1. Introduction
The term “biodiversity” was first used in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio Earth Summit, held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro (United Nations, 1992). Defined, in general terms, as the total variation in life at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels (Purvis & Hector, 2000), biodiversity is crucial for maintaining the ecological balance, supporting agriculture, and mitigating climate change (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019; Wang et al., 2024). However, biodiversity loss is accelerating due to human activities, including habitat destruction, pollution, overexploitation, and urbanization (Ibrahim et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024). And, thus, the global populations of mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and amphibians have been in decline, between 65% to 73% on average, since 1970 (Hancock & Hirsheimer, 2020; WWF, 2024). The loss of any species, from the smallest fish to the largest terrestrial mammals, can significantly disrupt the stability and functioning of the ecosystem.
These challenges highlight the urgent need for informed decision-making and immediate action at both local and global levels. In response to the growing threat to biodiversity, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was established at the Rio Earth Summit. The CBD recognizes the vast significance of biodiversity—encompassing ecological, genetic, social, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic values—and emphasizes the critical need for education and awareness programs to promote conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources (Franzolin et al., 2021; United Nations, 1992).
Biodiversity education helps students understand the connections between biodiversity and key sectors like agriculture, fisheries, and forestry (Arcila Hernández et al., 2021; Nolan, 2020). Initially integrated into Environmental Education (EE) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (Navarro-Perez & Tidball, 2012), it has gained recognition and is now included at all educational levels, from elementary schools to universities. In Portugal, the integration of EE and ESD into school curricula has evolved gradually, shifting from isolated environmental topics to a more holistic, cross-disciplinary approach (João et al., 2022). Today, EE is a fundamental and transversal element of education (João et al., 2022). The Environmental Education Framework for Sustainability (Câmara et al., 2018), outlined in the National Environmental Education Strategy (ENEA 2020) (Council of Ministers Resolution No. 100/2017, 2017; ENEA, 2025), provides guidelines for implementing sustainability education from Pre-School to Secondary Education. It covers eight global themes, including sustainability, ethics and citizenship, climate change, biodiversity, and more (Câmara et al., 2018). At the higher education level, Portuguese Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have adopted ESD-focused curricula, offering specialized programs in environmental sciences and sustainable development (Borges & Benayas, 2019; Schmidt et al., 2011). Many institutions also align with the broader European higher education sustainability agenda by integrating sustainability principles into campus operations. Beyond formal education, Portugal has a long history of environmental initiatives led by local governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and community organizations (Schmidt et al., 2011). Programs like ENEA 2020 promote environmental literacy through lifelong learning, public engagement, and collaboration (ENEA, 2025). These initiatives play a key role in enhancing sustainability awareness across society.
Education and conservation knowledge are essential for raising public awareness, fostering motivation, and encouraging cooperation in biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use (Børresen et al., 2023; Gabriel O. et al., 2022; Id Babou et al., 2023; Kanosvamhira, 2025). Education is a key tool in biodiversity conservation, as raising awareness—particularly among younger generations—can promote sustainable behaviors and proactive conservation efforts (Akinsemolu, 2018; Børresen et al., 2023; Coracero et al., 2022; Id Babou et al., 2023; Kleespies et al., 2024; Montgomery et al., 2022; Trong Nguyen & Tran, 2024).
Schools play a vital role in instilling environmental responsibility, with curricula emphasizing biodiversity protection and sustainable resource use proving effective (Akinsemolu, 2018; Børresen et al., 2023; Id Babou et al., 2023; Mutisya et al., 2013). However, biodiversity is often relegated to a secondary topic within broader environmental science courses, rather than being treated as a core subject. As a result, while students may develop a general awareness of environmental issues, their understanding of biodiversity—its complexity, importance, and interconnectedness—tends to remain superficial (Bermudez & Lindemann-Matthies, 2020; Franzolin et al., 2021). This lack of focus has resulted in significant knowledge gaps, with students often unable to grasp key biodiversity concepts or their real-world implications (Id Babou et al., 2023; Navarro-Perez & Tidball, 2012; Picanço et al., 2021). To bridge these gaps, a more holistic, cross-disciplinary approach to education is essential, ensuring a deeper and more integrated comprehension of biodiversity (Schelhas & Lassoie, 2001; Vaverková et al., 2024).
Moreover, while educational programs are essential in enhancing knowledge and critical thinking skills (Bogner, 1998; Christensen et al., 2007; Smith-Sebasto & Cavern, 2006), knowledge alone does not always translate into action (Jensen, 2002). Effective environmental education must go beyond awareness and foster a deeper connection between students and the natural world. Attitudes toward biodiversity can shift through direct experience and practice, reinforcing the idea that people are more likely to protect what they understand and value (Drissner et al., 2010; Tiago et al., 2024). Thus, the integration of experiential learning and hands-on conservation activities into educational programs is vital for translating knowledge into meaningful environmental action.
Given the urgency of addressing biodiversity loss, it is essential to understand how education can effectively shape ecological awareness among future professionals. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), as knowledge hubs, play a vital role in this process by integrating biodiversity themes into academic content. This study is guided by the hypothesis that students who have taken courses with biodiversity-related content demonstrate a higher knowledge about biodiversity than those who have not.
Drawing on the principles of experiential learning—which emphasize the value of direct, hands-on experiences in reinforcing understanding and promoting environmental behavior—this research examines whether academic content related to biodiversity contributes meaningfully to students’ ecological literacy. Previous studies suggest that knowledge alone does not necessarily translate into action; rather, students are more likely to internalize biodiversity concepts when they are connected to real-world observations, such as of flora and fauna on their own campus.
Therefore, this study aims to assess the foundational biodiversity knowledge of students at ISEC Lisboa, specifically their ability to identify local flora and fauna and their awareness of species’ conservation status. Additionally, it seeks to examine the influence of academic content on students’ understanding and perception of biodiversity. By identifying existing knowledge gaps, this research intends to support the development of more effective educational strategies that promote both awareness and active engagement in biodiversity conservation.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The Higher Institute of Education and Sciences (ISEC Lisboa) is located in the heart of Lisbon, the capital of Portugal, at the Lumiar campus. This campus spans an area of 30,000 m2, with 17.1% designated as green areas (Figure 1).
ISEC Lisboa is home to three schools: the School of Communication, Arts, and Creative Industries (hereafter referred to as the School of Arts); the School of Education and Human Development (hereafter referred to as the School of Education); and the School of Management, Engineering, and Aeronautics (hereafter referred to as the School of Engineering). As of the 2023/2024 academic year, the institution maintained a structured academic environment, consisting of 159 professors, 111 administrative and support personnel, and a total enrollment of 1665 students.
2.2. Research Design
The ongoing decline in global biodiversity and the increasing urgency of conservation efforts highlight the crucial role of education in fostering environmental awareness and ecological responsibility. At ISEC Lisboa, assessing students’ knowledge of biodiversity is essential for evaluating their ecological literacy. These insights can inform strategies to enhance biodiversity education, integrate sustainability principles into curricula, and promote active engagement in conservation initiatives. To explore these aspects, this study is guided by the following key research question: “How does the academic content of biodiversity-related subjects influence ISEC Lisboa students’ knowledge about biodiversity?”
To address the research question and test hypotheses, the study employed a structured research design with the following key components: (1). Research approach: Mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data to gain a comprehensive understanding of students’ biodiversity knowledge; (2). Study population: The target population included ISEC Lisboa students enrolled in 2023/2024; (3). Data collection methods: A structured survey was administered to assess biodiversity knowledge (quantitative data), and a course curriculum review (quantitative and qualitative data) was analyzed to determine the depth and scope of biodiversity education; (4). Data analysis: The data analysis incorporated descriptive and inferential statistics to examine the relationship between academic and biodiversity knowledge; (5). Expected outcomes: A clearer understanding of students’ biodiversity knowledge and insights into the impact of academic content on biodiversity awareness.
This research design (Figure 2) provides a systematic, data-driven approach to assessing students’ knowledge and educational efforts at ISEC Lisboa. It enables a deeper understanding of the relationship between curricular content and knowledge acquisition, while also examining the mediating role of experiential learning.
2.3. Data Collection and Statistical Analysis
A survey was created using Google Forms®, addressed to the ISEC Lisboa community. It was distributed via social networks. The survey was available from 1 March to 30 April 2024. Beyond assessing students’ conceptual understanding of biodiversity, the survey was intentionally designed to examine their observational awareness of local species, knowledge of conservation status, and perceptions of biodiversity’s importance across various contexts. These components were integrated to provide a more holistic view of biodiversity literacy, aligning with research that emphasizes its multidimensional nature—encompassing cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains (Børresen et al., 2023; Id Babou et al., 2023; Kleespies et al., 2024). Previous studies have shown that factual knowledge alone does not necessarily translate into environmental awareness or action (Coracero et al., 2022; Montgomery et al., 2022). Furthermore, recent work on university campuses has emphasized the role of direct contact with biodiversity and experiential learning opportunities in fostering ecological engagement (Oliveira et al., 2025; Tiago et al., 2024).
The survey comprised 30 questions, with 13 being of the closed-ended type, and it was structured into 5 distinct sections (Supplementary Material S1): (1). Sociodemographic information; (2). Study year and course; (3). Biodiversity on the Lumiar campus; (4). Species’ conservation status; (5). Importance of biodiversity.
The data were analyzed using R (version 4.4.2). Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables to assess biodiversity perceptions. The Chi-square test was applied to compare responses across degree programs (Bachelor, Higher Professional Technical Courses, and Master) and academic year. For ordinal variables (e.g., Likert scale responses), response distributions were analyzed across degree programs and academic years. All tests were conducted at a significance level of 0.05 to identify potential differences in biodiversity awareness among participants.
A comprehensive list of courses was obtained from the ISEC Lisboa Academic Services database. Courses were reviewed across ISEC Lisboa schools, with a particular focus on curricular units where biodiversity-related topics were likely to be covered. Course syllabi, descriptions, learning objectives, and teaching methodologies were collected from the ISEC Lisboa Academic Services database and through direct communication with course teachers.
To identify biodiversity-related themes, a keyword analysis was conducted, targeting terms such as biodiversity, ecosystems, conservation, species diversity, habitat loss, and sustainability. In parallel, experiential learning components were identified through a separate keyword search of the teaching methodologies section of each course. This search targeted terms such as fieldwork, campus-based projects, problem-based learning (PBL), project-based learning, and active citizenship.
A frequency analysis was then performed to determine the distribution of biodiversity-related courses across ISEC Lisboa’s schools and academic programs. Additionally, a thematic analysis of course syllabi was conducted to identify recurring biodiversity topics. The curricular units were subsequently categorized according to the extent of their biodiversity content, including core biodiversity curricular units, partially related curricular units, and general sustainability curricular units. Finally, the course content was cross-referenced with the student survey responses to evaluate the relationship between academic content and students’ biodiversity knowledge.
All ethical considerations pertinent to the study were strictly followed. The survey was conducted with full anonymity, in strict compliance with the Privacy and Personal Data Protection Policy as outlined by Regulation (EU) No. 2016/679 of the European Parliament and Council, dated 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation—GDPR). Additionally, participants provided written informed consent by responding to the initial survey question (Supplementary Material S1). Furthermore, access to course syllabi and academic documents was granted with formal authorization from the ISEC Lisboa administration, ensuring compliance with institutional policies on data confidentiality and academic integrity.
3. Results
3.1. Curricular Units
During the 2023/2024 academic year, ISEC Lisboa offered 33 academic programs, including Higher Professional Technical Courses (HPTCs), Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Postgraduate programs, distributed across its three schools. The School of Arts accounted for 6 programs (18.18%), the School of Education for 9 (27.27%), and the School of Engineering for 18 (54.55%). Notably, the School of Arts did not offer Master’s programs, whereas the School of Education and School of Engineering covered all levels. The School of Engineering had the highest proportion of Bachelor’s programs (80.00%) and Master’s courses (60.00%), while the School of Education led in HPTC offerings (50.00%). The School of Arts had the largest share of postgraduate programs (50.00%).
Across these programs, 637 curricular units were active, distributed as follows: School of Arts (19.31%), School of Education (23.86%), and School of Engineering (56.83%). Bachelor’s programs accounted for the highest proportion of curricular units (51.96%), while Master’s had the lowest (9.42%), reflecting their overall course distribution.
Biodiversity-related content was present in only 31 curricular units (4.87%), spanning 10 programs. Of these, 18 (56.06%) were classified as core biodiversity curricular units, 7 (22.58%) partially addressed biodiversity, and 6 (19.35%) included it within broader sustainability themes. Bachelor’s programs accounted for 50.00% of these courses, with the Renewable Energies and Environment program featuring the highest number (seven curricular units). The School of Education and School of Engineering offered nearly equal shares of these courses, at 51.61% and 48.39%, respectively.
An analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) across curricular units showed that all SDGs were represented, though unevenly. The most frequently addressed were SDG 4 (Quality Education, 78.72%), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth, 40.44%), and SDG 5 (Gender Equality, 36.52%). The least covered were SDG 2 (Zero Hunger, 1.52%), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation, 2.78%), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water, 4.17%). SDG 15 (Life on Land), directly related to biodiversity conservation, was associated with only 6.44% of the curricular units.
An analysis of the teaching methodologies in curricular units likely to include biodiversity-related topics revealed that, in the 2023/2024 academic year, only two units—both offered by the School of Education—incorporated fieldwork. Additionally, one unit from the School of Engineering employed a problem-based learning (PBL) approach.
Regarding pedagogical approaches, an analysis of teaching methodologies in biodiversity-relevant units for the 2023/2024 academic year showed a limited integration of experiential learning. Only two units, both from the School of Education, included fieldwork components, while one unit from the School of Engineering employed a problem-based learning (PBL) methodology.
3.2. Descriptive Survey Results
3.2.1. Demographic Data
This study included 149 participants—ISEC Lisboa students—from various courses. The gender distribution was 34.9% male (n = 52) and 65.1% female (n = 97). Most respondents were aged 17–21 (38.3%; n = 57), followed by 22–26 years (30.2%; n = 45) and 27–31 years (11.4%; n = 17). Participants were enrolled in different courses, with 10.1% (n = 15) in an HPTC, 79.9% (n = 119) in a Bachelor’s degree, and 6.71% (n = 10) in a Master’s degree (Figure 3).
3.2.2. Perception of Biodiversity
The majority of respondents defined biodiversity as “richness of species in an ecosystem” (24.2%; n = 88), followed by the “variety of living beings that inhabit the planet” (20.1%; n = 73) and the “variety of living beings in a region” (16.2%; n = 59). These definitions were presented as predefined statements in a multiple-choice question, and participants were allowed to select more than one option (see Supplementary Material S1, Question 6). There were no significant differences between biodiversity perception and degree or area of knowledge (Table 1). Likewise, no significant differences were found based on the academic course (p > 0.05; see Supplementary Material S2, Table S1). Furthermore, when comparing students enrolled in programs with biodiversity-related content to those in unrelated programs, no statistically significant differences were observed in the way biodiversity was defined (p > 0.05).
3.2.3. Fauna and Flora Observation
Regarding vertebrate animals observed on campus, 53.3% (n = 130) of respondents reported seeing birds, followed by 32.8% (n = 80) for mammals, 9.43% (n = 23) for reptiles, 4.10% (n = 10) for amphibians, and only 0.41% (n = 1) for fish (see Supplementary Material S2, Figure S1). Table 2 shows the response percentages by degree, with no significant differences observed for any vertebrate group (p > 0.05), and no significant differences were found between students in degrees with or without biodiversity content (p > 0.05). Similarly, no significant differences were found based on academic year (p > 0.05, see Supplementary Material S2, Table S2) or area of knowledge.
Concerning invertebrate animals observed on campus, 63.8% (n = 127) of respondents reported seeing insects, followed by 27.6% (n = 55) for arachnids and 6.03% (n = 12) for mollusks, and only 2.51% (n = 5) reported observing none (see Supplementary Material S2, Figure S2). The response percentages by degree show no significant differences for any invertebrate group (p > 0.05). Additionally, no significant differences were observed based on academic year (p > 0.05; see Supplementary Material S2, Table S3) or area of knowledge (p > 0.05) (Table 3). When comparing students from degrees with biodiversity-related content and those without, no significant differences were found either (p > 0.05).
