Alarming declines in biodiversity have encouraged scientists to begin promoting the idea of the services ecosystems offer to humans in order to gain support for conservation. The concept of ecosystem services is designed to communicate societal dependence on various natural ecosystems. Schools play an important role in educating students to be active and responsible towards the environment. A questionnaire testing for the influence of different types of environmental concern on attitudes to forest ecosystem services was completed by 410 Slovenian secondary school students in north-western Slovenia. The students' attitudes to forest ecosystem services were investigated via 15 statements about provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services. The student's environmental concern was investigated using a questionnaire of 12 items. Results from the survey provide evidence that students’ concerns for the consequences of environmental damage formed three correlated factors centred around the self and family, all people and the biosphere. Students' most highly valued environmental concern was for the biosphere, followed by concern for self and family, and concern for all the people. Female students were notably more concerned for all people and for the biosphere. However, all students, regardless of the type of environmental concern, prioritise the different benefits obtained from regulating and supporting ecosystem services. The importance placed on different provisioning and cultural services varies among students with different types of environmental concerns. The students' frequency of direct experiences being in the forest has a significant positive impact on the values they assigned to cultural services in particular. Education about ecosystem services could be an effective means of communicating the significance of various ecosystems and our dependence on ecological life support systems. By using ecosystem services frameworks students can learn about and value ecosystem structure and functions, as well as better evaluate human activities that are associated with them. Using ecosystem services frameworks and elaborated types of environmental concerns can help educators emphasize the attitudes/needs/rights of an individual and of a society to discuss these socio-scientific issues in a cooperative learning environment. Biodiversity education should not overlook cultural ecosystem services and address them in terms of changing human values and sustainability.

Arcury, T.A. (1990). Environmental Attitudes and Environmental Knowledge. Human Organization, 49(4), 300–304.

Bartczak, A., & Metelska-Szaniawska, K. (2015). Should we pay, and to whom, for biodiversity enhancement in private forests? An empirical study of attitudes towards payments for forest ecosystem services in Poland. Land Use Policy, 48, 261–269.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. Auflage). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. 7th ed. London: Routledge.

Costanza, R., D'arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., & Van Den Belt, M.(1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260.

De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M., & Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408.

Daily, G.C. (1997). Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., et al., (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 21–28.

de Oliveira, L.E.C., & Berkes, F. (2014). What value São Pedro's procession? Ecosystem services from local people's perceptions. Ecological Economics, 107, 114–121.

Gao, H., Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., Bluemling, B. (2013). Perception and attitudes of local people concerning ecosystem services of culturally protected forests. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33(3), 756–763.

Gayford, C. (2000). Biodiversity Education: a teacher’s Perspective. Environmental Education Research, 6(4), 347–361.

Goldman, R.L., Tallis, H., Kareiva, P. & Daily, G.C. (2008). Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc. National Academy of Sciences, USA 105(27), 9445–9448.

Hayes, B. C. (2001). Gender, Scientific Knowledge, and Attitudes toward the Environment: A Cross-National Analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 54(3), 657–671.

Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor Retention Decisions in Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Tutorial on Parallel Analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205

Hawcroft, L.J., & Milfont, T.L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 143–158.

Kahn, P. 1999. The human relationship with nature: Development and culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Krek, J. (Ed.)(2011). White paper on education in the Republic of Slovenia. Ljubljana: Ministry of Education and Sport.

Lindemann-Matthies, P., Keller, D., Li, X., & Schmid, B. (2014). Attitudes toward forest diversity and forest ecosystem services - a cross-cultural comparison between China and Switzerland. Journal of Plant Ecology, 7(1),  1–9.

Lindemann-Matthies, P., Constantinou, C., Junge, X., Koehler, K., Mayer, J., Nagel, U., Raper, G., Schuele, D., & Kadji-Beltran, C. (2009) The integration of biodiversity education in the initial education of primary school teachers: four comparative case studies from Europe. Environmental Education Research, 15(1), 17–37.

Macura, B., Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Grau-Satorras, M., Demps, K., Laval, M., Garcia, C.A.,  & Reyes-García, V. (2011). Local community attitudes toward forests outside protected areas in India. Impact of legal awareness, trust, and participation. Ecology & Society, 16(3), 16.

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis. Wold Health Organization. Washington, DC.: Island Press.

O’Brien, L. (2009). Learning outdoors: the Forest School approach. Education 3-13, 37(1), 45–60.

State of Europe’s Forests 2011. Status and Trends in Sustainable Forest Management in Europe.(2011). Oslo: Forest Europe, UNECE and FAO.

Resolution on National Forest Programme (2008). Ljubljana: Zveza gozdarskih društev Slovenije, Gozdarska založba and Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano.

Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamy, K., Morris, M., Choi, M-Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury, UK: Field Studies Council/National Foundation for Educational Research.

Rock, M.J., & Degeling, C. (2015). Public health ethics and more-than-human solidarity. Social Science & Medicine, 129, 61–67.

Rock, M.J., Buntain, B., Hatfield, J., & Hallgrímsson, B. (2009). Animal-human connections, ‘one health,’ and the syndemic approach to prevention. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 991–995.

Schultz, P.W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339.

Schultz, P. W. (2002). Environmental attitudes and behaviors across cultures. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (Unit 8, Chapter 4), Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington USA. URL: http://www.wwu.edu/culture/Schultz.htm (21 March 2016).

Stern, P.C., & Dietz, T.(1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.

SORS (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia), 2013. Demography and Social Statistics. URL: http://www.stat.si/eng/tema_demografsko_izobrazevanje.asp  (8 April 2014)

Šorgo, A., & Kamenšek, A. (2012). Implementation of a curriculum for environmental education as education for sustainable development in Slovenian upper secondary schools. Energy Education Science and Technology, 4(2), 1067–1076.

Torkar, G., Verlič, A., & Vilhar, U. (2014). Importance of forest ecosystem services to secondary school students: a case study from north-west Slovenia. South-east European forestry, 5(1), 35–43.

Torkar, G., Mohar, P., Gregorc, T., Nekrep, I., & Hönigsfeld Adamič, M. (2010). The conservation knowledge and attitudes of teenagers in Slovenia toward the Eurasian Otter. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5(3), 341–352.

Van Liere, K.D., &  Riley E. D. (1980). The Social Bases of Environ- mental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evi- dence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181–197.

Zinsstag, J., Schelling, E., Waltner-Toews, D., Tanner, M., 2011. From ‘one medicine’ to ‘one health’ and systemic approaches to health and well-being. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 101, 148–156.

Zurlini, G., Zaccarelli, N., Petrosillo, I., & Semeraro, T. (2008). Fostering ecosystem services’ security by both objective and subjective analyses: the case of a natural protected area in Southern Italy. In Petrosillo, I., Müller, F., Jones, K.B., Zurlini, G., Krauze, K., Victorov, S., Li, B.-L., Kepner, W.G. (Eds.), Use of Landscape Sciences for the Assessment of Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht, 399–411.