Abstract
The role of local biodiversity to cultural ecosystem services (CES) has been increasingly recognized. Yet, it is still unclear how local species can represent multiple CES in the same area for different people. We comprehensively evaluated the role of local biodiversity to the provision of multiple CES in the Pantanal, the largest continuous wetland in the world. First, we assessed the use of names of local species by screening and mapping tourist accommodations and rural properties names. Second, we evaluated the tourist demand for species by screening tourist accommodation websites. Finally, we assessed differences between demand and supply using two questionnaires. While mammals and birds were more common in the names of tourist accommodations, plants were more frequent in the names of rural properties. We did not record a significant correlation between the number of records on tourist accommodation websites and the mean research interest from Google Trends (considering all species, terrestrial vertebrates, or fish). Finally, we found a mismatch between demand and supply for terrestrial vertebrates, while we found a significant and positive correlation between demand and supply for fish. Our findings emphasize the importance of Pantanal biodiversity for different CES, such as tourism and recreation, which may support biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. The use of species names varied according to the economic activity (tourism or agriculture), a novel finding for the Pantanal. Future studies should focus on the role of local biodiversity for others CES, such as spiritual and inspirational values, as well as indigenous culture.
Resumo.
O papel da biodiversidade local para os serviços ecossistêmicos culturais (SEC) tem sido cada vez mais reconhecido. No entanto, ainda não está claro como as espécies locais podem representar vários SEC na mesma área para diferentes pessoas. Neste estudo, avaliamos de forma abrangente o papel da biodiversidade local para o fornecimento de múltiplos SEC no Pantanal, a maior área úmida contínua do mundo. Primeiramente, avaliamos o uso de nomes de espécies locais por meio da triagem e mapeamento de nomes de acomodações turísticas e propriedades rurais. Em segundo lugar, avaliamos a demanda turística por espécies por meio da checagem de sites de acomodações turísticas. Finalmente, avaliamos as diferenças entre demanda e oferta usando dois questionários. Enquanto os mamíferos e as aves foram mais comuns nos nomes das acomodações turísticas, as plantas foram mais frequentes nos nomes das propriedades rurais. Não registramos uma correlação significativa entre o número de registros em sites de acomodações turísticas e o interesse médio de pesquisa do Google Trends (considerando todas as espécies, vertebrados terrestres ou peixes). Por fim, encontramos um descompasso entre demanda e oferta para vertebrados terrestres, enquanto que encontramos uma correlação significativa e positiva entre demanda e oferta para peixes. Nossas descobertas enfatizam a importância da biodiversidade do Pantanal para diferentes SEC, como turismo e recreação, que podem apoiar a conservação da biodiversidade e o desenvolvimento sustentável. O uso de nomes de espécies variou de acordo com a atividade econômica (turismo ou agricultura), uma descoberta inédita para o Pantanal. Estudos futuros devem focar no papel da biodiversidade local para outros SEC, como valores espirituais e inspiracionais, bem como a cultura indígena.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets used in the current study are available at Supplementary Information (Online Resources 1, 2, 3, and 4).
References
Alho CJR (2019) O significado socioeconômico do turismo na natureza: o Pantanal diante das normas reguladoras do Estado. Soc e Estado 34:769–786. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-6992-201934030006
Alho CJR, Rondon NL (1987) Habitats, population densities, and social structure of capybaras (Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris, Rodentia) in the Pantanal, Brasil. Rev Bras Zool 4:139–149
Arts K, Rabelo MTO, de Figueiredo DM et al (2018) Online and offline representations of biocultural diversity: A political ecology perspective on nature-based tourism and indigenous communities in the Brazilian Pantanal. Sustainability 10:1–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103643
Barletta M, Cussac VE, Agostinho AA et al (2015) Fisheries ecology in South American river basins. In: Craig JF (ed) Freshwater Fisheries Ecology, 1 st. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp 311–348
Basu T, Das A, Pham QB et al (2021) Development of an integrated peri-urban wetland degradation assessment approach for the Chatra Wetland in eastern India. Sci Rep. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83512-6
Bespalez E (2015) Arqueologia e história indígena no Pantanal. Estud Avancados 29:45–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142015000100005
Bogoni JA, Peres CA, Ferraz KMPMB (2020) Effects of mammal defaunation on natural ecosystem services and human well-being throughout the entire Neotropical realm. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101173
Brockerhoff EG, Barbaro L, Castagneyrol B et al (2017) Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv 26:3005–3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1453-2
