Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Given the multiple objectives of the project, we also interviewed 23 local actors for whom biological conservation is the main goal of their activities (i.e., scientists and employees of public protected areas of the BR). Given that actors interested in the conservation of biodiversity are informed about the meaning of the biodiversity concept (Chaucono 2014) and considering that collaborative work for designing and implementing conservation goals in biosphere reserves should be conducted with actors whose activities challenge such goals (Barkmann et al. 2005), we focused our analysis on the concepts that emerged from the group for whom the conservation of biodiversity was not the main area of interest.

  2. We understand ecological concepts as those related to scientific knowledge but not linked to human experiences. Those concepts may refer to ecosystem components (e.g., diversity of animals and plants) or processes (e.g., ecological cycles, ecological health, ecological complexity, equilibrium).

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R., & Hyde, T. (2006). Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 58(2), 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CONAF (2008). Reserva de biósfera la campana-peñuelas. Formulario de propuesta de ampliación: documento base programa MaB-UNESCO.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elórtegui, S., & Moreira-Muñoz, A. (2002). La Campana national park: origin of a biosphere reserve in Central Chile. Santiago: Taller la Era.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, A., & Young, J. C. (2007). Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation, 136(2), 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, L. M., & Joan, B. (2003). Qualitative insight into public knowledge of, and concern with, biodiversity. Human Ecology, 31(2), 309–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaczensky, P., Blazic, M., & Gossow, H. (2004). Public attitudes towards brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Slovenia. Biological Conservation, 118(5), 661–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). What is conservation science? Bioscience, 62(11), 962–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation? Science, 345(6204), 1558–1560.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D. L. (2005). Concepts and conceptual structure. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Social cognition (pp. 115–129). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Noss, R. F. (1990). Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4(4), 355–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, T., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2002). Biodiversity, sustainability and human communities. London: Earthscan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pelenc, J., & Velut, S. (2012). Une réserve de biosphère dans la région centrale du Chili: Les enjeux du zonage. Mappe Monde, 1–15.

  • Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., & Tscharntke, T. (2016). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosystem Services, 17, 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. (2004). Price, principle and the environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Ramírez, J. J., & Armesto, C. (2005). Valdovinos. Biodiversidad y ecología de los bosques costeros de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C. L., & Hanley, N. (1995). Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecological Economics, 12(3), 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll-Kleemann, S., & O’Riordan, T. (2017). The challenges of the anthropocene for biosphere reserves. Parks, 23(1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

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”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Forest Sciences and Conservation of Nature, University of Chile, Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago, Chile

    Claudia Cerda & Iñigo Bidegain

Authors
  1. Claudia Cerda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iñigo Bidegain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Claudia Cerda or Iñigo Bidegain.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cerda, C., Bidegain, I. Spectrum of concepts associated with the term “biodiversity”: a case study in a biodiversity hotspot in South America. Environ Monit Assess 190, 207 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6588-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6588-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation