AMBIO

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 776–787 | Cite as

Selection and Implementation of a Flagship Fleet in a Locally Undervalued Region of High Endemicity

Report

Abstract

Flagships are one conservation education tool. We present a proposed flagship species fleet for environmental education in central Chile. Our methods followed recent flagship guidelines. We present our selection process and a detailed justification for the fleet of flagship species that we selected. Our results are a list of eight flagship species forming a flagship fleet, including two small- and medium-sized mammals, the degu (Octodon degus) and the culpeo fox (Lycalopex culpeaus), two birds, the turca (Pteroptochos megapoidius) and the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), the Chilean iguana (Calopistes palluma), the tarantula (Grammostola mollicoma), and two trees, the litre (Lithrea caustica) and the espino (Acacia caven). We then describe how these flagships can be deployed most effectively, describing their audience, effective narrative frames, and modes of presentation. We conclude that general selection rules paired with social science background data allow for an efficient selection process.

Keywords

Chile Mediterranean Flagship species LEK Environmental education Octodon degus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Ben Campbell for an introduction to ethnographic theory and local ecological knowledge studies. MR-B was supported by a doctoral fellowship from CONICYT, No. 63105446. Funds for production of the environmental education posters in Fig. 3 came from CASEB, Fundación Senda Darwin, and private donors through Kickstarter (www.kickstarter.com). The poster was created by Isabel Dedoscruzados with help from MR-B and Valentina Perez.

References

  1. Bandara, R., and C. Tisdell. 2002. Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: Empirical evidence. Biological Conservation 110: 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barua, M., M. Root-Bernstein, R. Ladle, and P. Jepson. 2011. Defining flagship uses is critical for flagship selection: A critique of the IUCN climate change flagship fleet. AMBIO 40: 431–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bowen-Jones, E., and A. Entwistle. 2002. Identifying appropriate flagship species: The importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36: 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caro, T.M. 2010. Conservation by proxy: Indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chan, A.Y.-H. 2012. Anthropomorphism as a conservation tool. Biodiversity and Conservation 21: 1889–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clergeau, P., G. Mennechez, A. Sauvage, and A. Lemoine. 2001. Human perception and appreciation of birds: A motivation for wildlife conservation in urban environments in France. In Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world, ed. J.M. Marzluff, R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly, 69–86. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de la Fuente de Val, G.J., J.A. Atauri 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. Ecosistemas 13: 82–89.Google Scholar
  9. Ewert, A., G. Place, and J. Sibthorp. 2005. Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual’s environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences 27: 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frazão-Moreira, A., A.M. Carvalho, and M.E. Martins. 2007. Conocimientos acerca de plantas en la nueva ruralidad. Cambio social y agro ecología en el Parque Natural de Montesinho (Portugal). Perifèria 7.Google Scholar
  11. Fuentes, E.R., G.A. Espinosa, and I. Fuenzalida. 1984. Cambios vegetacionales recientes y percepción ambiental: el caso de Santiago de Chile. Revista Geografica Norte Grande (Chile) 11: 45–53.Google Scholar
  12. IUCN. 2012. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org.
  13. Jacobson, S.K., M.D. McDuff, and M.C. Monroe. 2006. Conservation education and outreach techniques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaksic, F.M. 1986. Predation upon small mammals in shrublands and grasslands of southern South America: Ecological correlates and presumable consequences. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 59: 209–221.Google Scholar
  15. Lorimer, H. 2006. Herding memories of humans and animals. Environment and Planning D: Societies and Space 24: 497–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lorimer, J. 2007. Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25: 911–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Madrigal, J., D.A. Kelt, P.L. Meserve, J.R. Guitierrez, and F.A. Squeo. 2011. Bottom- up control of consumers leads to top-down indirect facilitation of invasive annual herbs in semiarid Chile. Ecology 92(2): 282–288.Google Scholar
  18. Mankin, P.C., R.E. Warner, and W.L. Anderson. 1999. Wildlife and the Illinois public: A benchmark study of attitudes and perceptions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 465–472.Google Scholar
  19. Meserve, P.L. 1984. Comparative ecology of the caviomorph rodent Octodon degus in two Chilean Mediterranean-type communities. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 57: 79–89.Google Scholar
  20. Milton, K. 2005. Anthropomorphism or egomorphism? The perception of nonhuman persons by human ones. In Animals in person: Cultural perspectives on human–animal intimacies, ed. J. Knight, 255–271. Oxford: BERG.Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, R.W. 1997. Anthropomorphic anecdotalism as method. In Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals, ed. R.W. Mitchell, et al., 151–169. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  22. Moura, F. de B.P., A.C. Mendes Malhado, and R.J. Ladle. 2013. Nursing the caatinga back to health. Journal of Arid Environments 90: 67–68.Google Scholar
  23. Myers, N. 1990. The biodiversity challenge: Expanded hot-spots analysis. Environmentalist 10(4): 243–256.Google Scholar
  24. Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.Google Scholar
  25. Noss, R.F. 1997. The failure of universities to produce conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 11: 1267–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orr, D.W. 1999. Education, careers, and callings: The practice of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13: 1242–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pauchard, A., M. Aguayo, E. Peña, and R. Urrutia. 2006. Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: The case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepción, Chile). Biological Conservation 127: 272–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pilgrim, S.E., L.C. Cullen, D.J. Smith, and J. Pretty. 2008. Ecological knowledge is lost in wealthier communities and countries. Environment Science & Technology 42: 1004–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Root-Bernstein, M. Accepted. Nostalgia, the fleeting and the rare in Chilean relationships to nature and non human animals. Animals and Society.Google Scholar
  30. Root-Bernstein, M. 2012. Ecosystem engineering in the degu, Octodon degus, with applications to conservation. PhD thesis. Santiago, Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.Google Scholar
  31. Root-Bernstein, M., and R. Ladle. 2010. Conservation by design. Conservation Biology 24: 1205–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosaldo, R. 1989. Imperialist nostalgia. Representations 26: 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sergio, F., I. Newton, L. Marches, and P. Pedrini. 2006. Ecologically justified charisma: Preservation of top predators delivers biodiversity conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 1043–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sergio, F., T. Caro, D. Brown, B. Clucas, J. Hunter, J. Ketchum, K. McHugh, and F. Hiraldo. 2008. Top predators as conservation tools: Ecological rationale, assumptions and efficacy. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 39: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Silva-Rodríguez, E.A., G.R. Ortega-Solís, and J.E. Jiménez. 2006. Aves silvestres: Actitudes, prácticas y mitos en una localidad rural del sur de Chile. Boletín Chileno de Ornitología 12: 2–14.Google Scholar
  36. Simonetti, J.A. 1994. Threatened biodiversity as an environmental problem in Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 67: 315–319.Google Scholar
  37. Simonetti, J.A. 1999. Diversity and conservation of terrestrial vertebrates in mediterranean Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 72: 493–500.Google Scholar
  38. Stone, M.K., and Z. Barlow (eds.). 2005. Ecological literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable world. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
  39. Tikka, P.M., M.T. Kuitunen, and S.M. Tynys. 2000. Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. Journal of Environmental Education 31: 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tognelli, M.F., P.I. Ramirez de Arellano, and P.A. Marquet. 2008. How well do the existing and proposed reserve networks represent vertebrate species in Chile? Diversity and Distributions 14: 148–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van de Wouw, P., C. Echeverría, J.M. Rey-Benayas, and M. Holmgren. 2011. Persistent Acacia savannas replace Mediterranean sclerophyllous forests in South America. Forest Ecology and Management 262: 1100–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verissimo, D., D.C. MacMillan, and R.J. Smith. 2011. Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conservation Letters 4: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Villagrán, C., V. Castro, G. Sánchez, F. Hinojosa, and C. Latorre. 1999. La tradición altiplánica: Estudio etnobotánico en los Andes de Iquique, Primera Región, Chile. Chungara: Revista Antropológica Chilena 31: 81–186.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Facultad de Ciencias BiológicasPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations