Mobilizing metaphors: the popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts

Original Paper

Abstract

Misrepresentation of terminology is a major impediment for attempts at enhancing public conservation literacy. Despite being critically important for improving conservation practice, there have been few systematic analyses of the popular use of conservation terminology. This paper draws from science communication studies and metaphor analysis, to examine how keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts are used and represented in non-academic contexts. 557 news articles containing these terms were systematically analyzed. Mammals featured in 60% of articles on keystones, 55% on flagships and 63% on umbrella species. Number of articles explaining the terms keystone (35%) and flagship (31%) was low, and keystones were the most misrepresented term. Keystones were metaphorically linked with balance, flagships with representation and umbrella species with protection. These metaphors influenced public interpretation of scientific terminology, oriented actions towards select species, and led to a valuation of such actions. Together, the findings highlight three important aspects of popular use of conservation terminology: (1) communication is largely biased towards mammals, (2) everyday language plays a vital role in the interpretation of concepts, and (3) metaphors influence peoples’ actions and understanding. Conservation biologists need to engage with issues of language if public conservation literacy is to be improved. Further evaluations of concepts with high public and policy relevance, systematic identification of communication shortfalls, and linguistic assessments prior to promoting new terms are potential ways of achieving this.

Keywords

Conservation literacy Flagship species Goodhart’s law Keystone species Language Media Metaphor Umbrella species 

Abbreviation

IUCN

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Supplementary material

10531_2011_35_MOESM1_ESM.xls (48 kb)
A complete list of explanations of keystone, flagship and umbrella species in the news articles (Appendix S1) is given below. (XLS 48 kb)

References

  1. Antilla L (2005) Climate of skepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Glob Environ Change 15:338–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong D (2002) Focal and surrogate species: getting the language right. Conserv Biol 16(2):285–286Google Scholar
  3. Ashlin A, Ladle R (2006) Environmental science adrift in the blogosphere. Science 312:201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashlin A, Ladle R (2007) “Natural disasters” and newspapers: post-tsunami environmental discourse. Environ Hazards 7:330–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barua M (2010) Whose issue? Representations of human-elephant conflict in Indian and international media. Sci Commun 32(1):55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boykoff MT (2007) From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science. Trans Inst Br Geogr 32:477–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cachelin A, Norvell R, Darling A (2010) Language fouls in teaching ecology: why traditional metaphors undermine conservation literacy. Conserv Biol 24(3):669–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carignan V, Villard M (2002) Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review. Environ Monit Assess 78:45–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caro TM (2010) Conservation by proxy. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Caro TM, O’Doherty G (1999) On the use of surrogate species in conservation. Conserv Biol 13:805–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caro T, Engilis A, Fitzherbert E et al (2004) Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Anim Conserv 7:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clucas B, McHugh K, Caro T (2008) Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodivers Conserv 17:1517–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dumit J (2010) Inter-pill-ation and the instrumentalization of compliance. Anthropol Med 17(2):245–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardezi T, da Silva J (1999) Diversity in relation to body size in mammals: a comparative study. Am Nat 153:110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heywood VH (ed) (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Kotliar NB, Baker BW, Whicker AD et al (1999) A critical review of assumptions about the prairie dog as a keystone species. Environ Manag 24(2):177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ladle RJ, Gilson L (2009) The (im)balance of nature: a public perception of time-lag? Public Underst Sci 18:229–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ladle RJ, Jepson P, Whittaker RJ (2005) Scientists and the media: the struggle for legitimacy in climate change and conservation science. Interdisc Sci Rev 30:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakoff G (1995) Metaphor, morality, and politics. Or, why conservatives have left liberals in the dust. Social Res 62(2):1–22Google Scholar
  20. Lakoff G, Johnson M (2003) Metaphors we live by, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Lamb BL, Cline K (2003) Public knowledge and perceptions of black-tailed prairie dogs. Hum Dimens Wildl 8:127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leader–Williams N, Dublin HT (2000) Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship species’. In: Entwistle A, Dunstone N (eds) Priorities for conservation of mammalian diversity: has the panda had its day?. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 53–84Google Scholar
  23. Lybecker DL, Lamb BL, Ponds PD (2002) Public attitudes and knowledge of the black-tailed prairie dog: a common and controversial species. Bioscience 52(7):607–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacDonald DW, Tattersall FH, Brown ED et al (1995) Reintroducing the European beaver to Britain: nostalgic meddling or restoring biodiversity? Mammal Rev 25(4):161–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meffe G, Carroll CR (1997) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Nie M (2001) The sociopolitical dimensions of wolf management and restoration in the United States. Hum Ecol Rev 8(1):1–12Google Scholar
  27. Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A (2003) Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Int J Press/Politics 8(2):36–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peterson MN, Birckhead JL, Leong K et al (2010) Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conserv Lett 3:74–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salafsky N, Salzer D (2005) The unglamorous essential foundation of conservation science. Oryx 39(3):235–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shoemaker PJ, Reese SD (1991) Mediating the message: theories of influences on mass media content. Longman, White PlainsGoogle Scholar
  31. Silva M, Downing JA (1995) CRC handbook of mammalian body masses. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  32. Simberloff D (1998) Flagships, umbrellas and keystones: is single species management passé in the landscape era? Biol Conserv 83:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simpson J, Weiner E (eds) (1989) Oxford English dictionary. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Trimble MJ, Van Aarde RJ (2010) Species inequality in scientific study. Conserv Biol 24(3):886–890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trumbo B, Dunwoody S, Griffin RJ (1998) Journalists, cognition, and the presentation of an epidemiologic study. Sci Commun 19:238–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Webb TJ, Raffaelli D (2008) Conversations in conservation: revealing and dealing with language differences in environmental conflicts. J Appl Ecol 45:1198–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wiegold MF (2001) Communicating science: a review of the literature. Sci Commun 23:164–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geography and the EnvironmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations