A) CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTICIPANTS

A total of 112 responses were obtained using the questionnaire. Of this total, the majority, 53.5%, are participants from the Southeast region, specifically the states of Minas Gerais, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Following are representatives from the Northeast region (Sergipe, Ceará, Bahia and Maranhão) with 38.4%; North region (Amazonas) and Midwest (Mato Grosso do Sul and Mato Grosso) with 3.6% each. And, finally, the South region (Rio Grande do Sul), representing 0.9% of the participants.

Such distribution of participants was possible because the questionnaire was administered via the internet. Also, the contribution of teachers from public universities in these regions helped divulge the project. So, we succeeded in obtaining representation of diverse Brazilian states, which have specific relationships with nature according to their sociocultural realities.

With respect to housing, 4.6% of the participants live in the urban area and 5.4% in the rural area. According to the IBGE Census (2010), 84% of Brazilians live in the urban area, and 14% in the countryside. Such urbanization results from the industrialization and mechanization processes in agriculture, among other factors, which reduced family labor (^{Silva, 2018}). To us, this is a very important aspect, considering that more respectful positions towards nature and, consequently, with living beings, can be favored by closer relations with the natural environment.

Regarding age, 72.6% of the participants were 18 to 29 years old; 24.1%, 30 to 50 years; and 3.6% were aged 51 years or over. One relevant aspect about this characteristic, which shows that the majority of respondents were young, can be configured by the fact that this public is among the rising environmental activists (Thirty..., 2019), and, therefore, can be more engaged in less aggressive environmental actions and in seeking innovative solutions for the current environmental crisis and biological diversity.

With respect to gender, 59.9% of participants were female, 36.7%, were male, and 3.4% reported being genderfluid, which is related to gender fluidity, i.e., gender that can be changed over time; therefore, there may be an identity expression that lies between female and male, binarism and agender (Redação..., 2017). The presence of a majority of female conceptions in this study may represent the relationships that they have with nature, especially because in recent years it has been emphasized their importance in promoting environmental preservation, sustainable consumption and fighting against wastes (Jacobi, Empinotti, & ^{Toledo, 2015}).

With respect to education, 74.1% of respondents were undergraduates: 92.1% were studying for being future teachers of biological sciences and 7.9% were pedagogy students. We decided to consider the answers of pedagogy students in the analysis because they have been trained to become licensed teachers in Early Childhood Education, where they have the opportunity to present environmental themes in a playful manner, or they can work in school management, coordination and other education-related activities.

About the training period, 68.7% of these undergraduates had already completed half of the course (5^th term). We infer from this information that there is a possibility of finding more mature positions, resulting from the training contributions of these students.

Of the 25.9% of the graduated participants, 71.7% had a graduation degree, 9.7% were specialists, 9.7% had a MS degree and 8.8% a PhD degree. They are professionals in the area of biological sciences and teachers of science and biology. We could then perceive the conceptions that biology students and professionals have about biological diversity and singularities, favoring the correlation between these two points within the training and teaching scopes.

B) CONCEPTIONS OF BIODIVERSITY

Of the four proposed sections of biological diversity, namely, anthropocentric, biocentric, integrating and disintegrating, the integrating conception did not achieve the minimum level of reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.6); therefore, it could not be assessed as a category.

By observing the overall means of the three validated categories of biodiversity, we noticed the following sequence: 4.02 for the anthropocentric category; 3.34 for disintegrating and 1.59 for biocentric. These means tell us that the respondents tended in general to disagree with the anthropocentric statements; contrarily, they agreed with the biocentric approaches. The respondents also tended not to express a position for statements of the disintegrating section.

Anthropocentric and biocentric categories

The anthropocentric category achieved a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.628 ( Chart 1). Statements B4, B10, B13 and B18 had more that 80% of disagreement.

Source: Authors.

Chart 1 Distribution of frequencies about biodiversity expressed in percentage: anthropocentric category 

According to items B10 e B18, it can be seen that the majority of respondents do not perceive nature as an asset, resource or value belonging to mankind; even with the “intelligence” attribute, it can be perceived that all natural elements, live or not, are interconnected and interdependent. It can then be inferred that human practices have been harmful to the cyclical process of nature, with production systems causing degradation through overexploitation.

However, according to the B13 statement, there is a perception that there are groups that manage to live causing minimum adverse impact to the environment. These groups are commonly exemplified by traditional communities, most of them having respectful relationships with nature and living beings.

According to the respondents, apparently there is no hierarchization between social and environmental problems; both need attention, and one can directly or indirectly influence the other, as indicated by 85.4% of the participants for statement B4. About this aspect, ^{Santiago (2015}) points out how the economic development has caused damages to the environment due to overexploitation actions driven by the Brazilian capitalist model, which have benefitted the rich to the detriment of the poor. This situation has a negative impact on social practices less aggressive to nature and on the adoption of more sustainable measures, such as, for example, the implementation of clean energy sources.

It was noticed that statements B17 and B19 indicated an average of disagreement below 60%, slightly lower than the others in the rating scale, as well as around 20% in the central scale items. On the other hand, they were the statements that had the highest rate of agreement (around 20%). They are related to natural exploitation and human survival. About this issue, respondents may have understood the need for use of natural resources to ensure their survival and wondered how this could be achieved without changing nature. In fact, all actions, no matter how small they can be, cause changes in natural processes. However, there is a need to carry them out in such a way that the impact is minimal: managing and controlling exploitation and treating wastes are possible solutions.

The biocentric category achieved Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.605. In this section, all statements achieved an agreement of more than 85%, indicating more equitable perceptions related to biological diversity.

Source: Authors.

Chart 2 Distribution of frequencies about biodiversity expressed in percentage: biocentric category 

To 86.5% of respondents, humans are not superior to the other living beings (B9). Understanding that our species, as well as others, is part of a natural whole, is crucial if rethinking our attitudes towards the environment is at issue. Also, recognizing that environmental problems affect communities is shown by the agreements (89%) with B12.

The right to life and survival of all living beings (B16) was considered by 92.8% of the subjects. As ^{Wolkmer & Paulitsch state (2011}, p. 230-231), “If the future is the result of actions taken in the present, today it looks worrisome; thus, politics, economy, law and other areas have the challenge to join their knowledge and seek alternatives that promote Life in our planet.” The bioethics imperative, of recognition of the intrinsic value of living beings, underlines the need for a change in mindsets, actions and relations with nature towards considerations that go beyond human species, as a way of critically assessing decisions to solve environmental crises (^{Junges, 2001}; ^{Levai, 2011}; Wolkmer & Paulitsch, 2011).

Based on B7, we can perceive indications of agreement (85.7%) that there is a possibility of more equitable relationships between species and nature. About this, the great challenge is to find out how to make them practical and accessible to everyone, as a way of ensuring quality of life to living beings and diminish adverse environmental impacts.

For the B8 statement, which mentions pesticides and biological control, there was an agreement of 90.2%. This subject has been largely discussed, especially in Brazil, which, according to ^{Carneiro (2015}), is a world leader in the use of pesticides.

Disintegration Category

The Cronbach’s Alpha for the disintegrating view of biodiversity was of 0.657. It was the category with the greatest number of marks in the central rating scale (around 25%), a tendency that shows no positioning towards these issues, which is confirmed by the average overall rating (3.34).

Source: Authors.

Chart 3 Distribution of frequency of biodiversity expressed in percentage: disintegrating perspective 

Not considering the neutral element (neither agree nor disagree) the statements B15 - “Man should keep distance from nature”, B2 - “Man can only preserve nature by keeping it untouched”, and B24 - “Any community, even the traditional communities, harm biodiversity”, obtained 81.3%, and 58% and 52.7% of disagreement, respectively. But statement B14, which brings a similar interpretation - “If human beings did not exist, nature would be in balance”, achieved 41% of agreement, which shows controversial or somehow immature perceptions of the respondents about the influence of the presence of man in nature, whether positive or negative. This debate is not recent and is cited by authors such as ^{Almeida & Franzolin (2021}), who found in a literature review, the prevalence of fragmented views of nature, where people cannot perceive themselves as part of biodiversity.

For statements B20 (68.8% of disagreement) and B6 (55.4% of disagreement), which present possibilities of dealing with biodiversity, it could be seen that the respondents consider that other subjects, not only the scientific ones, can teach about the biological diversity perspectives, in which political, social, ethical, economic and cultural aspects are included. Such comprehensive proposals are considered biocultural because they emphasize individual and collective relationships between cultural and biological diversity (^{Toledo, & Barrera-Bassols, 2015}). Our conclusion indicates a still incipient debate between culture and biodiversity.

Socioeconomic Category

The socioeconomic category ( Chart 4) had a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.633.

Source: Authors.

Chart 4 Distribution of frequencies of singularities expressed in percentage: socioeconomic category 

It can be seen a high degree of empathy for the socioeconomic issue as a significant influence in the educational processes (mean = 1.46). The statements show how income distribution can impact the access and permanence in schools and universities, which is emphasized by the high percentage of agreement for S8 (94.6%) and S9 (95.5%). Together with statement S16, about which 85.8% of respondents agree about the difficulty in studying and working at the same time, because both activities require high demand of time and mental effort, it should be emphasized that a high level of demands may have an adverse impact on the activities of one or another task. That is possibly why 92.8% of the participants agreed with the need for financial and psychological support for low-income students (S22) and disagreed (91.9%) with statement S11, commonly used by meritocratic political discourses that scholarships are indulgent and “spoil” people.

When they presented the results of studies that examined the associations between access inequalities and permanence in higher education institutions, students’ support services and the labor market for graduates from two public universities in Brazil, Vargas (2010) and ^{Vieira, Constantino & Silva (2012}) demonstrated how the percentage of access of low-income individuals to higher education institutions and the risk of not completing the courses is much higher than for high-class persons. These authors also emphasize how the support to low-income students can help them complete the course and obtain a degree and, even more, find qualified jobs in the labor market (Vargas, 2010; Vieira, Constantino, & Silva, 2012).

Inclusion/exclusion category

With Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.688, the inclusion/exclusion category comprised 12 statements, which included questions about race/ethnicity, people with disabilities and LGBTQI+, reaching a mean overall average rating of 1.53 ( Chart 5).

Source Authors.

Chart 5 Distribution of frequencies of singularities expressed in percentage: inclusion/exclusion category 

Based on S6 statement (“Black persons do not suffer more prejudice than others”), which obtained 90.1% of disagreement, we noticed the perception of a recurrent situation in the Brazilian society, where black people deal with racism every day. According to ^{Queiroz (2004}), even being the country with the largest number of black persons outside the African continent, social opportunities are not the same as those offered to white individuals. Due to the long period of slavery of Africans in our country, not even “freedom” was able to put an end to the suffering of these individuals. Left at the mercy of society, far from their origins, without a house and adequate food, they were practically obliged to continue in primary and unskilled, heavy work to survive (Queiroz, 2004). The racism suffered does not seem to have diminished over time, because situations of prejudice are experienced every day by black individuals, either men or women.

As a way to change this picture, ^{Queiroz (2004}) points to the need to admit that race is an element that generates inequality in our country, so that a critical adoption of public policies should be considered. By agreeing with statement S19 (96.4%), most of the respondents seem to recognize the importance of deconstructing this discriminatory approach.

Education is a key element for the deconstruction of inequalities, including racial and ethnic, especially considering the associated Brazilian diversity. As an example of actions taken to equalize opportunities, we can cite the racial quotas for blacks, indigenous people and quilombolas (^{Cordeiro, 2012}). This view seems to be shared by a large number of respondents when we examine the disagreement (92.8%) with statement S1 (“It should not be the State’s obligation to provide for the permanence of traditional people [indigenous, quilombolas, etc.] in universities) and the agreement (79.4%) with item S12 (“All educational institutions should take into consideration the individual’s ethnicity”).

With respect to people with disabilities, we perceive that for statements S7, S14 and S23, which achieved more than 90% of agreement, the State should guarantee the access and permanence of these people in universities, if they so desire. These rights are already provided for in Law nº 13.409, of 2016 (Brazil, 2016), which determines that a certain number of vacancies must be saved for disabled people in technical courses of secondary level and higher education in federal education institutions.

There was a lower approval for item S24 (“People with disabilities find it more difficult to complete university courses”) (74.1%) if compared to the other statements, with 21.4% of marks in the central scale rating. It should be understood that the statement that says that people with disabilities have more difficulties does not mean discriminating them, but that it is necessary to provide educational facilities to serve them, that is, it is not the individual with disability who should adapt to the university; on the contrary, or at least, there should be mutual adaptation.

Considering the statements relating to LGBTQI+, we bring discourses that illustrate some of the discriminations suffered by these individuals, which are associated with the right to express gender and sexual orientation. It is very common in discriminating speeches, which we certainly disapprove, the idea that these multiple identifications result from traumas, abuses, psychological problems, etc. Considering S20, we can see that 97.3% of participants disagree with this statement.

For S26, in turn, 89.3% of respondents agree with the statement (“Every LGBTQI+ person should be who he/she really is and not hide”), and this point deals directly with the behavior of this group. Social acceptance seems to be associated with their appearance, how they dress or show affection, for example. About this, ^{Almeida (2021}) mentions how heterosexist discourses, such as “this is so gay”, are used as a negative reference to LGBTQI+ people, seeking to dictate which kind of behavior is or not socially acceptable.

^{Santos (2017}), in a case study about the condition of being LGBT and completing a course at a public Brazilian university, demonstrated how male and female students do not show their true sexual orientation in the academic environment for fear of exclusion and aggression and insecurity. Based on statement S4, 69.6% of participants perceive this situation, which ends up making it difficult for LGBTQI+ people to stay in the university and complete the course. In the same line of thinking, 87.4% agree with statement S25, which emphasizes the difficulties of these individuals in pursuing a professional career.