the channel (e.g.,
stones and sand) or earth covering the river banks, where the proportion of responses say-
ing they shouldn’t be there decreased. And in the presence of some artificial elements
(e.g., presence of water abstraction, grass in the river banks, roads and sidewalks, bad
smell, garbage), where there was an increase in the proportion of answers saying that they
should not be present in a river. Also, the Eucalyptus trees (exotic), Acacia (exotic and
invasive trees), houses and agriculture are perceived as wrong aspects in river banks in a
similar way in M1 and M3.
In the interviews, the litter in the river is very present in the students’ discourse as one of
their main problems:
i. From the dirty river, with plastics and other water bottles.
ii. Plastic on the floor.
iii. I like plastics less.
iv. The garbage and trash.
v. Trash and garbage.
Fig 5. Proportion of students representing different elements related to alterations and biodiversity in their
drawings made along with questionnaires of M2 and M3 moments.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776.g005
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 10 / 20
When asked about what is wrong in the rivers, in addition to litter and trash, students also
mention the reeds, buildings, cement and dirty water and absence of animals or trees by
replying:
i. No trees around it
ii. No animals
iii. Without stones
iv. And also without animal food
v. Dirt
Fig 6. Proportion of students mentioning what they perceive as wrong in a river (or that shouldn’t be there) in
M1, M2 and M3.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776.g006
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 11 / 20
vi. The reeds
vii. Dirty water
viii. Large stones
ix. The stones are not bad because the animals sometimes live there
x. The reeds are very bad
Awareness of river ecosystem services
From M1 to M3, children became aware of the services that could be provided by a river or a
stream (Fig 7). In the M3 it is clear to all children that the river offers water for irrigation, a
place to swim and bath, freshness, and that it provides habitat for animals and plants.
Global effect of the project activities in the awareness and knowledge of
river ecosystems over time
In the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) (Fig 8) the first two dimensions of MCA
explained 18% of data variability (Dim1 = 10% and Dim2 = 8%). Over these two axes, the
answers show a clear temporal gradient, from M1 to M3, with a smaller segregation between
M1 and M2 and a larger segregation between M3 from M2 (also over Dim2), which is con-
firmed by the significant correlations of M with Dim1 (R
2
= 0.28, p<0.001) and Dim2 (R
2
=
0.37, p<0.001). Gender presented low correlation coefficients with both Dim1 and Dim2 (R
2
= 0.09, p = 0.04), and thus had a small contribution to the segregation of M.
The Chi-square tests (Table 1) reinforce the results of the above sections, showing a high
number of variables correlated with both dimensions (along which M is correlated). The most
significant correlations (p<0.001) highlight that the students became more aware of rivers
they visit, and of the presence of aquatic plants and riparian trees, of the river names. In addi-
tion, they modified their perceptions towards the natural (e.g., sandy bottom, earth in the mar-
gins) and artificial elements of the streams (as weirs), and the services provided by these
ecosystems (e.g., freshness, habitat for animals and plants).
Fig 7. Proportion of students mentioning what they perceive that a river or stream could give them (ecosystem
services) at M1, M2, M3.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776.g007
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 12 / 20
Awareness of river conservation and protection actions
Finally, during the interviews, when questioned about what should be done to preserve the
streams and rivers, the students referred the issue of garbage but also the deforestation, the
growth of (invasive) reeds (Arundo donax is a very common invasive species in the banks of
rivers in the region), the recovery of streams’ morphology and also the communication with
adults:
i. Do not throw trash on the floor
ii. We must not straighten the rivers.
iii. Don’t put big stones
iv. Cement
v. Not to cut down the trees
vi. Not to cut the leaves because the animals eat them
vii. Take out the reeds
viii. Remove the big stones
ix. Put more animals.
x. Clean up the trash
xi. Take out the bottles
Fig 8. Projection of individuals (Child+M) obtained in a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) performed on
categorical variables. Confident ellipses for Moments were set at 95% confidence level.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776.g008
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 13 / 20
xii. Take out the reeds
xiii. Do not plant things there that are not from that place and do not throw trash on the
ground, do not put more reeds because it is difficult to remove.
xiv. They grow a lot and it’s hard to pull them out, we have to burn them
xv. (Children) should tell all adults not to make the rivers dirty, not to do anything that dis-
turbs the rivers.
xvi. And also when we are adults we must not forget
xvii. I’m always telling my mom things I learn at school, not to do those things
Discussion
This study revealed three main findings: 1) children of primary schools located in an urban
environment had a poor contact with rivers and streams, and nature in general; 2) after 1 year
of activities and close contact with streams, their knowledge on the aquatic and terrestrial
Table 1. Results of significant p-values (p<0.05) for the Chi-square test between the Moments (M) and the cate-
gorical variables.
Variables p-value df
Q9. Where is the river located? 0.001 8
Q12.3. (Go to a river) on weekends 0.019 2
Q12.4. (Go to a river) on holidays 0.007 2
Q14. Believe rivers are dangerous 0.014 4
Q16. (There are) animals living in the river 0.015 4
Q17.2. (There are) Invertebrates (in the river) 0.012 4
Q18. (There are) plants inside the river 0.002 4
Q19.1 (There are) algae in the river 0.012 2
Q19.2. (There are) filamentous algae in the river 0.020 4
Q20. Are there trees on the river bank? 0.002 4
Q21.2. Willows live by the river <0.001 4
Q21.3. Poplars live by the river <0.001 4
Q21.5. Ash trees live by the river <0.001 4
Q22.2. (There shouldn’t’ be) sand in the river channel <0.001 2
Q22.5. (There shouldn’t’ be) trash in the river 0.005 2
Q22.6. (There shouldn’t’ be) a weir <0.001 4
Q22.9. (There shouldn’t be) a pipe drawing water 0.042 2
Q22.11. (There shouldn’t’ be) foam in the water 0.048 2
Q22.13. (There shouldn’t’ be) colors in the water 0.013 2
Q22.16. Banks made of earth 0.007 2
Q22.21. Big trees on the river bank 0.005 2
Q22.25. Grass by the river 0.010 2
Q23.1. Water to drink 0.021 2
Q23.2. Water for irrigation 0.049 2
Q23.3. Water for bathing and swimming 0.040 2
Q23.5. Other food (e.g., watercress) 0.005 2
Q23.7. Freshness 0.007 2
Q23.8. Clean air 0.048 2
Q23.11. Habitats 0.001 2
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776.t001
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 14 / 20
biodiversity associated to rivers, and the awareness of their main problems increased signifi-
cantly while, their fears and concerns decreased; 3) the continuation of the project over time is
a key for its success, as marked differences in students’ behavior and knowledge were only
clear after three activities and some months of project and not immediately after the first field
trip.
Throughout this study, we found that most children involved in the project had sporadic
contact with the rivers and streams, although they live in its proximity. They visit rivers mainly
during summer holidays and weekends, mostly for family outings and picnics. The general
poor contact with nature may explain the fears that the children mention and those that they
showed during field visits to the streams, especially in the beginning of the project. Several
children were afraid of falling into the water, of animals and getting dirty. Similarly, Mahidin
and Maulan [20], concluded that children, despite recognizing the beauty of nature, are afraid
to contact with it. This may be justified by the absence of learning about the functions and ben-
efits of nature. Their incipient contact with nature leads, in some cases, to the development of
unreal ideas that are present in the fears and concerns identified by some students. But
although they are afraid to interact with the “animals of the river” and with the “animals of
herbs”, they are fascinated by them. In fact, what attracts them most in the streams are animals
and water, elements that appear mentioned in several studies [42–44]. However, over time
their fears have consistently decreased. This supports the idea that direct contact with the envi-
ronment will facilitate the deconstruction of fears associated with the natural environment [20,
23,45].
The lack of knowledge that the students showed about the animals that inhabit the streams
and the trees that surround them, also demonstrates how far they are from nature. In the case
of trees, this distance is notorious, since they showed great difficulty in identifying very com-
mon species, such as oaks or willows. This does not mean, however, that they are not interested
in their exploitation. Children in general, show a fascination and a natural appetite for natural
environments that should be explored [46]. Also, Freeman and van Heezik [47], argued that
although most children have today less contact with nature than those of previous generations,
they are interested in the natural world, valuing it. Children are only temporarily disconnected
due to factors such as the environment in which they live, the influences and pressures of peers
and the assimilation of the ideas transmitted by the family. Indeed, according to several stud-
ies, culture seems to act on how individuals connect with nature [48,49]. The interest shown
by students in exploring the streams ecosystem during field visits and in the microscopic
observations is evidence of this finding.
This interest for the activities proposed and the direct contact with the fauna and flora pro-
duced clear results in terms of their knowledge regarding aquatic invertebrates and riparian
trees. Regarding invertebrates, as well as microalgae, the fact that they observed them in the
classroom under the microscope can be associated with the easiness with which they recognize
their presence in the streams and reproduce them in the drawings, as this was clearer again in
M3 in opposition to M2. Additionally, trees were particularly represented in children’s draw-
ings of the last questionnaire (M3), contrary to the initial ones, after the first field trip (M2).
This increasing importance of trees may result from the contrast between the naturalized
stream and the urban stream observed in the second field trip. In addition, in the laboratory
class (before M3) they analyzed diverse leaves and images of riparian trees and learned their
names, reinforcing the field observations. The importance of hands-on and outdoor activities,
and systematic teaching in the scientific knowledge is well studied (e.g., [28,29,50,51]. Our
study also confirmed that environmental programs should not be restricted to sporadic activi-
ties as a longest duration is more likely to change behaviors [52].
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 15 / 20
Despite the physical relationship they establish with nature being more and more superfi-
cial, children are increasingly aware of environmental threats [21] and that was evident in
group interviews (M4). The dangers that garbage and pollution pose to the environment and
to animals, are often pointed out by students as a problem, showing themselves concerned
with the actions of adults. Yet, the environmental perception that they showed is acquired sec-
ond-hand, being associated mainly with the education programs and information conveyed by
the media. Thus, there is a difficulty in identifying the specific problems of rivers and streams
since they are less widespread. But although there are still some hesitations, there was an
increased perception of the stressors and alterations to which rivers and streams are subject.
The threat that the artificial elements constitute (e.g., weirs, dams, artificial walls, absence of
trees, color or smell of the water) is highlighted by the students who showed concern for the
valorization of the natural environment in detriment of the environment modified by the
human being. Nevertheless, our results showed that this is a topic where more investment is
needed, as not all concepts were clearly understood.
The development of environmental awareness is primarily concerned with the development
of love for nature [46] given that “you do not love and respect what you do not know” (Louv,
2010). In fact, the project permitted students to interact in loco with the streams, which is help-
ing to change some misconceptions about them. The fact that they experienced nature first
hand, allowed them to fully understand it through all the senses (odors, sounds, textures),
establishing a stronger connection with it. And the children started to understand more clearly
the services that rivers and streams can provide (e.g., freshness, clean air, water for several pur-
poses and some food items). The classroom research activities also played a major role in
developing the scientific curiosity, completing field trips. Together all these activities led chil-
dren to raise the value they give to nature, which constitutes a good promise for more sustain-
able cities. Despite the clear effect that project activities had on city children (the target of our
project), these outcomes cannot be generalized to all children of this age, as others living in
more rural areas would probably perceive nature in different ways. Thus, the gains of the proj-
ect could also be different, likely more associated to the increase in scientific knowledge but
less regarding the contact with nature.Finally, in this study we couldn’t detect differences
between genders, including the fears related to rivers. Yet, further investigation should be
done on this topic, as this was not the main aim of our questionnaires and it is still a fact that
science studies and careers are globally uneven, with a lower proportion of girls pursuing them
[53,54].
Conclusions
Although the conclusions are limited to the group under study, we can say that the continuity
of environmental education activities of project CresceRio with the same group of students
allowed for a change of perception about rivers and stream ecosystems and contributed to the
acquisition of tools to develop critical and informed thinking. The school environment pro-
vided a real and effective opportunity to promote proximity to nature, in a consistent and over
a long period of time [27,28]. Our results are aligned with current outdoor learning move-
ments that supports the mission of reconnecting children with nature, through ‘wild time’ and
outdoor play and learning activities. Outdoors activities and biodiversity-focused programs
bring physical benefits, such as preventing sedentary lifestyle and promoting mental and
behavioral health while increasing children cooperation, academic performance and sustain-
able behaviors [28,29,50,51]. And raising awareness in children on the importance of pre-
serving and recover nature within cities and freshwater ecosystems is essential to promote
their rehabilitation and create more sustainable cities.
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 16 / 20
Supporting information
S1 Table. List of questions made in the three questionnaires (M1, M2, M3) to the students
and used as variables in data analyses.
(DOCX)
S1 Data.
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We thank all participants of project CresceRio and their parents/legal tutors, the direction of
the Agrupamento de Escolas Euge
´nio de Castro, Solum’s basic school, the teacher Maria Alda
Alves, and Elsa Pereira and Ana Carolina Sousa for their support in field trips and laboratorial
work.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Maria João Feio, Ana Isabel Mantas, So
´nia R. Q. Serra, Ma
´rio
Montenegro.
Data curation: Maria João Feio.
Formal analysis: Maria João Feio, Ana Isabel Mantas, So
´nia R. Q. Serra.
Funding acquisition: Maria João Feio.
Investigation: Maria João Feio, So
´nia R. Q. Serra, Ana Raquel Calapez, Salome
´F. P. Almeida,
Manuela C. Sales, Francisca Moreira.
Methodology: Maria João Feio.
Writing – original draft: Maria João Feio, Ana Isabel Mantas, Ana Raquel Calapez.
Writing – review & editing: So
´nia R. Q. Serra, Salome
´F. P. Almeida, Manuela C. Sales, Ma
´rio
Montenegro, Francisca Moreira.
References
1. Marques, 2005 Marques TS. Sistema Urbano e Territo
´rios em transformac¸ão. In Medeiros C.A., editor.
Geografia de Portugal–Sociedade, Paisagens e Cidades, 2. Cı
´rculo de Leitores; 2005. pp. 191–210.
2. Giusti M, Svane U, Raymond CM, Beery TH. A framework to assess where and how children connect to
nature. Front. Psychol. 2018; 8: 2283. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02283 PMID:
29354088
3. Janeczko E, Dąbrowski R, Budnicka-Kosior J, Woźnicka M. Influence of Urbanization Processes on the
Dynamics and Scale of Spatial Transformations in the Mazowiecki Landscape Park. Sustain. 2019; 11:
1–12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113007.
4. Hughes RM, Dunham S, Maas-Hebner KG, Yeakley JA, Harte M, Molina N, et al. A Review of Urban
Water Body Challenges and Approaches: (2) Mitigating Effects of Future Urbanization. Fisheries
2014a; 39: 30–40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2014.866507.
5. Hughes RM, Dunham S, Maas-Hebner KG, Yeakley JA, Schreck C, Harte M, et al. A Review of Urban
Water Body Challenges and Approaches: (1) Rehabilitation and Remediation. Fisheries 2014b; 39:
18–29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2013.836500.
6. Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminiella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM & Morgan RP II. The urban stream
syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005; 24: 706–
723. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1899/04-028.1.
7. Wenger SJ, Roy AH, Jackson CR, Bernhardt ES, Carter TL, Filoso S, et al. Twenty-six key research
questions in urban stream ecology: an assessment of the state of the science. J. North Am. Benthol.
Soc. 2009; 28: 1080–1098. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1899/08-186.1.
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 17 / 20
8. Yli-Pelkonen V, Pispa K, Helle I. The role of stream ecosystems in urban planning: A case study from
the stream Rekolanoja in Finland. Manag. Environ. Qual.: an Inter. J. 2006; 17: 673–688. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830610702511.
9. Athanasiadou EA, Trarsela M, Gkrimpa E. The Value and Services of Urban Stream Polygnotou, Thes-
saloniki. Proceedings 2018: 2: 576. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2110576.
10. Szlavecz K, Warren P, Pickett S. Biodiversity on the Urban Landscape. In CincottaRP, Gorenflo LJ, edi-
tors. Human Population: Its Influences on Biological Diversity, Ecological Studies. Ecological Studies
Books Series Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2011. 214: 75–101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-642-16707-2_6.
11. Ranta E, Vidal-Abarca MR, Calapez AR, Feio MJ. Urban stream Assessment system (UsAs): an inte-
grative tool to assess biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services. Ecol. Indic. 2021; 121, 106980.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106980.
12. Caplin A, Ghandehari M, Lim C, Glimcher P, Thurston G. Advancing environmental exposure assess-
ment science to benefit society. Nat. Commun 2019; 10, 1236. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-019-09155-4 PMID: 30874557
13. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. Urban and transport planning, environmental exposures and health-new concepts,
methods and tools to improve health in cities. Environ. Health 2016; 15, S38. Available from: https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0108-1 PMID: 26960529
14. Dopko RL, Capaldi CA, Zelenski JM. The psychological and social benefits of a nature experience for
children: A preliminary investigation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019; 63: 134–138. Available from: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05.002.
