{"title":"Low knowledge of national biodiversity symbols among urban South Africans limits their potential value as conservation flagship species","authors":"Ondwela Tshikombeni, C. M. Shackleton, M. Ntshudu","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nMost countries have declared one or more animal or plant species to be among their national symbols, termed here national biodiversity symbols. National biodiversity symbols are the species formally or informally recognised by societies and countries as having meaning to one or more of national identity, values and unity.\n\nIt has been proposed previously that national biodiversity symbols can be used as flagship species to advance habitat conservation in their respective countries. However, this assumes that the symbols are well‐known and revered by the citizens of the country concerned. We examined this assumption via direct interviews with 382 urban residents in four towns in South Africa, which is a mega‐biodiversity country with five national biodiversity symbols (a national tree, flower, animal, bird and fish).\n\nWe found that less than 3% of the urban respondents could name all five species, ranging from 6% for the national tree to 40% for both the national flower and national animal. Knowledge of other national symbols (flag and anthem) were equally low. The number of national biodiversity symbols known increased with income and education level of respondents. Despite limited knowledge of which species were the national biodiversity symbols, almost two‐thirds of respondents felt that having national biodiversity symbols was important for promoting national identity.\n\nThese findings show that from a heritage perspective a great deal more awareness needs to be developed in South Africa around the national biodiversity symbols. From a conservation perspective, it indicates that the national biodiversity symbols are unlikely, at this stage at least, to be useful as flagship species for habitat conservation programmes.\n\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":52850,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":"3 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10563","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Most countries have declared one or more animal or plant species to be among their national symbols, termed here national biodiversity symbols. National biodiversity symbols are the species formally or informally recognised by societies and countries as having meaning to one or more of national identity, values and unity.
It has been proposed previously that national biodiversity symbols can be used as flagship species to advance habitat conservation in their respective countries. However, this assumes that the symbols are well‐known and revered by the citizens of the country concerned. We examined this assumption via direct interviews with 382 urban residents in four towns in South Africa, which is a mega‐biodiversity country with five national biodiversity symbols (a national tree, flower, animal, bird and fish).
We found that less than 3% of the urban respondents could name all five species, ranging from 6% for the national tree to 40% for both the national flower and national animal. Knowledge of other national symbols (flag and anthem) were equally low. The number of national biodiversity symbols known increased with income and education level of respondents. Despite limited knowledge of which species were the national biodiversity symbols, almost two‐thirds of respondents felt that having national biodiversity symbols was important for promoting national identity.
These findings show that from a heritage perspective a great deal more awareness needs to be developed in South Africa around the national biodiversity symbols. From a conservation perspective, it indicates that the national biodiversity symbols are unlikely, at this stage at least, to be useful as flagship species for habitat conservation programmes.
Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.