Regarding flora observed on campus, 59.9% (n = 142) of respondents reported seeing trees, 33.8% (n = 80) saw shrubs, 5.06% (n = 12) observed palm trees, and 1.27% (n = 3) reported seeing cacti. No significant differences were found for any plant species (p > 0.05). Similarly, no significant differences were observed based on academic year (p > 0.05; see Supplementary Material S2, Table S4) or area of knowledge (p > 0.05) (Table 4). When analyzed according to the presence of biodiversity-related content in the curriculum, differences were also not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
3.2.4. Conservation Status of Flora and Fauna on Campus
About the conservation status of campus flora and fauna, most respondents indicated that the species were not classified under any threatened category, with flora being the most prevalent (84.72%) and fauna to a lesser extent (7.63%). Furthermore, a significant number of respondents were unsure whether any species were classified (79.86% for fauna and 6.25% for flora). Participants were asked about the presence of native, invasive, and exotic species on campus. The majority indicated uncertainty regarding the existence of these species, with 84.0% for native species, 67.8% for invasive species, and 71.0% for exotic species. Table 5 displays the distribution of responses, along with examples of identified species. No significant differences were found between Bachelor’s degrees, academic year, or field of study in the perception of any species (p > 0.05; see Supplementary Material S2, Table S5). Regarding the conservation status of species on campus, most respondents indicated not knowing whether flora or fauna were classified as threatened. A Chi-square analysis revealed no significant differences between students enrolled in degrees with or without biodiversity content (p > 0.05) in the perception of native, invasive, or exotic species.
3.2.5. Importance of Biodiversity
The majority of participants expressed strong agreement with the statements about biodiversity. Overall, 38.2% of responses chose “Agree” and 33.2% selected “Totally Agree”, indicating that more than 71% of participants supported the presented statements. Conversely, 22.3% of participants selected “Neither Agree nor Disagree”, reflecting a neutral stance on certain topics.
Disagreement was minimal, with only 3.8% of participants choosing “Totally Disagree” and 2.6% selecting “Disagree”, showing that only a small proportion of respondents disagreed with the statements about biodiversity. No significant differences were found between Bachelor’s degrees or academic year regarding the perception of any species (p > 0.05). Table 6 displays participants’ level of agreement with ten fully formulated statements on biodiversity, as featured in survey Question 30 (see Supplementary Material S2 for further details). Responses were measured using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “Totally Disagree” to “Totally Agree”.
Significant differences were found in four key biodiversity-related questions across different areas of study. Responses varied significantly across areas in loss of biodiversity (p = 0.045). In Renewable Energy, 46.7% (n = 7) of respondents totally agreed, whereas in Management, this percentage was lower at 35.7% (n = 5), with a higher proportion neither agreeing nor disagreeing (21.4%, n = 3). Education and Engineering displayed similar distributions, with around 39–40% agreeing (n = 29 and n = 8, respectively), while Health had lower response counts, making trends less clear.
In tropical forests (p = 0.024), perceptions showed substantial differences, with Engineering having the highest proportion of respondents totally agreeing (47.6%, n = 10), followed closely by Management at 42.9% (n = 6). In contrast, Health showed the lowest total agreement (16.7%, n = 1), with a larger proportion of respondents selecting neither agree nor disagree (33.3%, n = 2), indicating more uncertainty in this area.
For fauna in urban areas (p = 0.035), agreement levels varied across study areas, particularly in Education, where 48.6% (n = 36) of respondents agreed, compared to Engineering (42.9%, n = 9). Management had a more balanced mix of responses, with 42.9% (n = 6) selecting neither agree nor disagree, suggesting more uncertainty compared to other fields. Additionally, small percentages in Renewable Energy (6.7%, n = 1) and Health (16.7%, n = 1) totally disagreed, suggesting slightly more skepticism in those areas.
In vegetation captures carbon (p = 0.020), clear differences were observed in how respondents perceived the role of vegetation in carbon capture. In Renewable Energy, 40% (n = 6) of participants totally agreed, while in Education, this percentage was notably lower at 25.7% (n = 19). Engineering showed one of the highest levels of total agreement (47.6%, n = 10), whereas Management displayed a more balanced mix of agreement and neutral responses. No significant differences were found in the remaining topics (p > 0.05). A statistically significant difference was found between students from biodiversity-related degrees and others (p < 0.001), indicating higher agreement levels among students with exposure to biodiversity-related academic content.
4. Discussion
The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the biodiversity knowledge of higher education students and how academic content influences their understanding and perceptions. Despite the presence of biodiversity-related topics in some curricular units, the overall proportion remains low, with only 4.87% of the total curricular units incorporating biodiversity themes. This aligns with previous studies that highlight a general underrepresentation of biodiversity education in higher learning institutions (Ardoin et al., 2020; Findler et al., 2019; Id Babou et al., 2023; Žalėnienė & Pereira, 2021).
The analysis of students’ perceptions did not reveal significant differences across academic degrees or areas of study, suggesting that biodiversity knowledge is relatively uniform regardless of specialization. This finding contrasts with other research (Børresen et al., 2023; Delector, 2023; Franzolin et al., 2021; Ibrahim et al., 2023), which found significant differences in biodiversity awareness among students from environmental sciences versus those in business and humanities. One possible explanation for the lack of differentiation in our study is that, although students may encounter biodiversity in various ways, structured education on species identification is either insufficient or not effectively integrated into learning experiences. Additionally, the limited depth of biodiversity content across disciplines may hinder students from developing more nuanced perspectives.
A key result of the survey was the high level of student agreement on the importance of biodiversity, with over 71% expressing strong support for biodiversity conservation principles. However, variations in specific biodiversity-related topics were observed across study areas. For instance, students in Engineering and Renewable Energy programs showed stronger agreement on statements related to tropical forest conservation and the role of vegetation in carbon capture, whereas students in Management programs expressed greater uncertainty. These differences could reflect the indirect exposure to biodiversity concepts within technical or sustainability-adjacent curricula, even in the absence of formal biodiversity education.
This pattern highlights the complexity of interpreting knowledge based solely on academic background. Although Engineering and Renewable Energies programs are not explicitly biodiversity-focused, they may still include topics that intersect with ecological issues, such as sustainable technologies, climate change, or environmental impact assessments. Such indirect exposure may help students develop a more intuitive understanding of biodiversity-related challenges, even if their formal training does not explicitly address biodiversity concepts. Therefore, while no significant differences were found in how biodiversity was defined across academic areas, the higher agreement observed for certain environmental statements suggests that interdisciplinary contact with sustainability topics can foster awareness in specific domains. This reinforces the need to distinguish between general environmental sensitivity and structured biodiversity knowledge and to consider how different academic pathways may influence student perceptions in subtle but meaningful ways.
Observations of campus fauna and flora revealed that students were more likely to notice birds and trees, which aligns with findings from similar campus-based studies (Børresen et al., 2023; Ishibashi et al., 2020). However, the lack of awareness regarding species’ conservation status is concerning. While most respondents believed that campus species were not under threat, a considerable percentage admitted uncertainty, highlighting a gap in students’ practical biodiversity knowledge. This underscores the need to integrate hands-on biodiversity assessment activities into academic curricula to enhance ecological literacy. Furthermore, although the number of fieldwork-based curricular units was very limited, students enrolled in those specific courses demonstrated a greater ability to identify campus fauna and flora, suggesting that experiential learning activities may have a positive impact on practical biodiversity knowledge.
Despite students’ limited awareness of conservation statuses, Oliveira et al. (2025) identified only one threatened species on campus—the crow (Corvus corax). This finding reveals a critical disconnect, as students failed to recognize that any species on campus faced conservation concerns. The general lack of knowledge about the conservation status of local species further emphasizes the need for practical content for biodiversity topics. Implementing interactive biodiversity surveys and conservation awareness programs could help bridge this gap, fostering students’ ability to recognize and understand species’ protection needs.
Although students acknowledge the importance of biodiversity, their direct engagement with species identification and conservation remains insufficient. To address this, integrating more hands-on learning approaches—particularly through project-based learning (PBL), as demonstrated in Oliveira et al. (2025)—could significantly enhance biodiversity literacy. By connecting academic knowledge with real-world applications, such initiatives would encourage a deeper engagement with conservation issues and strengthen students’ overall understanding of biodiversity.
Overall, these results highlight the need for a stronger integration of biodiversity topics in higher education curricula. The limited presence of biodiversity-focused curricular units, combined with the lack of significant differences in biodiversity knowledge across study areas, suggests that academic content remains insufficient to foster an in-depth understanding. This lack of comprehensive coverage may contribute to students’ relatively superficial grasp of biodiversity concepts, as most tend to associate biodiversity primarily with species richness rather than ecosystem complexity or genetic diversity (see Table 1).
Future efforts should focus on interdisciplinary approaches, fieldwork integration, and the explicit coverage of conservation topics to enhance biodiversity literacy among students. Encouraging more interactive and community-based initiatives, such as biodiversity surveys and exhibitions, could bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical conservation awareness, ultimately contributing to more effective biodiversity education in HEIs. It is also important to recognize that some data, particularly species identification responses, were self-reported by participants and may include inaccuracies or misidentifications. This represents an inherent limitation of perception-based biodiversity surveys. Additionally, while some academic areas such as “Health” and “Management” were represented by smaller sample sizes, we chose to retain them in the analysis to ensure inclusivity and reflect the full range of academic disciplines present at the institution.
5. Conclusions
This study underscores the critical need to strengthen biodiversity education in HEIs by fostering a more integrated, cross-disciplinary approach. While students acknowledge the importance of biodiversity, their limited awareness of species’ conservation status highlights a gap in understanding that traditional academic instruction alone may not address. This finding reinforces the necessity of incorporating experiential and practice-based learning strategies—such as biodiversity surveys and ecological monitoring—which can significantly enhance student engagement and comprehension.
The observed low awareness of species’ conservation status, despite the prior documentation of at-risk species on campus, further emphasizes the urgency of improving biodiversity assessment efforts and implementing targeted educational interventions.
To address these challenges, structured biodiversity education initiatives should be implemented, fostering collaboration between HEIs and local conservation organizations to provide students with real-world engagement opportunities. Future research should investigate the long-term effects of biodiversity education, assessing whether increased exposure leads to sustained improvements in conservation knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors. Moreover, while this study primarily examined foundational biodiversity literacy—students’ ability to identify local flora and fauna and their awareness of conservation status—it does not encompass the full scope of biodiversity knowledge. Further studies should explore additional dimensions, including ecosystem dynamics, species interactions, genetic diversity, and conservation challenges, to develop a more comprehensive understanding of public biodiversity awareness.
Given Portugal’s strong commitment to sustainability, enhancing biodiversity education is essential to equipping future generations with the knowledge and skills needed to address pressing environmental challenges. Strengthening biodiversity literacy within HEIs will not only contribute to conservation efforts but also foster a broader culture of environmental responsibility and stewardship.