15. White MP, Alcock I, Grellier J, Wheeler BW, Hartig T, Warber SL, et al. Spending at least 120 minutes a
week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Sci. Rep. 2019; 9: 7730. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3 PMID: 31197192
16. Mena-Garcı
´a A, Olivos P, Loureiro A, Navarro O. Effectsof contact with nature on connectedness, envi-
ronmental identity and evoked contents. Psyecology 2020; 11: 21–36. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1080/21711976.2019.1643663.
17. Barrera-Herna
´ndez LF, Sotelo-Castillo MA, Echeverrı
´a-Castro SB, Tapia-Fonllem CO. Connectedness
to Nature: Its Impact on Sustainable Behaviors and Happiness in Children. Front. Psychol. 2020; 11,
1–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00001 PMID: 32038435
18. Egner LE, Su¨tterlin S, Calogiuri G. Proposing a framework for the restorative effects of nature through
conditioning: Conditioned restoration theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2020; 17: 1–18. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186792 PMID: 32957693
19. Abraham A, Sommerhalder K, Thomas A. Landscape and well-being: A scoping study on the health-
promoting impact of outdoor environments. Int. J. Public Health 2010; 55: 59–69. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-0069-z PMID: 19768384
20. Mahidin A, Maulan S. Understanding Children Preferences of Natural Environment as a Start for Envi-
ronmental Sustainability. Procedia–Soc. Beh. Sci. 2012; 38: 324–333. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.354.
21. Louv R. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-deficit. Atlantic Books; 2010.
22. Lynch K. Growing up in cities. MIT Press; 1977. 188 pp.
23. Derr V, Lance K. Biophilic Boulder: Children’s Environments That Foster Connections to Nature. Child
Youth Environ 2012; 22, 112–143. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.22.2.0112.
24. Shaw B, Bicket M, Elliott B, Fagan-Watson B, Mocca E, Hillman M. Children’s Independent Mobility: an
international comparison and recommendations for action. Policy Stu. Inst. 2015. Available from: http://
www.psi.org.uk/docs/7350_PSI_Report_CIM_final.pdf.
25. McCormick R. Does Access to Green Space Impact the Mental Well-being of Children: A Systematic
Review. J. Ped. Nurs. 2017; 37: 3–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2017.08.027 PMID:
28882650
26. Marketing England. Childhood and nature: A survey on changing relationships with nature across gen-
erations. Report to Natural England; 2009.
27. Collado S, Staats H. Contact with nature and children’s restorative experiences: An eye to the future.
Front. Psychol. 2016; 7, 1885. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01885 PMID:
27965616
28. Harvey DJ, Montgomery LN, Harvey H, Hall F, Gange AC, Watling D. Psychological benefits of a biodi-
versity-focussed outdoor learning program for primary school children. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020; 67,
101381. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101381.
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 18 / 20
29. Khan M, McGeown S, Bell S. Can an Outdoor Learning Environment Improve Children’s Academic
Attainment? A Quasi-Experimental Mixed Methods Study in Bangladesh. Environ. Behav. 2020; 52:
1079–1104. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519860868.
30. Lehmann S. Reconnecting with nature: Developing urban spaces in the age of climate change. Emerald
Open Research 2019; 1:2–. Available from: https://doi.org/10.12688/emeraldopenres.12960.1.
31. Ji O, Suhmcke S. The Project Approach in early childhood education for sustainability: Exemplars from
Korea and Australia. In Davis Julie and Elliott Sue, editors. Research in Early Childhood Education for
Sustainability. I. Persp. Prov. 2014; 58–179. NY Routledge.
32. Tsevreni I. Children’s social and spatial exclusion in the city. The need for an internal look. I.J. Crit. Ped.
2015; 6: 149–168. Available from: http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/229/848.
33. Chanse V, Mohamed A, Wilson S, Dalemarre L, Leisnham P, Rockler A, et al. New approaches to facili-
tate learning from youth: Exploring the use of Photovoice in identifying local watershed issues. J. Envi-
ron. Educ. 2017; 48: 109–120. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2016.1256260.
34. Feio MJ, Ranta E, Odume ON. Contribution of citizens for preserving local freshwater ecosystems. In:
Filho WL, Azeiteiro, Azul AM, Brandli L, Ozuyar PG, Wall T, editors. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustain-
able Development Goals. Clean Water and Sanitation 6. Springer; 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-70061-8_188-1.
35. Arco AI, Ferreira V, Grac¸a MAS. The performance of biological indicators in assessing the ecological
state of streams with varying catchment urbanisation levels in Coimbra, Portugal. Limnetica 2012; 31:
141–154. Available from: https://doi.org/10.23818/limn.31.13.
36. Serra SRQ, Calapez AR, Simões NE, Sa
´Marques JAA, Laranjo M, Feio MJ. Effects of variations in
water quantity and quality in the structure and functions of invertebrates’ community of a Mediterranean
urban stream. Urban Ecosyst. 2019; 22; 1173–1186. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-
019-00892-4.
37. Feio MJ, Almeida SFP, Aguiar FC, Oliveira JM, Hughes SJ. A monitorizac¸ão ecolo
´gica dos rios portugu-
eses. In: Feio MJ, Ferreira V, editors. Rios de Portugal. Comunidades, Processos e Alterac¸ões (Ch15).
Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. Pp 337–360; 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.14195/
978-989-26-1624-7_14.
38. Olivos-Jara P, Segura-Ferna
´ndez R, Rubio-Pe
´rez C, Felipe-Garcı
´a B. Biophilia and Biophobia as Emo-
tional Attribution to Nature in Children of 5 Years Old. Front. Psychol. 2020; 11: 1–14. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00001 PMID: 32038435
39. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; 2020. Available from: https://
www.r-project.org/.
40. LêS, Josse J, Husson F. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2008;
25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01.
41. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer International Publishing; 2016.
42. Chawla L. Growing Up in an Urbanising World. UNESCO/Earthscan; 2002.
43. Collado S, I
´ñiguez-Rueda L, Corraliza JA. Experiencing nature and children’s conceptualizations of the
natural world. Child. Geogr. 2016; 14, 1–15. Available from: 10.1080/14733285.2016.1190812
44. Jansson M, Sundevall E, Wales M. The role of green spaces and their management in a child-friendly
urban village. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016; 18: 228–236. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ufug.2016.06.014.
45. Almeida A, Vasconcelos CM, Strecht-Ribeiro O, Torres J. Non-anthropocentric Reasoning in Children:
Its incidence when they are confronted with ecological dilemmas. Int. J. Sci. Educ 2013; 35: 312–334.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.608387.
46. Veselinovska SS, Petrovska S, Zivanovic J. How to help children understand and respect nature? Pro-
cedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010; 2: 2244–2247. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.
316.
47. Freeman C, van Heezik Y. Children, Nature and Cities: Rethinking the Connections. Routledge; 2018.
48. Donnell A, Rinkoff R. The Influence of Culture on Children’s Relationships with Nature. Child. Youth
Environ. 2015; 25: 62–89. Available from: https://doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.25.3.
0062
49. Aslanimehr P, Marsal E, Weber B, Knapp F. Nature gives and nature takes: A qualitative comparison
between Canadian and German children about their concepts of ’nature’. Child. Phil. 2018; 14: 483–
515. Available from: https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2018.30037.
50. Bates C. Rewilding education? Exploring an imagined and experienced outdoor learning space. Child.
Geogr. 2020, 18: 364–374. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1673880.
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 19 / 20
51. Bentsen P, Mygind L, Elsborg P, Nielsen G, Mygind E. Education outside the classroom as upstream
school health promotion: ‘adding-in’ physical activity into children’s everyday life and settings. Scand. J.
Public Health 2021; 1–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494821993715 PMID: 33624553
52. Dillon J, Rickinson M, Teamey K, Morris M, Choi MY, Sanders D, et al. The value of outdoor learning:
Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. Sch. Sci. Revi. 2006; 87: 107–111.
53. Wang M-T, Degol JL. Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM):
Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions. Educational Psychology
Review 2017; 29: 119–140. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x PMID:
28458499
54. Huang J, Gates AJ, Sinatra R, Baraba
´so AL. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific
careers across countries and disciplines. PNAS USA 2020; 117: 4609–4616. Available from: https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117 PMID: 32071248
PLOS ONE
Education on aquatic ecosystems for children
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266776 April 27, 2022 20 / 20
Content uploaded by Maria João Feio
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria João Feio on Apr 28, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