Bortolotto IM, Hiane PA, Ishii IH et al (2017) A knowledge network to promote the use and valorization of wild food plants in the Pantanal and Cerrado, Brazil. Reg Environ Change 17:1329–1341. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1088-y
Brambilla M, Gustin M, Celada C (2013) Species appeal predicts conservation status. Biol Conserv 160:209–213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.006
Cáceres DM, Tapella E, Quétier F, Díaz S (2015) The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecol Soc. doi: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07297-200162
Castro Pivatto MA, Sabino J, Favero S, Michels IL (2007) Perfil e viabilidade do turismo de observação de aves no Pantanal Sul e Planalto da Bodoquena (Mato Grosso do Sul) segundo interesse dos visitantes. Revis Bras Ornitol 15:520–529
Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K et al (2016) Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci Usa 113:1462–1465. doi: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5146.0560
Clarkson BR, Ausseil AE, Gerbeaux P (2014) Wetland ecosystem services. In: Dymond JR (ed) Ecosystem Services in New Zealand: Conditions and Trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand, pp 192–202
Concone HVB, Azevedo FCC (2012) How much worth is a jaguar alive? Alternatives to conflicts between livestock and large cats in the Brazilian Pantanal. 49th Annual Meeting of the Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation, Bonito
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260
Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L et al (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A et al (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:8812–8819. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
Davidson NC, van Dam AA, Finlayson CM, McInnes RJ (2019) Worth of wetlands: revised global monetary values of coastal and inland wetland ecosystem services. Mar Freshw Res 70:1189. doi: https://doi.org/10.1071/MF18391
Davis AJS, Darling JA (2017) Recreational freshwater fishing drives non-native aquatic species richness patterns at a continental scale. Divers Distrib 23:692–702. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12557
Desbiez ALJ, Bodmer RE, Tomas WM (2010) Mammalian densities in a neotropical wetland subject to extreme climatic events. Biotropica 42:372–378. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00601.x
Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J et al (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M et al (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people: Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 359:270–272. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
Dise NB (2009) Peatland response to global change. Science 326:810–811. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174268
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Fisher RA (1934) Statistical methods for research workers, 5th edn. Oliver and Boyd
Fu Y, Zhao J, Peng W et al (2018) Spatial modelling of the regulating function of the Huangqihai Lake wetland ecosystem. J Hydrol 564:283–293. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.017
Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P et al (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3:390–394. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
Gallagher AJ, Vianna GMS, Papastamatiou YP et al (2015) Biological effects, conservation potential, and research priorities of shark diving tourism. Biol Conserv 184:365–379. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.007
Garcia LC, Szabo JK, de Oliveira Roque F et al (2021) Record-breaking wildfires in the world’s largest continuous tropical wetland: Integrative fire management is urgently needed for both biodiversity and humans. J Environ Manage. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112870
Gascon C, Brooks TM, Contreras-Macbeath T et al (2015) The importance and benefits of species. Curr Biol 25:R431–R438. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.03.041
Girard P (2012) The Pantaneiros, perceptions and conflicts about the environment in the Pantanal. In: Ioris AAR (ed) Tropical Wetland Management: The South-American Pantanal and International Experience, 1 st. Ashgate, Farnham, UK, pp 7–28
Girard P, de Vargas IA (2008) Turismo, desenvolvimento e saberes no Pantanal: diálogos e parcerias possíveis. Desenvolv Meio Ambiente. doi: https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v18i0.13424
Graves RA, Pearson SM, Turner MG (2017) Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:3774–3779. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701370114
Guerra A, Roque F, de Garcia O et al (2020) Drivers and projections of vegetation loss in the Pantanal and surrounding ecosystems. Land Use Policy. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104388
Hill JL, Hill RA (2011) Ecotourism in Amazonian Peru: Uniting tourism, conservation and community development. Geography 96:75–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2011.12094314
Jepson P, Barua M (2015) A theory of flagship species action. Conserv Soc 13:95–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.161228
Karanth KU, Karanth KK (2012) A tiger in the drawing room: can luxury tourism benefit wildlife? Econ Polit Wkly 47(38):38–43
Krüger O (2005) The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodivers Conserv 14:579–600. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-3917-4
Lavorel S, Rey P-L, Grigulis K et al (2020) Interactions between outdoor recreation and iconic terrestrial vertebrates in two French alpine national parks. Ecosyst Serv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101155
Macdonald C, Gallagher AJ, Barnett A et al (2017) Conservation potential of apex predator tourism. Biol Conserv 215:132–141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.013
Marques JF, Alves MB, Silveira CF et al (2021) Fires dynamics in the Pantanal: impacts of anthropogenic activities and climate change. J Environ Manage. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113586
Maruyama H, Nihei T, Nishiwaki Y (2005) Ecotourism in the North Pantanal, Brazil: Regional Bases and Subjects for Sustainable Development. Geogr Rev Jpn 78:289–310
Mateus LAF, Vaz MM, Catella AC (2011) Fishery and fishing resources in the Pantanal. In: Junk WJ, da Silva CJ, Cunha C, Wantzen KM (eds) The Pantanal: Ecology, biodiversity and sustainable management of a large seasonal wetland. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, pp 621–647
Mato Grosso do Sul (2019) Lei no 5.321. Dispõe sobre a proibição da captura, do embarque, do transporte, da comercialização, do processamento e da industrialização da espécie Salminus brisiliensis ou Salminus maxillosus - Dourado. Diário Oficial do Estado do Mato Grosso do Sul 1
Meli P, Benayas JMR, Balvanera P, Ramos MM (2014) Restoration enhances wetland biodiversity and ecosystem service supply, but results are context-dependent: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093507
Methorst J, Arbieu U, Bonn A et al (2020) Non-material contributions of wildlife to human well-being: A systematic review. Environ Res Lett. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9927
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press
Mossaz A, Buckley RC, Castley JG (2015) Ecotourism contributions to conservation of African big cats. J Nat Conserv 28:112–118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.09.009
Naidoo R, Fisher B, Manica A, Balmford A (2016) Estimating economic losses to tourism in Africa from the illegal killing of elephants. Nat Commun 7:13379. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13379
Nunes AP, Tomas WM (2008) Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Pantanal Aves migratórias e nômades ocorrentes no Pantanal, 1st edn. Embrapa Pantanal, Corumbá
Okello MM, D’Amour DE, Manka SG (2008) Tourism attractions and satisfaction of Amboseli National Park, Kenya. Tourism Anal 13:373–386
Ondiek RA, Kitaka N, Oduor SO (2016) Assessment of provisioning and cultural ecosystem services in natural wetlands and rice fields in Kano floodplain, Kenya. Ecosyst Serv 21:166–173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.08.008
Phillips VF, Chambers BK, Bencini R(2017) Body condition, breeding time and joey survival rates of the quokka (Setonix brachyurus) are improved in habitats developed for tourism on rottnest island, Western Australia. Hystrix. doi: https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-28.1-12186
Phillips VF, Chambers BK, Bencini R(2020) Habitats modified for tourism affect the movement patterns of an endemic marsupial, the Rottnest Island quokka (Setonix brachyurus). Aust Mammal. doi: https://doi.org/10.1071/AM17063
Post JR, Persson L, Parkinson EA, van Kooten AT (2008) Angler numerical response across landscapes and the collapse of freshwater fisheries. Ecol Appl 18:1038–1049
Rahel FJ (2002) Homogenization of freshwater faunas. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 33:291–315. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150429
Roque F, de O, Guerra A, Johnson M et al (2021) Simulating land use changes, sediment yields, and pesticide use in the Upper Paraguay River Basin: Implications for conservation of the Pantanal wetland. Agric Ecosyst Environ. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107405
Roque F, de O, Ochoa-Quintero J, Ribeiro DB et al (2016) Upland habitat loss as a threat to Pantanal wetlands. Conserv Biol 30:1131–1134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12713
Rüdisser J, Schirpke U, Tappeiner U (2019) Symbolic entities in the European Alps: Perception and use of a cultural ecosystem service. Ecosyst Serv 39:100980. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100980
Sandifer PA, Sutton-Grier AE, Ward BP (2015) Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst Serv 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007
Satz D, Gould RK, Chan KMA et al (2013) The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio 42:675–684. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6
Schirpke U, Meisch C, Tappeiner U (2018) Symbolic species as a cultural ecosystem service in the European Alps: in sights and open issues. Landsc Ecol 33:711–730. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0628-x
Schirpke U, Tappeiner U, Tasser E (2019) A transnational perspective of global and regional ecosystem service flows from and to mountain regions. Sci Rep 9:6678. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43229-z
Schulz C, Whitney BS, Rossetto OC et al (2019) Physical, ecological and human dimensions of environmental change in Brazil’s Pantanal wetland: Synthesis and research agenda. Sci Total Environ 687:1011–1027. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.023
Seidl AF, Steffens Moraes A (2000) Global valuation of ecosystem services: application to the Pantanal da Nhecolandia, Brazil. Ecol Econ 33:1–6
Senzaki M, Yamaura Y, Shoji Y et al (2017) Citizens promote the conservation of flagship species more than ecosystem services in wetland restoration. Biol Conserv 214:1–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.025
Shi F, Weaver D, Zhao Y et al (2019) Toward an ecological civilization: Mass comprehensive ecotourism indications among domestic visitors to a Chinese wetland protected area. Tour Manag 70:59–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.07.011
Spangenberg JH, Görg C, Truong DT et al (2014) Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 10:40–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.884166
Sutherland IJ, Gergel SE, Bennett EM (2016) Seeing the forest for its multiple ecosystem services: Indicators for cultural services in heterogeneous forests. Ecol Indic 71:123–133. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.037
Tengberg A, Fredholm S, Eliasson I et al (2012) Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst Serv 2:14–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006
Tomas WM, de Oliveira Roque F, Morato RG et al (2019) Sustainability Agenda for the Pantanal Wetland: Perspectives on a Collaborative Interface for Science, Policy, and Decision-Making. Trop Conserv Sci. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082919872634
Tortato FR, Izzo TJ (2017) Advances and barriers to the development of jaguar-tourism in the Brazilian Pantanal. Perspect Ecol Conserv 15:61–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.02.003
Tortato FR, Izzo TJ, Hoogesteijn R, Peres CA (2017) The numbers of the beast: Valuation of jaguar (Panthera onca) tourism and cattle depredation in the Brazilian Pantanal. Glob Ecol Conserv 11:106–114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.05.003
Tremblay P (2008) Wildlife in the landscape: A top end perspective on destination-level wildlife and tourism management. J Ecotourism 7:179–196. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14724040802140535
Villamagna AM, Mogollón B, Angermeier PL (2014) A multi-indicator framework for mapping cultural ecosystem services: The case of freshwater recreational fishing. Ecol Indic 45:255–265. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.001
Walpole MJ, Leader-Williams N (2002) Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodivers Conserv 11:543–547
Warner P (2013) Testing association with Fisher’s Exact test. J Family Plann Reproductive Health Care 39:281–284. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2013-100747
Wei F, Costanza R, Dai Q et al (2018) The Value of Ecosystem Services from Giant Panda Reserves. Curr Biol 28:2174–2180e7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.046
Willemen L, Cottam AJ, Drakou EG, Burgess ND (2015) Using social media to measure the contribution of red list species to the nature-based tourism potential of african protected areas. PLoS ONE. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129785
Williams PH, Burgess ND, Rahbek C (2000) Flagship species, ecological complementarity and conserving the diversity of mammals and birds in sub-Saharan Africa. Anim Conserv 3:249–260. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2000.tb00110.x
Wilson KL, Foos A, Barker OE et al (2020) Social–ecological feedbacks drive spatial exploitation in a northern freshwater fishery: A halo of depletion. J Appl Ecol 57:206–218. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13563
Worrell T, Admiraal R, Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2017) Are tourism and conservation compatible for ‘island tame’. species? Anim Conserv 20:155–163. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12301
Zhao C, Gong J, Zeng Q et al (2021) Landscape pattern evolution processes and the driving forces in the wetlands of lake Baiyangdian. Sustainability. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179747
Zhou L, Guan D, Huang X et al (2020) Evaluation of the cultural ecosystem services of wetland park. Ecol Indic 114:106286. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106286
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the people who participated in the online survey. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.
Funding
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Mauricio Almeida-Gomes and Fábio Bolzan conceived the idea. Mauricio Almeida-Gomes, Carolina Cunha Ganci, Eduardo Oliveira Pacheco, Nayara Yoshie Sano, Ana Claudia de Almeida, and Fábio Bolzan performed data collection. Mauricio Almeida-Gomes performed the data analyses and led the writing; Fabio de Oliveira Roque, Letícia Couto Garcia, and Uta Schirpke made substantial contribution to the development of the study; all authors commented on drafts and revisions and gave final approval for publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Almeida-Gomes, M., de Oliveira Roque, F., Garcia, L.C. et al. Local Biodiversity Supports Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Pantanal. Wetlands 42, 69 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-022-01579-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-022-01579-x