Your browser does not fully support modern features. Please upgrade for a smoother experience.
Plant Awareness Disparity (Lack of Plant Awareness): History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor: Georgios Ampatzidis , Alexandros Amprazis

The term “plant awareness disparity”, also referred to as “lack of plant awareness”, describes a tendency for individuals to overlook and underestimate plants, especially compared to animals. This phenomenon is still referred to in parts of the literature as “plant blindness”, a term increasingly replaced due to its ableist connotations, which was introduced to capture the idea that people often fail to notice plants in their surroundings or recognize their significance for environmental sustainability and human well-being. Research has shown that this lack of awareness manifests in several interconnected ways, including: (a) failure to notice plants in everyday environments, (b) limited understanding of fundamental concepts in plant biology and ecology, (c) a tendency to undervalue or misunderstand the unique biological features of plants—such as their growth patterns, physiological processes, and adaptive strategies—and (d) the perception of plants as less complex than or inferior to animals. Plant awareness disparity has been linked to multiple contributing factors, including evolutionary, biological and educational factors. These influences reinforce anthropocentric and zoocentric views of nature, shaping how individuals conceptualize living organisms and their relative importance. In this entry, we trace the historical evolution of the concept from plant blindness to lack of plant awareness, examine the cognitive, evolutionary, and educational factors that contribute to its persistence, and discuss its broader implications for education and sustainability.

  • lack of plant awareness
  • plant awareness disparity
  • plant blindness
  • sustainability
  • education
  • plants
Decades ago, empirical research consistently indicated a persistently low level of interest in and awareness of plants, highlighting that the marginalization of plants in human perception is not a recent phenomenon but a long-standing pattern. In the 1950s, Blanc investigated the science interests of 486 junior high school students using a questionnaire including science topics with “yes/no” response options [1]. He reported a generally high interest in biological sciences but low interest in botany, underlining that “Eighth grade pupils indicated a fair to good interest in all areas of this field except botany” (p. 750). During the same decade, Glen investigated the science interests of 484 junior high school students [2]. Students were asked to write questions that they would like to have answered, and these questions were subsequently classified into broad science topics. The results showed that, although questions about plants ranked second among seventh-grade students, they ranked sixth among eighth- and ninth-grade students in a list of ten science topics. It is worth noting that in all cases, questions about plants were fewer than questions about animals.
Lower interest of students in plants compared to animals has been confirmed in other studies as well. For instance, in an earlier study, Nettels asked 1067 junior high school students to write five things in science that they find interesting [3]. He then classified the 178 different science interests submitted by students into broader categories, and he reported that plants ranked lower than animals for both boys and girls. In another study with 991 junior high school students, students were asked to write the science subjects which they found most interesting and put their choices in order of preference [4]. Students’ choices were categorized by experts, and frequencies of appearance were counted. The researchers reported that the most popular science subject was the human body, while zoology (second) ranked above plants (fourth). The same methodology was used in a later study to investigate the science choices and preferences of 1855 junior and senior high school students [5]. The researchers noted that zoology was the most popular science subject among the students asked, while botany ranked seventh.
Considering the fact that when asked about their science interests, high school students consistently expressed a stronger interest in animals compared to plants, Wandersee decided to focus on these two science subjects and research (a) students’ preference for one over the other, and (b) whether their preference related to gender or grade level [6]. More specifically, he researched 136 junior high school students using a tool he developed, the Science Interest Query, in order to collect rank-ordered free responses on science preferences. Preferences were determined by analyzing the content of students’ responses, and the rankings students assigned to their responses were used to evaluate the relative strength of these preferences. He reported that both male and female junior high school students preferred animals to plants, while girls’ interest in animals was significantly bigger than boys’ interest.
Several reasons have been proposed for the apparent preference students show for plants compared to animals. As animals, humans tend to identify far more easily with other animals than with plants. Animals eat, move, and visibly respond to their surroundings, while plants do none of these things in an obvious way [7]. Students are naturally drawn to movement, and they show more interest in mobile animals than in relatively stationary plants [8]. Moreover, they tend to prefer animals because animals display a wide range of engaging behaviors that students like to observe and they interact with humans, for example by playing with them or responding to human affection [6]. Plants seem almost less alive. Our language reflects this distinction: we “kill” or “butcher” animals, yet we “pull up” weeds, or “cut down” trees—terms that do not imply the ending of a life [7].
Many authors have suggested that education itself contributes to sustaining differences in students’ interest in plants and animals. As early as in 1919, Nichols noted that in the average general biology university course, laboratory materials are selected from both the plant and animal kingdoms, but animal material is more abundant [9], despite the fact that using animal models typically means significant financial costs and heavy regulatory oversight, while plants can be maintained with minimal expense and far fewer restrictions [10]. Additionally, he mentioned that general biology university courses are responsible for the delusion that biology is the study of animals. Focusing on school education, it has been suggested that although biology concepts may be applied to all living systems, examples in biology textbooks are most often drawn from animals and less frequently from plants—for instance, when sexual reproduction is presented, the focus is on animal-related concepts instead of plant-related [11]. Moreover, Uno proposed that botanical activities included in textbooks and teacher instructions are often static and boring for both students and teachers—for instance, examining different plants to determine their organs such as the root, stem and leaf or examining pictures to identify sections of leaves or stomata [11]. The presence of plants in curricula and textbooks is limited, particularly in comparison with animals [12][13][14][15], and teaching about plants largely focuses on superficial learning rather than enhancing deeper scientific understanding [16].
Preferring animals over plants is one side of the coin. Humans also tend to overlook plants; i.e., they fail to see or notice them in their everyday life [17]. Researchers suggest that plants are largely ignored because, unlike animals, which can act as predators, plants pose only static or reactive threats (e.g., toxicity or thorns), which do not demand the same level of visual attention for survival. Consequently, throughout evolution, human attention became attuned to animals that move or present danger [18][19]. In addition to evolutionary reasons, researchers have suggested that there are biological reasons explaining why people overlook plants as well. Individuals of plant populations typically grow in close proximity and exhibit little independent movement, apart from passive motion caused by wind or rain. Static proximity serves as a visual cue that the human perceptual system uses to group elements into broad, undifferentiated categories [20]. Moreover, as some plants lack flowers for much of the year or produce only inconspicuous ones, the uniform green color of their leaves and stems fails to provide a distinctive visual cue or chromatic contrast. Consequently, they blend into the surrounding environment as a background that is less likely to be consciously perceived [21][22].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/encyclopedia6030063

References

  1. Blanc, S. Science Interests of Junior High School Pupils. Sch. Sci. Math. 1951, 51, 745–752.
  2. Glen, W.G. Science interests of junior high school students. Sci. Educ. 1958, 42, 263–264.
  3. Nettels, C.B. Science interests of junior-high school pupils. Sci. Educ. 1931, 15, 219–225.
  4. Lazarowitz, R.; Lazarowitz, R.H. Choices and preferences of science subjects by junior high school students in Israel. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1979, 16, 317–323.
  5. Baird, J.H.; Lazarowitz, R.; Allman, V. Science choices and preferences of middle and secondary school students in Utah. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1984, 21, 47–54.
  6. Wandersee, J.H. Plants or animals—Which do junior high school students prefer to study? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1986, 23, 415–426.
  7. Darley, W.M. The Essence of “Plantness”. Am. Biol. Teach. 1990, 52, 354–357.
  8. Hershey, D.R. A Historical Perspective on Problems in Botany Teaching. Am. Biol. Teach. 1996, 58, 340–347.
  9. Nichols, G.E. The General Biology Course and the Teaching of Elementary Botany and Zoology in American Colleges and Universities. Science 1919, 50, 509–517.
  10. Guttman, D.S. Plants as models for the study of human pathogenesis. Biotechnol. Adv. 2004, 22, 363–382.
  11. Uno, G.E. The State of Precollege Botanical Education. Am. Biol. Teach. 1994, 56, 263–267.
  12. Ampatzidis, G.; Amprazis, A.; Papadopoulou, P. Plant and Animal Photographs in the Science and Environment Textbooks of the Greek Primary School. In Proceedings Book Series-I of the ESERA 2023 Conference. Connecting Science Education with Cultural Heritage; Sardag, M., Kaya, G., Sogut, M.G.S., Eds.; Nobel Bilimsel Eserler: Cappadocia, Turkey, 2024; pp. 464–470.
  13. Brownlee, K.; Parsley, K.M.; Sabel, J.L. An analysis of plant awareness disparity within introductory biology textbook images. J. Biol. Educ. 2023, 57, 422–431.
  14. Chen, Y.; Zhai, J. Plant awareness in science education: An examination of image representation and labelling in primary school textbooks. J. Biol. Educ. 2025, 1–18.
  15. Link-Pérez, M.A.; Dollo, V.H.; Weber, K.M.; Schussler, E.E. What’s in a Name: Differential labelling of plant and animal photographs in two nationally syndicated elementary science textbook series. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2010, 32, 1227–1242.
  16. Pedrera, O.; Ortega-Lasuen, U.; Ruiz-González, A.; Díez, J.R.; Barrutia, O. Branches of plant blindness and their relationship with biodiversity conceptualisation among secondary students. J. Biol. Educ. 2023, 57, 566–591.
  17. Achurra, A. Plant blindness: A focus on its biological basis. Front. Educ. 2022, 7, 963448.
  18. Pany, P.; Meier, F.D.; Dünser, B.; Yanagida, T.; Kiehn, M.; Möller, A. Measuring students’ plant awareness: A prerequisite for effective botany education. J. Biol. Educ. 2024, 58, 1103–1116.
  19. Albuquerque, U.P.; Cantalice, A.S.; Oliveira, E.S.; Santos, F.I.R.; Santos, H.C.; Lima, I.D.S.; Silva, J.V.M.; Elias, L.; Albuquerque-Silva, M.M.; de Santana, M.V.A.; et al. Reframing Botanical Blindness and Imperception Through Evolutionary Lenses. Acta Bot. Bras. 2025, 39, e20240236.
  20. Wandersee, J.H.; Schussler, E.E. Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Sci. Bull. 2001, 47, 2–9.
  21. Guerra, S.; Betti, S.; Sartori, L.; Zani, G.; Castiello, U. Plant awareness in the hand. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 94, 102246.
  22. Wandersee, J.H.; Schussler, E.E. Preventing Plant Blindness. Am. Biol. Teach. 1999, 61, 82–86.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Academic Video Service
Feedback