Childhood nature experience was found to be low amongst Singapore residents in a previous study, and this was attributed to low levels of nature consciousness when respondents were growing up (Ngo et al. 2019). Singapore residents were generally willing to coexist with wildlife that are common in the urban landscape and are small in size, such as butterfly, dragonfly and sparrow. These findings were similar to surveys done in Japan, Malaysia and Norway, where small and common animals had the highest coexistence scores (Bjerke and Østdahl 2004; Hosaka et al. 2017; Mohamad Muslim et al. 2018). However, unfavorable wildlife, and larger mammals, even if well-liked, were preferred away from homes.
The strong effect of childhood nature experience on wildlife attitudes was similar to results from other cities (e.g. Hosaka et al. 2017; Mohamad Muslim et al. 2018; Soga et al. 2016a). We also found that wildlife experience played an important role in wildlife likability and habitat preferences, sometimes even more so than childhood nature experience. This shows that having direct experiences with wildlife species, like seeing them with one’s own eyes, compared to watching them on a documentary or reading about them, was more effective in fostering better attitudes towards wildlife. However, other studies have shown that childhood nature experience was not always necessary in forming closer connections with nature in adulthood, provided that they have plenty of exposure to nature regularly in adulthood (van den Berg et al. 2016).
Wanting large and undesirable animals away from homes could be a manifestation of the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) syndrome. It is a prevalent attitude, which started as a resistance to social and environmental facilities deemed necessary but undesirable near residents of high-value housing estates (Dear 1992). It has rarely been described for wildlife (but see Welbergen and Eby 2016), although NIMBY attitudes have been highlighted in Singapore previously over social facilities (Seow 2017; Yong 2020). In the case of wildlife, fear of zoonotic diseases, fear of injury, noise, and interference with daily life are some of the reasons people may want wildlife far from their homes, but without exterminating them (Ngo et al. 2019). For example, non-biting midge (Polypedilum nubifer and Tanytarsus oscillans) outbreaks have been known to occur in Singapore since the 1970s (Cranston et al. 2013), but their swarming behavior has been considered problematic even though they are harmless to humans (Ang 2019). There has also been numerous cases of macaques and wild boar in Singapore showing aggression to and injuring people in urban settings (e.g. Ang 2020; Yang 2017).
The unfavorable animal group included harmless animals like moths and cicadas, and also animals presumed to cause harm such as bees, hornets and reptiles (snakes, water monitors). This is similar to other studies on attitudes towards these animals (e.g. Almeida et al. 2014; Kellert 1993), and they are likely driven by fear and disgust (Castillo-Huitrón et al. 2020; Polák et al. 2020). The fear of snakes by primates has been attributed to evolution (Isbell 2006) and were considered innate in humans (Menzies and Clarke 1995; Poulton and Menzies 2002). However, social constructs acquired later in life, like myths (Prokop et al. 2009), can also induce fear even if there had been no prior interactions with the wildlife species. A survey done across seven different countries found that although disgust-relevant animals were similar across all cultures, fear ratings differed between countries for fear-irrelevant, fear-relevant, and disgust-relevant animals (Davey et al. 1998), a sign that most of these fears were learnt from cultural settings. Formal education that involves interacting with unfavorable wildlife species in a controlled environment can reduce fears and improve perceptions (Pinheiro et al. 2016).
The strong differences in wildlife likeability between gender was within expectations, especially for the unfavorable animals. Similar to this study, others have shown that females tended to have lower likeability towards wildlife (Kaltenborn et al. 2006; Kellert and Berry 1987), or higher affinity for ‘lovable animals’ and lower affinity for ‘fear-relevant animals’ (Schlegel and Rupf 2010). This was despite no significant differences in wildlife experience between males and females. This does not necessarily imply that females were not interested in wildlife conservation, but might reflect greater fear of the dangers that wildlife could bring (Kong et al. 1997; Thornton and Quinn 2009). Singaporean females may see themselves more as nurturers in terms of tending to nature and teaching children about nature, instead of having the need or ability to dominate nature (Kong et al. 1997). However, it may be useful to note we found no significant effect of gender on overall habitat preferences, reflecting similar preferences between males and females.
In our study, we found that higher formal education level correlated with higher likeability and tolerance of wildlife. This concurs with findings from Kaltenborn et al. (2006) and Røskaft et al. (2003), while Thornton and Quinn (2009) found no such relation. Randler et al. (2007) also found that education level and age were significant predictors of animal knowledge. A majority (57.2%) of respondents had a degree, while 10.8% had a postgraduate degree. A survey on Singapore undergraduates found that biology majors did not fare much better than non-biology majors when asked about their environmental knowledge and understanding of ecosystems (Tan 2015). Future studies could include a question on subject of specialization for respondents with degrees to examine if the subject of study had any influence on wildlife attitudes.
Ethnicity had a significant effect on wildlife likeability and habitat preference, similar to a Malaysian study (Mohamad Muslim et al. 2018). However, although Singapore and Malaysia share similar ethnicities, Malaysia has a Malay majority, while Singapore has an ethnic Chinese majority. Consequently, 84% of respondents from this study were Chinese, which was higher than the national average of 74.3% (Singapore Department of Statistics 2020). Contrary to findings from Mohamad Muslim et al. (2018), the Malay respondents in our study had the lowest mean scores for childhood nature experience, wildlife experience and habitat preferences, compared to other ethnicities (Fig. S3). It is unclear if this could be due to the small proportion of Malays (5.2%) who answered the questionnaire, compared to the national proportion of 13.5% (Singapore Department of Statistics 2020).
Age had little effect on wildlife likeability and habitat preferences in general (Table 1; Fig. S4). This is contrary to findings from Bjerke and Østdahl (2004), Hosaka et al. 2017, and Mohamad Muslim et al. (2018), but were similar to Kaltenborn et al. (2006). In a previous study with the same survey respondents, likeability and tolerance was found to decrease with age, but that was only for three species of problem-causing wildlife (Ngo et al. 2019). The weak effect of age may be because Singapore had become highly urbanized by the 1970s (MND 2019), where people in their 40s and below would have been born, so these generations may have had little exposure to nature when growing up. Prior to this, most of Singapore’s population were concentrated in the then built-up and crowded areas (Neville 1969; Ngo et al. 2019), and people in their 50s and above may have had grown up with little exposure to nature even though there were more forests before the 1970s.
Although most respondents had first-hand experience with common urban animals (seen the animal physically), forest-dependent animals, mostly mammals, such as flying lemurs and shrews, were unknown or known only by name by over 25% of the respondents. Low levels of wildlife knowledge are not unique to this study (e.g. Bebbington 2005; Miller and McGee 2000). Studies have shown that wildlife knowledge and interest in children can be enhanced by regular exposure to them, coupled with opportunities to study them in more detail (Lindemann-Matthies 2005). Even adults with regular exposure to nature in cities can have increased commitment to biodiversity conservation (Prévot et al. 2018). Elementary science education in Singapore in the 1990s and before (when most of the survey respondents would have been studying) were fact-based (Lee 2018). Despite this, there was very little to connect textbook knowledge with the environment. Teaching facts alone does not necessarily result in more positive attitudes towards wildlife (Prokop et al. 2009). With the current emphasis on evidence-based reasoning and knowledge application in science education (Lee 2018), there is even less motivation for students to learn about species around them if they do not appear in school examinations. School field trips to nature reserves also usually involve large groups (pers. obs.), which are not conducive to watching wildlife.
The preferred landscape in Singapore is manicured landscapes like parks and gardens (Drillet et al. 2020; Khew et al. 2014), which harbor lower biodiversity than natural habitats such as forests (Chong et al. 2014). Most of the mammals and some unfavorable animals surveyed are found in forests. The preference for manicured landscapes was despite a general tendency towards nature conservation (Khew et al. 2014). This could lead to a positive feedback cycle where children are mostly exposed to manicured landscapes, reinforcing their preference in adulthood, and paving the way for more manicured landscapes in the future and reducing habitats for more endangered species. However, the recent slogan change for Singapore to be a ‘City in Nature’ from the previous ‘City in a Garden’ requires its citizens to learn to coexist with wildlife around them (Lee 2017), including the unfavorable animals. Besides policy, effective biodiversity conservation requires widespread support from citizens living in biodiversity hotspots to also be supportive of conservation measures.