Introduction
Biodiversity is a buzzword being used frequently among scientists and by the public, but what does it mean to us, and why is it important? McNeely et all have tried to classify the different values that have been placed on biodiversity. Their interest has been focused on the distinction between the direct values of biodiversity and the indirect values associated with it. This classification system can be seen in figure 1.
Figure 1. McNeely et al’s classification of biodiversity values
CLASSIFICATION OF VALUES OF BIODIVERSITYDirect Values-Consumptive Use Values: Products used directly—fuel, food, drugs, recreation, etc; -Productive Use Values: Used through sale in a market: Commercial use of above resources, plus others—lumber, etc; Commercial use of wild gene resources, pollinators.Indirect Values-Non-Consumptive Use Values Recreational educational, scientific and cultural values in the natural environment. -Option Values: Potentials at present unknown – foods, drugs (does a cure for Aids exist in one of our forests? Keep forests intact, as it might do!)-Existence Value: Ethical issues, pleasure in knowing elephants exist, even if we do not use them.
Mcneely et al, 1990.
Although this classification system is well designed, very inclusive, and well recognized in the field, there are other approaches of classifying the values of biodiversity. The African Center for Technology Studies (ACTS) has taken the McNeely classification and focused on the non-consumptive use value and the effect that biodiversity has on the local ecosystem, such as photosynthetic fixation of solar energy and maintaining water cycles (ACTS, 2001). ACTS expands on the classification of values by examining five choices we have concerning biodiversity. They state that we can:
1. conserve it, or parts of it, for the future (noting that conservation includes wise use);
2. use it, or parts of it, sustainably;
3. document it, research it, understand it, AND study how it can be used;
4. increase access and equity of resource use to local people who need it.
5. destroy it, suddenly or slowly, through several mechanisms.
(ACTS, 2001).
We have critically examined McNeely et al’s classification system and slightly modified it for our own study. Rather than framing values of biodiversity in a direct or indirect context, we preferred classifying these values on a continuum from local oriented values to global values. We transformed McNeely’s classification system into the one seen in figure 2.
Figure 2. McNeely’s classification system revised.
CLASSIFICATION OF VALUES OF BIODIVERSITY-Local consumptive use value: Firewood, hunting, agriculture…-Local non-consumptive use value: Eco-tourism, recreation…-Local ecosystem services value: Erosion control, water quality…-Scientific research / option value: Improved scientific knowledge of natural surroundings, medicinal plants…-Global ecosystem service value: Carbon sinks, reducing pollutants that produce acid rain…-Existence value: Conservation of the forest for its intrinsic value.
In this new classification system, McNeely et al’s direct values have been combined into one category of local consumptive use, scientific research value has been combined with the option value, and a new category of global ecosystem service value has been created. We combined the direct values because although these values may have different market values, they have the same effect on the land (extraction of resources). We made scientific research its own category and combined it with option value in order to isolate the value of ecotourism and recreation that is so relevant in Costa Rica. And finally we added the global ecosystem service value because since McNeely et al’s classification system was developed, it has become more and more apparent that biodiversity and healthy ecosystems have a global impact.
With the revised classification system, our group set out to see if there were any differences in the values held by Costa Ricans, tourist in Costa Rica, and students of ecology. Our hypothesis was that the Costa Ricans would have different values of biodiversity than both the tourists and the students.
Methods
A survey (Appendix A) was developed to rank the values of biodiversity of each group. The survey was given in Spanish and English. There were three questions in the survey that asked the participants to rank from one to six what they considered the best land use for the rain forest. Each of the six land uses corresponded to the six values of biodiversity. The answers were then analyzed by assigning six points to the first ranked value of biodiversity, with the point values decreasing down to one point for the sixth ranked value of biodiversity. It was noted during each survey whether the participant was Costa Rican, a tourist, or a student.
Results
The hypothesis that Costa Ricans would value the rain forests differently than tourists and students was supported by the data. The null hypothesis, that the Costa Ricans valued the rain forest the same as the tourists and the students, was rejected. As demonstrated in Figure 3, the analysis showed a p value of 0.4062 for values placed upon the rain forest by students and Costa Ricans. Thus, these were statistically different. The analysis also showed the same p value of 0.4062 for the tourists and Costa Ricans. The p value for the tourist and student samples was 0.0639, making these two groups the statistically the same. The confidence level was 0.1350.
Figure 3. P values
Category P Value
-Students and Costa Ricans 0.4062
-Tourists and Costa Ricans 0.4062
-Tourists and Students 0.0639
The value with the lowest rating for each of the three sample groups was local consumptive use, as demonstrated in Figure 4. The highest ranked value for Costa Ricans was local non-consumptive (ecotourism), and the highest ranked value for the students and tourist was existence value. The other values, including local ecosystem services, global ecosystem services, and scientific research showed no significant difference in the three sample groups.
Figure 4. Ranking of Groups’ Values
Rank: Costa Ricans - Students - Tourists
1 Local non-consumptive - Existence value - Existence value
2 Existence value - Global ecosystem services - Global ecosystem services
3 Local ecosystem services - Local ecosystem services - Scientific value
4 Global ecosystem services - Scientific value - Local non-consumptive
5 Scientific value - Local non-consumptive - Local ecosystem services
6 Local consumptive - Local consumptive - Local consumptive
Conclusions
The most striking results were found at the top and bottom of the rankings. All three sample groups agreed that the consumptive land uses were the least valued. In fact, many times the participants would start off by ranking the local consumptive use as last and continue from there. It appears that all three groups recognize the unsustainable nature of the consumptive uses in the rain forest.
The biggest difference between the Costa Rican and non Costa Rican groups was what they ranked as the most valued land use. The Costa Ricans ranked the non-consumptive use, which basically amounted to ecotourist activities, as number one, while the other groups ranked the intrinsic value of the forest as the number one value. This can be explained by the fact that the tourist and student groups obviously value the existence of nature very much since they are spending their time and money admiring and studying the unique natural environment of Costa Rica. The Costa Ricans surveyed were, without exception, somehow affiliated with the ecotourist industry, and their high ranking of non-consumptive use was most likely influenced by the fact that their livelihoods come from this type of use. The results may have been very different if the Costa Ricans surveyed were involved with a more consumptive land use industry. The differences in values based on occupation could be a topic for further study.
It is interesting that the tourist group and the student group had very similar values. Further investigation could be done on the differences between students and tourists. I would hypothesize that there is a great overlap in interest and values between the students and tourists. In fact, some tourists may learn more than the students, and some students may be there for a vacation.
There are many questions that are stimulated by this survey, and it could be used as pilot survey to be expanded upon or altered to investigate different questions. Some improvements could be made with more time, including a better Spanish translation and greater distinction between the value categories.
References
J. A. McNeely et al., Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, World Resources Institute, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund-US, and the World Bank: Washington, D.C. 1990. Chapter 2.
African Centre for Technology Studies A new buzzword for life
The many definitions of the term 'biodiversity' www.acts.or.ke/innovation6%20-%20Biodiversity%20buzzword.htm
Appendix A. Copy of Survey
1. Rank from 1-6 the most important reasons to save an area of forest:
__ hunting
__carbon sinks to slow global warming
__erosion contro
__save species from extinction for research
__wildlife preservation
__promote ecotourism
2. Rank from 1-6 the most important reasons to save an area of forest:
__existence value
__preserve biodiversity
__keep local water clean
__research opportunities
__jobs from ecotourism
__firewood
3. If you had control of a large area of rain forest, what would you do with it? (rank from 1-6)
__create reserve for medicinal plant research
__pesticide breakdown
__create ecotourist reserve
__protect it for animals
__farm for bananas or coffee
__promote absorption of pollutants to minimize global impact of acid rain
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to Topic Menu
It is 9:37:05 PM on Sunday, November 22, 2009. Last Update: Saturday, May 4, 2002