Explores public perceptions of seagrass in Maldives, highlighting a readiness for conservation efforts.
Seagrass ecosystems provide critical ecological services, from shoreline protection and carbon sequestration to biodiversity support and fisheries enhancement. Despite these benefits, they are often undervalued and actively removed to satisfy aesthetic preferences. In the Maldives, recent data suggest a rare trend of seagrass expansion, yet how public perceptions align with this ecological trajectory remains poorly understood. We conducted the first nationally distributed online survey of seagrass perceptions (n = 145), disseminated through the social media channels of Maldives Resilient Reefs. While the survey achieved broad geographic coverage, respondents were younger, more male, more educated, and more environmentally engaged than the national average, representing a socially-skewed and non-representative sample. Attitudes were generally positive: 82% viewed seagrass as beneficial, with highest importance placed on shoreline protection, nursery habitat, and biodiversity support. 20% expressed ambivalence or negative sentiment, particularly toward wildlife. Perceptions of change were mixed: expansion underwater was typically viewed favourably, while accumulation on beaches elicited negative responses. Perception scores showed most associations with direct engagement (e.g., birdwatching), while socio-demographics showed no detectable effects within this sample. Recognition of threats such as construction and tourism development was weakly associated with more positive perceptions. Overall, 66% of respondents supported improved management of seagrass meadows. These findings indicate that within this engaged subset, seagrass is recognised for its ecological importance. While not representative of the Maldivian population, results indicate potential readiness for conservation-oriented narratives. Aligning ecological change with public engagement may provide opportunities, particularly through targeted education, communication, and policy integration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arnull et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: