Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 138–148 | Cite as

Beyond the “General Public”: Implications of Audience Characteristics for Promoting Species Conservation in the Western Ghats Hotspot, India

  • Arun Kanagavel
  • Rajeev Raghavan
  • Diogo Veríssimo
Report

Abstract

Understanding how different audience groups perceive wildlife is crucial for the promotion of biodiversity conservation, especially given the key role of flagship species in conservation campaigns. Although the heterogeneity in preferences reinforces the need for campaigns tailored to specific target audiences, many conservation education and awareness campaigns still claim to target the “general public”. Audiences can be segmented according to social, economic, and cultural criteria across which species perceptions are known to vary. Different studies have investigated the preferences of different groups towards certain wildlife species, but these are largely confined to a single conservation stakeholder group, such as tourists, local communities, or potential donors in western countries. In this study, we seek to determine from a multi-stakeholder perspective, audience characteristics that influence perceptions towards wildlife at Valparai, a fragmented plateau in the Western Ghats region of the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka Hotspot. We found that stakeholder group membership was the most important characteristic followed by gender. While some characteristics had a wide-scale effect others were restricted to a few species. Our results emphasize the need to design conservation campaigns with specific audiences in mind, instead of the very often referred to “general public”.

Keywords

Community-based conservation Flagship species India Stakeholder Species perceptions Valparai 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author would like to thank S. Kumar, T. Augustine, P.A. Kanagavel, and Vijayalakshmi for assisting in field logistics and data collection. Discussions with S.M. Saaduddin and T. Immanuel and those with M.M. Pillai, A. Nair, S. Deborah, S. Philip, and P. Balaji helped develop the sections on religion and geographical origin, respectively, towards which the first author is thoroughly grateful. The authors are also grateful to S. Joseph of CRG & ATREE for providing GIS layers, which were created with support from the Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation (RSG 30.08.09). Thanks are due to C. Lawson, L. Cugnière, H. Newing and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the draft manuscript. The study was financially supported by the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), University of Kent and North of England Zoological Society (NEZS) Chester Zoo Studentships 2010.

References

  1. Ali, S. 2002. The book of Indian birds. Delhi: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arjunan, M., C. Holmes, J. Puyravaud, and P. Davidar. 2006. Do developmental initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from the Kalakad–Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 79: 188–197. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowen-Jones, E., and A. Entwistle. 2002. Identifying appropriate flagship species: The importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36: 10. doi: 1017/s0030605302000261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bremner, A., and K. Park. 2007. Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biological Conservation 139: 306–314. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clucas, B., K. McHugh, and T. Caro. 2008. Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 1517–1528. doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9361-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniel, J.C. 2002. The book of Indian reptiles and amphibians. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. DCO-TN. 2001. Census—2001. Retrieved 2 May, 2011, from http://census2001.tn.nic.in/pca2001.aspx.
  8. Fischer, A., and J.C. Young. 2007. Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation 136: 271–282. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guiney, M.S., and K.S. Oberhauser. 2009. Insects as flagship conservation species. Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1: 111–123. doi: 10.1163/187498308x414733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guzik, D. 2004. Levictus 11—Clean and unclean animals. Retrieved 21 August, 2011, from http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0311.htm.
  11. Heinen, J.T., and R.J. Shrivastava. 2009. An analysis of conservation attitudes and awareness around Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India: Implications for conservation and development. Population and Environment 30: 261–274. doi: 10.1007/s11111-009-0086-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hussain, S. 2003. The status of the snow leopard in Pakistan and its conflict with local farmers. Oryx 37: 10. doi: 1017/s0030605303000085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jusoff, K., and S.A.A. Samah. 2011. Environmental sustainability: What Islam propagates. World Applied Sciences Journal 12: 46–53.Google Scholar
  14. Kaltenborn, B.P., T. Bjerke, J.W. Nyahongo, and D.R. Williams. 2006. Animal preferences and acceptability of wildlife management actions around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 4633–4649. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-6196-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kanagavel, A., and R. Raghavan. 2012. Local ecological knowledge of the threatened Cochin Forest Cane Turtle Vijayachelys silvatica and Travancore Tortoise Indotestudo travancorica from the Anamalai Hills of the Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4: 3173–3182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kanagavel, A., C. Sinclair, R. Sekar, and R. Raghavan. 2013. Moolah, misfortune or spinsterhood? The plight of Slender Loris Loris lydekkerianus in southern India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5: 3585–3588. doi: 10.11609/JoTT.o3265.948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kapoor, V. 2008. Effects of rainforest fragmentation and shade-coffee plantations on spider communities in the Western Ghats, India. Journal of Insect Conservation 12: 53–68. doi: 10.1007/s10841-006-9062-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karlsson, J., and M. Sjostrom. 2007. Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter of distance. Biological Conservation 137: 610–616. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.03.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kehimkar, I. 2008. The book of Indian butterflies. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Knight, A.J. 2008. “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 94–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar, M.A. 2006. Effect of habitat fragmentation on Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) ecology and behaviour patterns in a conflict-prone plantation landscape of the Anamalai hills, Western Ghats, India. Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation, UK, 29.Google Scholar
  22. Kumara, H.N. 2007. Impact of local hunting on abundance of large mammals in three protected areas of the Western Ghats, Karnataka. Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation, UK, 48.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, P.C., and N.E.C. Priston. 2005. Human attitudes to primates: Perceptions of pests, conflict and consequences for primate conservation. In Commensalism and conflict: The Primate-human interface, ed. J.D. Paterson, 1–23. Winniipeg: Hignell Printing.Google Scholar
  24. Lindemann-Matthies, P., and E. Bose. 2008. How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology 36: 731–742. doi: 10.1007/s10745-008-9194-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin-Lopez, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2007a. Influence of user characteristics on valuation of ecosystem services in Doñana Natural Protected Area (south-west Spain). Environmental Conservation 34: 215–224. doi: 10.1017/S0376892907004067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin-Lopez, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2007b. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139: 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mohapatra, B., D.A. Warrell, W. Suraweera, P. Bhatia, N. Dhingra, R.M. Jotkar, P.S. Rodriguez, K. Mishra, et al. 2011. Snakebite mortality in India: A nationally representative mortality survey. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 5: e1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mulder, M.B., R. Schacht, T. Caro, J. Schacht, and B. Caro. 2009. Knowledge and attitudes of children of the Rupununi: Implications for conservation in Guyana. Biological Conservation 142: 879–887. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. New, T.R. 2008. Forty years of butterfly conservation! Journal of Insect Conservation 13: 1–2. doi: 10.1007/s10841-008-9184-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newing, H. 2010. Conducting research in conservation: Social science methods and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Ninan, K.N., and J. Sathyapalan. 2005. The economics of biodiversity conservation: A study of a coffee growing region in the Western Ghats of India. Ecological Economics 55: 61–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prater, S.H. 2005. The book of Indian animals. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Raghavan, R., A. Ali, N. Dahanukar, and A. Rosser. 2011. Is the Deccan Mahseer, Tor khudree (Sykes, 1839) (Pisces: Cyprinidae) fishery in the Western Ghats Hotspot sustainable? A participatory approach to stock assessment. Fisheries Research 110: 29–38. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2011.03.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raman, T.R.S. 2006. Effects of habitat structure and adjacent habitats on birds in tropical rainforest fragments and shaded plantations in the Western Ghats, India. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 1577–1607. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-2352-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ressurreição, A., T. Zarzycki, M. Kaiser, G. Edwards-Jones, T.P. Dentinho, R.S. Santos, and J. Gibbons. 2012a. Towards an ecosystem approach for understanding public values concerning marine biodiversity loss. Marine Ecology Progress Series 467: 15–28. doi: 10.3354/meps09967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ressurreição, A., J. Gibbons, M. Kaiser, T.P. Dentinho, T. Zarzycki, C. Bentley, M. Austen, D. Burdon, J. Atkins, R.S. Santos, and G. Edwards-Jones. 2012b. Different cultures, different values: the role of cultural variation in public’s WTP for marine species conservation. Biological Conservation 145: 148–159. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarker, A.H.M.R., and E. Røskaft. 2010. Human attitudes towards conservation of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Bangladesh. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 316–327.Google Scholar
  38. Schultz, P.W. 2011. Conservation means behavior. Conservation Biology 25: 1080–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh, M., M.A. Kumar, H.N. Kumara, A.K. Sharma, and W. Kaumanns. 2002. Distribution, population structure, and conservation of lion-tailed Macaques (Macaca silenus) in the Anaimalai Hills, Western Ghats, India. American Journal of Primatology 57: 91–102. doi: 10.1002/ajp.10037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, A.M., and S.G. Sutton. 2008. The role of a flagship species in the formation of conservation intentions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13: 127–140. doi: 10.1080/10871200701883408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spash, C.L., and N. Hanley. 1995. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecological Economics 12: 191–208. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(94)00056-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sridhar, H., T.R.S. Raman, and D. Mudappa. 2008. Mammal persistence and abundance in tropical rainforest remnants in the southern Western Ghats, India. Current Science 94: 748–757.Google Scholar
  43. Takahashi, Y., D. Veríssimo, D.C. MacMillan, and A. Godbole. 2012. Stakeholder perceptions of potential flagship species for the sacred groves of the North Western Ghats, India. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17: 257–269. doi: 10(1080/10871209),2012,675622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van der Ploeg, J., M. Cauilan-Cureg, M. van Weerd, and W.T. De Groot. 2011. Assessing the effectiveness of environmental education: Mobilizing public support for Philippine crocodile conservation. Conservation Letters 4: 313–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00181.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Veríssimo, D., I. Fraser, J. Groombridge, R. Bristol, and D.C. MacMillan. 2009. Birds as tourism flagship species: A case study of tropical islands. Animal Conservation 12: 549–558. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00282.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Veríssimo, D., D.C. MacMillan, and R.J. Smith. 2011. Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conservation Letters 4: 1–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00151.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walpole, M.J., and N. Leader-Williams. 2002. Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 543–547. doi: 10.1023/a:1014864708777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walston, J., J.G. Robinson, E.L. Bennett, U. Breitenmoser, G.A.B. da Fonseca, J. Goodrich, M. Gumal, L. Hunter, et al. 2010. Bringing the Tiger Back from the Brink—The six percent solution. PLoS Biology 8: e1000485. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Western, D. 2001. Taking the broad view of conservation—A response to Adams and Hulme. Oryx 35: 201–203. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3008.2001.00184.x.Google Scholar
  50. Zinn, H.C., and C.L. Pierce. 2002. Values, gender, and concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior 34: 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arun Kanagavel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rajeev Raghavan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Diogo Veríssimo
    • 1
  1. 1.Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and ConservationUniversity of KentCanterburyUK
  2. 2.Conservation Research Group (CRG)KochiIndia

Personalised recommendations