Advertisement

Spectrum of concepts associated with the term “biodiversity”: a case study in a biodiversity hotspot in South America

  • Claudia Cerda
  • Iñigo Bidegain
Article
  • 123 Downloads

Abstract

In most conservation programs that include public participation, the word “biodiversity” is used. However, many variables influence the public understanding of the term and determine what biodiversity means to local stakeholders. Those representations of the concept must be addressed and included in conservation actions. We asked 47 local stakeholders in a biosphere reserve (BR) located in a biodiversity hotspot in South America, for whom the conservation of biodiversity is not the main focus of interest, to explain how they understand the term “biodiversity.” Twenty-two different definitions were provided, ranging from purely ecological concepts to the human dimension. Although the diversity of animals and plants was the most frequently mentioned concept, the variety of concepts that emerged suggested that more explicit examples of social constructions must be considered in public participatory projects and environmental education programs. Actors living in a close relationship with nature provide a greater diversity of elements in defining biodiversity, visualizing ecological but also instrumental values.

Keywords

Biodiversity Concepts Social understanding Biodiversity hotspot Management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Emilia Catalán, Rosario Valenzuela, and Luis González for data collection. We also thank our respondents that were willing to respond our interview.

Funding

This study was funded by the Fondecyt Research Grant No. 1151063: “Exploring human wildlife-relationships in Chile: a multistakeholder perspective to wildlife conservation management”.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for studies with human participants was obtained for the research from the Scientific Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences of University of Chile.

References

  1. Adger, W. N., Benjaminsen, T. A., Brown, K., & Svarstad, H. (2001). Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses. Development and Change, 32(4), 681–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asociación Kauyeken (2013) Conocimiento sobre biodiversidad y su conservación en Chile: análisis exploratorio. Informe preparado para el Proyecto MMA / GEF-PNUD Creación de un Sistema Nacional Integral de Áreas Protegidas para Chile. Estructura Financiera y Operacional, p. 29.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtiari, F., Jacobsen, J. B., Strange, N., & Helles, F. (2014). Revealing lay people’s perceptions of forest biodiversity value components and their application in valuation method. Global Ecology and Conservation, 1, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barkmann, J., Cerda, C., & Marggraf, R. (2005). Interdisziplinäre analyse von naturbildern: Notwendige Voraussetzung für die ökonomische Bewertung der natürlicehn Umwelt. Umweltpsychologie, 9, 10–29.Google Scholar
  5. Berghoefer, U., Rozzi, R., & Jax, K. (2010). Many eyes on nature: diverse perspectives in the cape horn biosphere reserve and their relevance for conservation. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buijs, A. E., & Elands, B. H. M. (2013). Does expertise matter? An in-depth understanding of people’s structure of thoughts on nature and its management implications. Biological Conservation, 168, 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmona, A., Nahuelhual, L., Echeverría, C., & Báez, A. (2010). Linking farming systems to landscape change: an empirical and spatially explicit study in southern Chile. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 139(1–2), 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Catalán, E. (2015). Relación humano-ambiente en el Parque Nacional La Campana. Una trayectoria de encuentros y desencuentros entre comunidades locales y el área protegida. Universidad de Chile: Memoria Antropólogo Social.Google Scholar
  9. Cerda, C., & Losada, T. (2013). Assessing the value of species: a case study on the willingness to pay for species protection in Chile. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185(12), 10479–10493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cerda, C., Diafas, J., Barkmann, J., Mburu, J., & Marggraf, R. (2007). WTP/ WTA design strategies for choice experiments in early planning stages: experiences from Chile and Kenya. In J. Meyerhoff, N. Lienhoff, & P. Elsasser (Eds.), Stated preference methods for environmental valuation: applications from Austria and Germany (pp. 139–173). Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  11. Cerda, C., Barkmann, J., & Marggraf, R. (2013a). Application of choice experiments to quantify the existence value of an endemic moss: a case study in Chile. Environment and Development Economics, 18(2), 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cerda, C., Ponce, A., & Zappi, M. (2013b). Using choice experiments to understand public demand for the conservation of nature: a case study in a protected area of Chile. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21(3), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cerda, C., Barkmann, J., & Marggraf, R. (2014). Non-market economic valuation of the benefits provided by temperate ecosystems at the extreme south of the Americas. Regional Environmental Change, 14(4), 1517–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cerda, C., Fuentes, J. P., De la Maza, C. L., Loit, C., & Araos, A. (2017). Assessing visitors’ preferences for ecosystem features in a desert biodiversity hotspot. Environmental Conservation, 45, 75–82.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892917000200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chaucono, D. (2014). Percepciones sobre servicios ambientales, conservación y biodiversidad de los visitantes y trabajadores del Parque Nacional La Campana, Región de Valparaíso. Memoria Ingeniero Forestal: Universidad de Chile.Google Scholar
  16. Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R., & Hyde, T. (2006). Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 58(2), 304–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. CONAF (2008). Reserva de biósfera la campana-peñuelas. Formulario de propuesta de ampliación: documento base programa MaB-UNESCO.Google Scholar
  18. Dallimer, M., Irvine, K. N., Skinner, A. M. J., Davies, Z. G., Rouquette, J. R., Maltby, L. L., Warren, P. H., Armsworth, P. R., & Gaston, K. J. (2012). Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience, 62(1), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Durand, L., & Lazos, E. (2008). The local perception of tropical deforestation and its relation to conservation policies in Los Tuxtlas biosphere reserve, Mexico. Human Ecology, 36(3), 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elórtegui, S., & Moreira-Muñoz, A. (2002). La Campana national park: origin of a biosphere reserve in Central Chile. Santiago: Taller la Era.Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, A., & Young, J. C. (2007). Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation, 136(2), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer, A., Selge, S., van der Wal, R., & Larson, B. M. H. (2014). The public and professionals reason similarly about the management of non-native invasive species: a quantitative investigation of the relationship between beliefs and attitudes. PLoS One, 9(8), e105495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartter, J., Solomon, J., Ryan, S. J., Jacobson, S. K., & Goldman, A. B. E. (2014). Contrasting perceptions of ecosystem services of an African forest park. Environmental Conservation, 41(4), 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holland, T. G., Peterson, G. D., & Gonzalez, A. (2009). A cross-national analysis of how economic inequality predicts biodiversity loss. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1304–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howard, B., Braat, L. C., Bugter, R. J. F., Carmen, E., Hails, R. S., Watt, A. D., & Young, J. C. (2016). Taking stock of the spectrum of arguments for biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1082-1.
  26. Hull, R. B., Robertson, D. P., & Kendra, A. (2001). Public understandings of nature: a case study of local knowledge about “natural” forest conditions. Society and Natural Resources, 14(4), 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunter, L. M., & Joan, B. (2003). Qualitative insight into public knowledge of, and concern with, biodiversity. Human Ecology, 31(2), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaczensky, P., Blazic, M., & Gossow, H. (2004). Public attitudes towards brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Slovenia. Biological Conservation, 118(5), 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). What is conservation science? Bioscience, 62(11), 962–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindemann-Matthies, P., & Bose, E. (2008). How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology, 36(5), 731–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation? Science, 345(6204), 1558–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Medin, D. L. (2005). Concepts and conceptual structure. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Social cognition (pp. 115–129). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mittermeier, R., Gil, P., Hoffman, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C., et al. (2005). Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Cemex. Monterrey: Conservation International and Agrupation Sierra Madre.Google Scholar
  34. Moreira, A., & Barsdorf, A. (2014). Reservas de la Biosfera de Chile: Laboratorios para la sustentabilidad. Santiago de Chile: Academia de Ciencias Austriaca, Pontifica Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto de Geografía, Santiago de Chile. Serie Geolibros n° 17.Google Scholar
  35. Muñoz, M., Núñez, H., & Yáñez, J. (1996). Libro rojo de los sitios prioritarios para la conservación de la diversidad biológica en Chile. Santiago de Chile: Corporación Nacional Forestal.Google Scholar
  36. Muñoz-Pedreros, A., Flechter, S., Yañez, J., & Sánchez, P. (2010). Diversity of small mammals in three environments of the National Reserve Lago Peñuelas, Región de Valparaíso, Chile. Gayana, 74(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  37. Noss, R. F. (1990). Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4(4), 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Riordan, T., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2002). Biodiversity, sustainability and human communities. London: Earthscan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pelenc, J., & Velut, S. (2012). Une réserve de biosphère dans la région centrale du Chili: Les enjeux du zonage. Mappe Monde, 1–15.Google Scholar
  40. Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., & Tscharntke, T. (2016). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosystem Services, 17, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sagoff, M. (2004). Price, principle and the environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schaich, H., Bieling, C., & Plieninger, T. (2010). Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 19(4), 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schulz, J., Cayuela, L., Echeverria, C., Salas, J., & Rey Benayas, J. M. (2010). Land-cover dynamics of the dryland forest landscape of Central Chile. Applied Geography, 30, 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Serenari, C., Peterson, M. N., Leung, Y. F., Stowhas, P., Wallace, T., & Sills, E. O. (2015). Private development-based forest conservation in Patagonia: comparing mental models and revealing cultural truths. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith-Ramírez, J. J., & Armesto, C. (2005). Valdovinos. Biodiversidad y ecología de los bosques costeros de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria.Google Scholar
  46. Snaddon, J. L., Turner, E. C., & Foster, W. A. (2008). Children’s perceptions of rainforest biodiversity: which animals have the lion’s share of environmental awareness? PLoS One, 3(7), e2579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spash, C. L., & Hanley, N. (1995). Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecological Economics, 12(3), 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001). Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: a model explaining opposition to protected areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stoll-Kleemann, S., & O’Riordan, T. (2017). The challenges of the anthropocene for biosphere reserves. Parks, 23(1), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Riper, C. J., Kyle, G. T., Sherrouse, B. C., Bagstad, K. J., & Sutton, S. G. (2017). Toward an integrated understanding of perceived biodiversity values and environmental conditions in a national park. Ecological Indicators, 72, 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Velasco, D., García-Llorente, M., Alonso, B., Dolera, A., Palomo, I., Iniesta-Arandia, I., & Martín-López, B. (2015). Biodiversity conservation research challenges in the 21st century: a review of publishing trends in 2000 and 2011. Environmental Science and Policy, 54, 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zamin, T. J., Baillie, J. E. M., Miller, R. M., Rodríguez, J. P., Ardid, A. N. A., & Collen, B. E. N. (2010). National red listing beyond the 2010 target. Conservation Biology, 24(4), 1012–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Reyes-García, V., & Simonetti, J. A. (2014). Conservation of biodiversity in private lands: are Chilean landowners willing to keep threatened species in their lands? Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 1(1), 4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Forest Sciences and Conservation of NatureUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations