Ambio

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 458–471 | Cite as

Phoenix flagships: Conservation values and guanaco reintroduction in an anthropogenic landscape

Report
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Multiple forms of valuation contribute to public acceptance of conservation projects. Here, we consider how esthetic, intrinsic, and utilitarian values contribute to public attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of guanaco (Lama guanicoe) in a silvopastoral system of central Chile. The nexus among landscape perceptions and valuations, support for reintroductions, and management of anthropogenic habitats is of increasing interest due to the proliferation of conservation approaches combining some or all of these elements, including rewilding and reconciliation ecology, for example. We assessed attitudes and values through an online questionnaire for residents of Santiago, Chile, using multiple methods including photo-montages and Likert scale assessments of value-based statements. We also combined the questionnaire approach with key informant interviews. We find strong support for the reintroduction of guanacos into the Chilean silvopastoral system (‘espinal’) in terms of esthetic and intrinsic values but less in terms of utilitarian values. Respondents preferred a scenario of espinal with guanacos and expressed interest in visiting it, as well as support for the reintroduction project on the basis that guanacos are native to central Chile. We suggest that reintroduced guanacos could serve as a ‘phoenix flagship species’ for espinal conservation, that is, a flagship species that has gone regionally extinct and is known but not associated with the region in the cultural memory. We consider how the lack of local cultural identity can both help and weaken phoenix flagships, which we expect to become more common.

Keywords

Anthropocene Chile Lama guanicoe Landscape Reintroduction Rewilding Value 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to U. Roll, M. Zanuso, and B. Barca for advice and technical assistance. We also thank the key informants for their participation. This research was supported by FONDECYT grant No. 3130336.

References

  1. Alagona, P.A. 2004. Biography of a “feathered pig”: The California condor conservation controversy. Journal of the History of Biology 37: 557–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armesto, J.J., D. Manuschevich, A. Mora, C. Smith-Ramirez, R. Rozzi, A.M. Abarzúa, and P.A. Marquet. 2010. From the Holocene to the Anthropocene: A historical framework for land cover change in southwestern South America in the past 15000 years. Land Use Policy 27: 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson, J., C. Ovalle, and J. Avendano. 1993. Ecological and economic rehabilitation of degraded ‘Espinales’ in the subhumid Mediterranean-climate region of central Chile. Landscape Urban Planning 24: 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aveling, R., and A. Mitchell. 1982. Is rehabilitating Orang Utans worth while? Oryx 16: 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardsley, D., and G. Edwards-Jones. 2006. Stakeholders’ perceptions of the impacts of invasive exotic plant species in the Mediterranean region. GeoJournal 65: 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barua, M., M. Root-Bernstein, R.J. Ladle, and P. Jepson. 2011. Defining flagship uses is critical for flagship selection: A critique of the IUCN climate change flagship fleet. AMBIO 40: 431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamini, Y., and Y. Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 57: 289–300.Google Scholar
  8. Brambilla, M., M. Gustin, and C. Celada. 2013. Species appeal predicts conservation status. Biological Conservation 160: 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clayton, S.D. 2012. Environment and identity. In The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology, ed. S.D. Clayton, 164–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crites Jr, S.L., L.R. Fabrigar, and R.E. Petty. 1994. Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20: 619–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Val, G.D.L.F., J.A. Mezquida, and J.V. de Lucio Fernández. 2004. El aprecio por el paisaje y su utilidad en la conservación de los paisajes de Chile central. Rev Ecosistemas 13: 82–89.Google Scholar
  12. Edwards, K. 1990. The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franklin, W.L., F. Bas, C. Bonacic, C. Cunazza, and N. Soto. 1997. Striving to manage Patagonia guanacos for sustained use in the grazing agroecosystems of southern Chile. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 65–73.Google Scholar
  14. Fuentes, E.R., G.A. Espinosa, and I. Fuenzalida. 1984. Cambios vegetacionales recientes y percepción ambiental: el caso de Santiago de Chile. Revista de geografía Norte Grande (Chile) 11: 45–53.Google Scholar
  15. Garrido Escobar, F. 2010. La importancia de los camélidos en el mundo indígena y prehispánico nacional. In Plan Nacional de Conservación del Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) en Chile 2010–2015: Macrozona Norte y Centro, ed. M.P. Grimberg and M.P. Pardo, 25–29. Santiago: CONAF.Google Scholar
  16. Gifford, R., and R. Sussman. 2012. Environmental Attitudes. In The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology, ed. S.D. Clayton, 65–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gobster, P.H. 2008. Yellowstone hotspot: Reflections on scenic beauty, ecology and the aesthetic experience of landscape. Landscape Journal 27: 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grimberg Pardo, M.P. 2010. Plan Nacional de Conservación del Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) en Chile 2010–2015, Macrozona Norte y Centro. Chile: CONAF.Google Scholar
  19. Hull, R.B., and W.P. Stewart. 1992. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12: 101–114.Google Scholar
  20. Irarrázabal, A.R. 2008. El orgullo de preservar nuestra identidad, Tema Empresa. Tell Magazine. http://assets.wanaku.cl/prensa/20080309_prensa_entrevista_tell.pdf. Accessed June 2013.
  21. Iriarte, A. 2000. Normativa legal sobre conservación y uso sustentable de vicuña y guanaco en Chile. In Manejo Sustentable de la Vicuña y el Guanaco, ed. B. González, F. Bas, C. Tala, and A. Iriarte, 209–221. Santiago: SAG, PUC, FIA.Google Scholar
  22. Jepson, P., and S. Canney. 2003. Values led conservation. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12: 271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kempton, W., J.S. Boster, and J.A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental values in American Culture. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  24. Kueffer, C., and C.N. Kaiser-Bunbury. 2013. Reconciling conflicting perspectives for conservation in the Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment. doi: 10.1890/120201.
  25. Ladle, R., and P. Jepson. 2008. Towards a biocultural theory of avoided extinction. Conservation Letters 1: 111–118.Google Scholar
  26. Leader-Williams, N., and H. Dublin. 2000. Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship species’. In Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity: Has the Panda had its day?, ed. A. Entwistle, and N. Dunstone, 53–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, S. 1980. Human influence on the distribution and abundance of wild Chilean mammals: Prehistoric—Present. PhD thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  29. Montag, J., M.E. Patterson, and W.A. Freimund. 2005. The wolf viewing experience in the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10: 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Montes, M.C., P.D. Carmanchahi, A. Rey, and M.C. Funes. 2006. Live shearing free-ranging guanacos (Lama guanicoe) in Patagonia for sustainable use. Journal of Arid Environments 64: 616–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Novaro, A.S.J. 2010. Restoration of the Guanaco, Icon of Patagonia. In State of the wild: A global portrait, ed. E. Fearn, K.H. Redford, and W. Woods, 122–128. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  33. Navarro, L.M., and H.M. Pereira. 2012. Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems 15: 900–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Papworth, S.K., J. Rist, L. Coad, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2009. Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters 2: 93–100.Google Scholar
  35. Parsons, D.R. 1998. “Green fire” returns to the Southwest: Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 799–807.Google Scholar
  36. Pauchard, A., and P. Villarroel. 2002. Protected areas in Chile: History current status and challenges. Natural Areas Journal 22: 318–330.Google Scholar
  37. Redford, K.H., J. Berger, and S. Zack. 2013. Abundance as a conservation value. Oryx 47: 157–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rolston III, H. 1987. Beauty and the Beast: Aesthetic Experience of wildlife. In Valuing wildlife: Economic and social perspectives, ed. D.J. Decker, and G.R. Goff, 187–196. London: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  39. Root-Bernstein, M. 2014. Nostalgia, the fleeting and the rare in Chilean relationships to nature and non human animals. Society and Animals 22: 560–579 (online first).Google Scholar
  40. Root-Bernstein, M., and J. Armesto. 2013. Selection and implementation of a flagship fleet in a locally undervalued region of high endemicity. AMBIO 42: 776–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Root-Bernstein, M., and F. Jaksic. 2013. The Chilean Espinal: Restoration for a Sustainable Silvopastoral System. Restoration Ecology 21: 409–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saunders, F.P. 2013. Seeing and doing conservation differently: A discussion of landscape aesthetics, wilderness, and biodiversity conservation. Journal of Environment Development 22: 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seddon, P.J., and H. van Heezik. 2013. Reintroductions to “Ratchet Up” public perceptions in Biodiversity. In Ignoring nature no more, ed. M. Bekoff. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Simonetti, J.A. 1999. Diversity and conservation of terrestrial vertebrates in mediterranean Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 72: 493–500.Google Scholar
  45. Skewes, O., F. González, M. Maldonado, C. Ovalle, and L. Rubilar. 2000. Desarrollo y evaluación de técnicas de cosecha y captura de guanacos para su aprovechamiento comercial y sustentable en Tierra del Fuego. In Manejo Sustentable de la Vicuña y el Guanaco, ed. B. González, F. Bas, C. Tala, and A. Iriarte, 117–141. Santiago: SAG PUC FIA.Google Scholar
  46. Soulé, M.E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35: 727–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Surova, D., and T. Pinto-Correia. 2008. Landscape preferences in the cork oak Montado region of Alentejo southern Portugal: Searching for valuable landscape characteristics for different user groups. Landscape Research 33: 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Teel, T.L., M.J. Manfredo, and H.M. Stinchfield. 2007. The need and theoretical basis for exploring wildlife value orientations cross-culturally. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12: 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Toledo, D., M.S. Agudelo, and A.L. Bentley. 2011. Shifting of ecological restoration benchmarks and their social impacts: Digging deeper into Pleistocene re-wilding. Restoration Ecology 19: 564–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van der Berg, H., A.S.R. Manstead, J. van der Pligt, and D.H.J. Wigboldus. 2006. The impact of affective and cognitive focus on attitude formation. The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Veríssimo, D. 2013. Influencing human behaviour: an underutilized tool for biodiversity management. Conservation Evidence 10: 29–31.Google Scholar
  53. Veríssimo, D., I. Fraser, J. Groombridge, R. Bristol, and D.C. MacMillan. 2009. Birds as tourism flagship species: A case study of tropical islands. Animal Conservation 12: 549–558.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School for Geography and the EnvironmentOxford UniversityOxfordUK
  2. 2.CH2M HILLSan Donato MilaneseItaly
  3. 3.Department of EcologyPontifical Catholic University of ChileSantiagoChile
  4. 4.Bioscience DepartmentAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations