Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 155–169 | Cite as

Public discourses on conservation and development in a rural community in Colombia: an application of Q-methodology

  • Andrés VargasEmail author
  • David Diaz
  • Juanita Aldana-Domínguez
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity appreciation and engagement


People living in rural areas are caught between the two often conflicting objectives of conserving biodiversity and promoting economic development. Current approaches to conservation are built on the premise that conservation and development are not antagonistic. Social conservationists advocate win–win solutions that both conserve biodiversity and promote human well-being. In this paper we explore how the conservation-development relationship is understood by a rural community in Colombia where remaining areas of tropical dry forest are threatened by human activities, and a payment for ecosystem services scheme, PES, is proposed as a conservation strategy. Q-methodology was used to identify and categorise local peoples’ perspectives on forest conservation. Four distinctive perspectives were found: Social Conservationism, Fair Development, Development Advocate and Government’s Responsibility. Social conservationism places more importance on forest conservation while the other three perspectives emphasise development. This suggests that the conservation program at the local level must be explicit about tensions and trade-offs. Not to do so can compromise the social acceptability of the PES scheme and therefore the conservation objective.


Tropical dry forest Conservation-development relationship Payment for ecosystem services Q-method 



This work would not be possible without the financial and human support of the Strategic Area Program on Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Well-Being of Universidad del Norte, Colombia. Additional funding was provided by the Higher Degree Research financial support offered by the School of Environment at Griffith University, Australia. Funding sources had no role in any stage of this study. We would like to thank the participants of the deliberative workshop, who crucially contributed to the success of the research project. We would like to thank Michael Howes, Alex Lo and Nicholas Rohde for their helpful comments to a previous version of this work. All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Human Research Ethics Committee of Griffith University, Australia, and the Ethics Committee of Universidad del Norte, Colombia.

Supplementary material

10531_2018_1644_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 31 kb)


  1. Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brannstrom C (2011) A Q-Method analysis of environmental governance discourses in Brazil’s Northeastern soy frontier. Prof Geogr 63(4):531–549. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bredin YK, Lindhjem H, van Dijk J, Linnell JDC (2015) Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: a Q analysis. Ecol Econ 118:198–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butchart SHM, Clarke M, Smith RJ, Sykes RE, Scharlemann JPW, Harfoot M et al. (2015) Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conserv Lett.
  5. Curry R, Barry J, McClenaghan A (2012) Northern visions? Applying Q methodology to understand stakeholder views on the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability. J Environ Plann Manag 56(5):624–649. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dryzek J (2013) The politics of the earth, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Etter A, Andrade A, Amaya P, Arévalo P (2015) Estado de los Ecosistemas Colombianos 2014. IUCN. Accessed 17 July 2017
  8. Faguet J-P, Sánche, F, Villaveces J (2015) Land reform, latifundia and social development at local level in Colombia, 1961-2010. Documento CEDE, 2015-06.
  9. Fisher B, Christopher T (2007) Poverty and biodiversity: measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots. Ecol Econ 62(1):93–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fletcher R (2012) Using the master’s tools? Neoliberal conservation and the evasion of inequality. Dev Change 43(1):295–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. García H, Corzo G, Etter A (2014) Distribución y estado actual de los remanentes del bioma Bosque Seco Tropical en Colombia: Insumos para su gestión. In: Pizano C, García H (eds) El Bosque Seco Tropical en Colombia. Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Colombia, pp 229–251Google Scholar
  12. Gómez-Baggethun E, Muradian R (2015) In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of market-based instruments in ecosystem services governance. Ecol Econ 117:217–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmes G, Sandbrook C, Fisher J (2017) Understanding conservationist’s perspectives on the new conservation debate. Conserv Biol 31(2):353–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (Cartographer) (2013) Distribución Espacial del bosque seco tropical en Colombia.
  15. Lansing DM (2013) Not all baselines are created equal: a Q methodology analysis of stakeholder perspectives of additionality in a carbon forestry offset project in Costa Rica. Global Environ Chang 23(3):654–663. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lo AY (2013) Agreeing to pay under value disagreement: reconceptualizing preference transformation in terms of pluralism with evidence from small-group deliberations on climate change. Ecol Econ 87:84–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lo A, Howes M (2015) Power and carbon sovereignity of a non-traditional capitalist state: discourses of carbon trading in China. Global Environ Polit 15(1):60–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mace G (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345(6204):1558–1560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McDemott M, Mhanty S, Schreckenberg K (2013) Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payment for ecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy 33:416–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKeown B, Thomas DB (2013) Q methodology. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. McShane T, Hirsch P, Trung T, Songorwa A, Monteferri A, Mutekanga D, Van Thang H, Dammert J, Pulgar-Vidal M, Welch-Devine M, Brosius J, Coppolillo P, O’Connor S (2011) Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol Conserv 144(3):966–972. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milder JC, Scherr SJ, Bracer C (2010) Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecol Soc 15(2):4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller T, Minteer B, Malan L (2011) The new conservation debate: the view from practical ethics. Biol Conserv 144(3):948–957. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muradian R, Cárdenas J (2015) From market failures to collective action dilemas: reframing environmental governance challenges in Latin America and beyond. Ecol Econ 120:358–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niemeyer S (2011) The emancipatory effect of deliberation: empirical lessons from mini-publics. Polit Soc 39(14):103–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pascual U, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E, Martin A, Muradian R (2014) Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 64(11):1027–1036. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Savage A, Guillen R, Lamilla I, Soto L (2010) Developing an effective community conservation program for cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) in Colombia. Am J Primatol 72(5):379–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shogren JF, Parkhurst GM (2011) Who owns endangered species? In: Cole DH, Ostrom E (eds) Property in land and other resources. Lincon Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, pp 195–213Google Scholar
  29. Vargas A, Lo AY, Rohde N, Howes M (2016) Background inequality and differential participation in deliberative valuation: lessons from small-group discussions on forest conservation in Colombia. Ecol Econ 129:104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vargas A, Lo A, Howes M, Rohde N (2017) Social influences on expressed willingness to pay: results of a deliberative monetary valuation study in Colombia. J Environ Plann Manag 60(9):1511–1528. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vatn A (2015) Markets in environmental governance. From theory to practice. Ecol Econ 117:225–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Watts S, Stenner P (2012) Doing Q methodological research: theory, method & interpretation. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Webler T, Tuler S (2006) Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: combined results from 10 case studies. Policy Stud J 34(4):699–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Webler T, Tuler S, Krueger R (2001) What is a good participation process? Perspectives from the public. Environ Manag 27(3):435–450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Webler T, Danielson S, Tuler S (2009) Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield MA.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversidad del NorteBarranquillaColombia
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry and BiologyUniversidad del NorteBarranquillaColombia
  3. 3.Laboratorio de Socio-ecosistemasUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations