Fig 1.
Timeline of CresceRio actions (field trips and laboratory class) and surveys to students (inquiries– M1-M3 and interviews—M4).
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
Fig 7.
Proportion of students mentioning what they perceive that a river or stream could give them (ecosystem services) at M1, M2, M3.
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.
Table 1.
Results of significant p-values (p<0.05) for the Chi-square test between the Moments (M) and the categorical variables.