Conceptualization, A.P.O.; Methodology, A.P.O., A.P. and C.M.-P.; Software, C.M.-P.; Validation, A.P.O., A.P., A.B. and C.M.-P.; Formal analysis, C.M.-P.; Investigation, A.P.O., A.P., A.B. and C.M.-P.; Resources, A.P.O. and C.M.-P.; Data curation, A.P.O. and C.M.-P.; Writing—original draft, A.P.O. and C.M.-P.; Writing—review & editing, A.P.O., A.P., A.B. and C.M.-P.; Visualization, A.P.O. and C.M.-P.; Supervision, A.P.O. and C.M.-P.; Project administration, A.P.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and it was approved by the Ethics Committee of Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências de Lisboa (ISEC Lisboa) (CE/2024/02/01; 1 February 2024).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.
Data are contained within the article and
We would like to thank all the Higher Institute of Education and Sciences (ISEC Lisboa) students for answering the survey. Special thanks are also extended to Mário Carvalho, Head of Academic Services, for his invaluable assistance in compiling and providing access to the data from the ISEC Lisboa’s databases.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Map of the Lumiar campus: Green areas are shaded in green, while tree-only areas are represented with green dotted symbols. Buildings are represented in gray and roads in black. Source: adapted from
Figure 2 Research design illustrating the systematic, data-driven approach used to evaluate students’ knowledge and educational efforts at ISEC Lisboa.
Figure 3 Age group distribution of respondents by academic degree.
Survey respondents’ understanding of biodiversity by area of knowledge.
| Design | Education | Renewable Energy | Engineering | Management | Health | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Includes the diversity of relationships and processes established in ecosystems | 4 (10.3%) | 25 (13.4%) | 2 (5.7%) | 7 (11.5%) | 3 (9.1%) | 2 (28.6%) | 1.058 |
| Includes genetic diversity | 4 (10.3%) | 6 (3.2%) | 3 (8.6%) | 4 (6.6%) | 3 (9.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1.348 |
| Includes ecosystems | 7 (17.9%) | 23 (12.3%) | 1 (2.9%) | 6 (9.8%) | 5 (15.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1.519 |
| I don’t know what biodiversity is | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.581 |
| Number of animals and plants | 2 (5.1%) | 8 (4.3%) | 1 (2.9%) | 4 (6.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.169 |
| Number of fungi and microorganisms | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.569 |
| Species richness of an ecosystem | 10 (25.6%) | 48 (25.7%) | 9 (25.7%) | 11 (18%) | 6 (18.2%) | 2 (28.6%) | 0.917 |
| Variation in organisms within the same species | 1 (2.6%) | 8 (4.3%) | 5 (14.3%) | 4 (6.6%) | 1 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 0.732 |
| Variety of living beings in a region | 4 (10.3%) | 30 (16%) | 7 (20%) | 12 (19.7%) | 5 (15.2%) | 1 (14.3%) | 0.935 |
| Variety of living beings that inhabit the planet | 7 (17.9%) | 35 (18.7%) | 7 (20%) | 12 (19.7%) | 10 (30.3%) | 2 (28.6%) | 0.441 |
Vertebrate animals observed on Lumiar campus by area of knowledge.
| Design | Education | Renewable Energy | Engineering | Management | Health | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amphibians | 1 (4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 1 (4%) | 1 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.888 |
| Birds | 11 (44%) | 68 (54.4%) | 14 (56%) | 19 (48.7%) | 10 (52.6%) | 6 (75%) | 0.625 |
| Mammals | 12 (48%) | 33 (26.4%) | 8 (32%) | 16 (41%) | 9 (47.4%) | 1 (12.5%) | 1.246 |
| Fish | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.402 |
| Reptiles | 1 (4%) | 16 (12.8%) | 2 (8%) | 3 (7.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (12.5%) | 1.347 |
Invertebrate animals observed on Lumiar campus by area of knowledge.
| Design | Education | Renewable Energy | Engineering | Management | Health | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arachnids | 7 (33.3%) | 26 (26.5%) | 5 (23.8%) | 10 (34.5%) | 3 (15.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1.001 |
| Insects | 12 (57.1%) | 65 (66.3%) | 12 (57.1%) | 18 (62.1%) | 13 (68.4%) | 1 (100%) | 0.363 |
| Mollusks | 2 (9.5%) | 3 (3.1%) | 3 (14.3%) | 1 (3.4%) | 3 (15.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1.215 |
| None | 0 (0%) | 4 (4.1%) | 1 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.858 |
Flora observed on Lumiar campus by area of knowledge.
| Design | Education | Renewable Energy | Engineering | Management | Health | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shrubs | 9 (37.5%) | 40 (32.5%) | 9 (36%) | 14 (40%) | 3 (17.6%) | 3 (33.3%) | 1.128 |
| Cacti | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | 2 (8%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.671 |
| Palm trees | 3 (12.5%) | 9 (7.3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.343 |
| Trees | 12 (50%) | 73 (59.3%) | 14 (56%) | 21 (60%) | 14 (82.4%) | 6 (66.7%) | 0.637 |
Perception of species on Lumiar campus.
| Species Type | Yes | No | Don’t Know (n/%) | Examples of Identified Species |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Native | 13 (9.0%) | 10 (7.0%) | 121 (84.0%) | Grass, Common sparrow, Pine tree, Pigeon, Plane tree |
| Invasive | 26 (17.0%) | 15 (10.0%) | 103 (67.8%) | Nettles, Climbing plants, Hydrangeas, Cats, Parakeets, Eucalyptus, Bees |
| Exotic | 18 (12.0%) | 18 (12.0%) | 108 (71.0%) | Parrots, Palm trees, Parakeet |
Distribution of responses on the importance of biodiversity.
| Totally Agree | Agree | Neither Agree nor Disagree | Disagree | Totally Disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biodiversity loss is also a health issue, as the destruction of nature increases the risk of disease and reduces our resistance to it. | 38.9% (56) | 36.8% (53) | 17.4% (25) | 2.1% (3) | 4.9% (7) |
| The different species frequently present in urban areas perform various functions and generate ecological goods and services that are highly valued and appreciated. | 29.9% (43) | 42.4% (61) | 21.5% (31) | 3.5% (5) | 2.8% (4) |
| Tropical forests are one of the regions on planet Earth with the greatest diversity of fauna and flora. | 33.3% (48) | 35.4% (51) | 25.0% (36) | 3.5% (5) | 2.8% (4) |
| In urban areas, fauna is essential for pollination, biological pest control, and seed dispersal. | 27.8% (40) | 43.1% (62) | 23.6% (34) | 1.4% (2) | 4.2% (6) |
| Biodiversity loss is an intergenerational issue, as we are depriving future generations of the essentials for a fulfilling life. | 41.0% (59) | 34.0% (49) | 18.8% (27) | 2.1% (3) | 4.2% (6) |
| Biodiversity has been highlighted within urban areas for its contribution to improving citizens’ quality of life. | 31.2% (45) | 37.5% (54) | 22.2% (32) | 4.9% (7) | 4.2% (6) |
| Vegetation captures carbon, filters the air, and helps to mitigate the thermal island effect within urban areas. | 31.9% (46) | 37.5% (54) | 25.0% (36) | 1.4% (2) | 4.2% (6) |
| Green spaces and urban parks constitute important reservoirs of biodiversity within cities, enabling the permanence of a large number of native species, even in highly artificialized areas. | 32.6% (47) | 42.4% (61) | 20.1% (29) | 1.4% (2) | 3.5% (5) |
| The overexploitation of natural resources (such as overfishing and destructive agricultural practices), climate change, pollution, and invasive alien species are all adding to the problem of biodiversity loss. | 37.5% (54) | 34.0% (49) | 20.8% (30) | 3.5% (5) | 4.2% (6) |
| Around 1 million species are at risk of extinction within a few decades, mainly due to the conversion of natural habitats into agricultural land and the expansion of urban areas. | 27.8% (40) | 38.9% (56) | 28.5% (41) | 2.1% (3) | 2.8% (4) |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
Akinsemolu, A. A. The role of microorganisms in achieving the sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production; 2018; 182, 115239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.081]
Arcila Hernández, L. M.; Zamudio, K. R.; Drake, A. G.; Smith, M. K. Implementing team-based learning in the life sciences: A case study in an online introductory level evolution and biodiversity course. Ecology and Evolution; 2021; 11,
Ardoin, N. M.; Bowers, A. W.; Gaillard, E. Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biological Conservation; 2020; 241, 108224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108224]
Bermudez, G. M. A.; Lindemann-Matthies, P. “What matters is species richness”—High school students’ understanding of the components of biodiversity. Research in Science Education; 2020; 50,
Bogner, F. X. The Influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education; 1998; 29,
Borges, F.; Benayas, J. Research in EE and ESD in Portuguese public universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education; 2019; 20,
Børresen, S. T.; Ulimboka, R.; Nyahongo, J.; Ranke, P. S.; Skjaervø, G. R.; Røskaft, E. The role of education in biodiversity conservation: Can knowledge and understanding alter locals’ views and attitudes towards ecosystem services?. Environmental Education Research; 2023; 29,
Câmara, A.; Proença, A.; Teixeira, F.; Freitas, H.; Gil, H.; Vieira, I.; Pinto, J.; Soares, L.; Gomes, M.; Gomes, M.; Amaral, M.; Castro, S. Referencial de educação ambiental para a sustentabilidade; 2018; Available online: https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/ECidadania/Educacao_Ambiental/documentos/referencial_ambiente.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2025).
Christensen, A.; Rowe, S.; Needham, M. D. Value orientations, awareness of consequences, and participation in a whale watching education program in Oregon. Human Dimensions of Wildlife; 2007; 12,
Coracero, E. E.; Facun, M. C. T.; Gallego, R. J.; Lingon, M. G.; Lolong, K. M.; Lugayan, M. M.; Montesines, K. B. G.; Sangalang, L. R.; Suniega, M. J. A. Knowledge and perspective of students towards biodiversity and its conservation and protection. Asian Journal of University Education; 2022; 18,
Council of Ministers Resolution No. 100/2017. Gabinete do representante da república para a região autónoma dos açores decreto do representante da república para a região autónoma dos açores n.o 1/2017 de 11 de julho. Diário Da República, 1.a Série, N.o 132, de 11 de Julho de 2017; 2017; Available online: https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2017/07/13200/0353303550.pdf (accessed on 28 February 2025).
Delector, R. T. Students’ knowledge and attitude towards biodiversity conservation. Asian Journal of Biodiversity; 2023; 14,
Drissner, J.; Haase, H.-M.; Hille, K. Short-term environmental education—Does it work?—An evaluation of the ‘Green Classroom’. Journal of Biological Education; 2010; 44,
ENEA. National environmental education strategy website; 2025; Available online: https://enea.apambiente.pt/ (accessed on 28 February 2025).
Eriksson, L.; Klapwijk, M. J. Attitudes towards biodiversity conservation and carbon substitution in forestry: A study of stakeholders in Sweden. Forestry; 2019; 92,
Findler, F.; Schönherr, N.; Lozano, R.; Reider, D.; Martinuzzi, A. The impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development: A review and conceptualization. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education; 2019; 20,
Franzolin, F.; Carvalho, G. S.; Santana, C. M. B.; Calegari, A. D. S.; de Almeida, E. A. E.; Soares, J. P. R.; Jorge, J.; Das Neves, F. D.; Lemos, E. R. S. Students’ interests in biodiversity: Links with health and sustainability. Sustainability; 2021; 13,
Gabriel O., Y.; David, E. D.; Mbakuuv, N. B. Awareness of wildlife conservation and ecotourism management among public secondary school students in Makurdi metropolis, Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental and Ecology Research; 2022; 4, pp. 23-29.
Hancock, L.; Hirsheimer, B. 68% average decline in species population sizes since 1970, says new WWF report; 2020; Available online: https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/68-average-decline-in-species-population-sizes-since-1970-says-new-wwf-report (accessed on 9 February 2025).
Ibrahim, M. S. N.; Assim, M. I. S. A.; Johari, S.; Mohammad, S. K. W.; Afandi, S. H. M.; Hassan, S. Public awareness on biodiversity conservation and well-being: Case of Gunung Mulu National Park, Sarawak. GeoJournal; 2023; 88,
Id Babou, A.; Selmaoui, S.; Alami, A.; Benjelloun, N.; Zaki, M. Teaching biodiversity: Towards a sustainable and engaged education. Education Sciences; 2023; 13,
Ishibashi, S.; Akasaka, M.; Koyanagi, T. F.; Yoshida, K. T.; Soga, M. Recognition of local flora and fauna by urban park users: Who notices which species?. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening; 2020; 56, 126867. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126867]
Jensen, B. B. Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research; 2002; 8,
João, P.; Sá, P.; Henriques, M. H.; Rodrigues, A. V. Sustainable development in basic education sciences in Portugal—Perspective of official curriculum documents. Sustainability; 2022; 14,
Kanosvamhira, T. Growing together: Unveiling the potential of school-based community gardens to foster well-being, empowerment, and sustainability. Urban Transformations; 2025; 7, 2. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42854-024-00069-z]
Kleespies, M.; Hahn-Klimroth, M.; Dierkes, P. Perceptions of biodiversity loss among future decision-makers in 37 countries. Npj Biodiversity; 2024; 3, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s44185-024-00057-3]
Montgomery, L.; Gange, A.; Watling, D.; Harvey, D. Children’s perception of biodiversity in their school grounds and its influence on their wellbeing and resilience. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning; 2022; 24, pp. 187-201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2022.2100801]
Mutisya, S. M.; Kipgetich, K. E.; Rono, K. J. Asian journal of management sciences & education positive attitude towards environmental conservation: The role of primary education in Kenya. Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education; 2013; 4,
Navarro-Perez, M.; Tidball, K. Challenges of biodiversity education: A review of education strategies for biodiversity education. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education; 2012; 2,
Nolan, K. Biodiversity education and sustainability consciousness—A study on the effect of biodiversity education on the sustainability consciousness of Irish primary school students. Master’s thesis; Linköping University: 2020.
Oliveira, A. P.; Bajanca, A.; Paramés, A. Unveiling urban biodiversity: An interdisciplinary hands-on project that catalyzes awareness. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators; 2025; 25, 100561. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100561]
Picanço, A.; Arroz, A. M.; Amorim, I. R.; Matos, S.; Gabriel, R. Teachers’ perspectives and practices on biodiversity web portals as an opportunity to reconnect education with nature. Environmental Conservation; 2021; 48,
Purvis, A.; Hector, A. Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature; 2000; 405,
Schelhas, J.; Lassoie, J. P. Learning conservation and sustainable development: An interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education; 2001; 30,
Schmidt, L.; Nave, J. G.; O’Riordan, T.; Guerra, J. Trends and dilemmas facing environmental education in Portugal: From environmental problem assessment to citizenship involvement. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning; 2011; 13,
Smith-Sebasto, N. J.; Cavern, L. Effects of pre-and posttrip activities associated with a residential environmental education experience on students’ attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Education; 2006; 37,
Tiago, P.; Leal, A.; Rosário, I.; Chozas, S. Discovering urban nature: Citizen science and biodiversity on a university campus. Urban Ecosystems; 2024; 27, pp. 1609-1621. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01526-0]
Trong Nguyen, L.; Tran, D. V. Biodiversity conservation perception among university students in Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment; 2024; 34,
United Nations. United Nations. Convention on biological diversity; 1992; Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2025).
Vaverková, M. D.; Polak, J.; Kurcjusz, M.; Jena, M. K.; Murali, A. P.; Nair, S. S.; Aktaş, H.; Hadinata, M. E.; Ghezelayagh, P.; Andik, S. D. S.; Rahmana, A.; Franc-Dąbrowska, J. Enhancing sustainable development through interdisciplinary collaboration: Insights from diverse fields. Sustainable development; John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: 2024; pp. 1-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.3302]
Wang, Z.; Wang, T.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Yongsheng, Y.; Sun, Y.; Guo, X.; Wu, Q.; Nepovimova, E.; Watson, A.; Kuca, K. Biodiversity conservation in the context of climate change: Facing challenges and management strategies. Science of the Total Environment; 2024; 937, 173377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173377]
WWF. Living planet report 2024—A system in Peril; WWF: 2024; Available online: https://wwflpr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/2024-living-planet-report-a-system-in-peril.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2025).
Žalėnienė, I.; Pereira, P. Higher education for sustainability: A global perspective. Geography and Sustainability; 2021; 2,
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Paramés Ana
; Bajanca António; Martinez-Perez, Clara