Mobilizing metaphors: The popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts

Biodiversity and Conservation

Volumn 20, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1427-1440

  Barua, Maan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Conservation literacy; Flagship species; Goodhart's law; Keystone species; Language; Media; Metaphor; Umbrella species

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION PLANNING; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HABITAT TYPE; KEYSTONE SPECIES; LITERACY; MAMMAL; MOBILITY; POPULAR PROTEST;

MAMMALIA;

EID: 79956064308     PISSN: 09603115     EISSN: 15729710     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-011-0035-y     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Antilla L (2005) Climate of skepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Glob Environ Change 15: 338-352.
2. Armstrong D (2002) Focal and surrogate species: getting the language right. Conserv Biol 16(2): 285-286.
3. Ashlin A, Ladle R (2006) Environmental science adrift in the blogosphere. Science 312: 201.
4. Ashlin A, Ladle R (2007) Natural disasters and newspapers: post-tsunami environmental discourse. Environ Hazards 7: 330-341.
5. Barua M (2010) Whose issue? Representations of human-elephant conflict in Indian and international media. Sci Commun 32(1): 55-75.
6. Boykoff MT (2007) From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science. Trans Inst Br Geogr 32: 477-489.
7. Cachelin A, Norvell R, Darling A (2010) Language fouls in teaching ecology: why traditional metaphors undermine conservation literacy. Conserv Biol 24(3): 669-674.
8. Carignan V, Villard M (2002) Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review. Environ Monit Assess 78: 45-61.
9. Caro TM (2010) Conservation by proxy. Island Press, Washington.
10. Caro TM, O'Doherty G (1999) On the use of surrogate species in conservation. Conserv Biol 13: 805-814.
11. Caro T, Engilis A, Fitzherbert E et al (2004) Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Anim Conserv 7: 63-70.
12. Clucas B, McHugh K, Caro T (2008) Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodivers Conserv 17: 1517-1528.
13. Dumit J (2010) Inter-pill-ation and the instrumentalization of compliance. Anthropol Med 17(2): 245-247.
14. Gardezi T, da Silva J (1999) Diversity in relation to body size in mammals: a comparative study. Am Nat 153: 110-123.
15. Heywood VH (ed) (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. Kotliar NB, Baker BW, Whicker AD et al (1999) A critical review of assumptions about the prairie dog as a keystone species. Environ Manag 24(2): 177-192.
17. Ladle RJ, Gilson L (2009) The (im)balance of nature: a public perception of time-lag? Public Underst Sci 18: 229-242.
18. Ladle RJ, Jepson P, Whittaker RJ (2005) Scientists and the media: the struggle for legitimacy in climate change and conservation science. Interdisc Sci Rev 30: 231-240.
19. Lakoff G (1995) Metaphor, morality, and politics. Or, why conservatives have left liberals in the dust. Social Res 62(2): 1-22.
20. Lakoff G, Johnson M (2003) Metaphors we live by, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
21. Lamb BL, Cline K (2003) Public knowledge and perceptions of black-tailed prairie dogs. Hum Dimens Wildl 8: 127-143.
22. Leader-Williams N, Dublin HT (2000) Charismatic megafauna as 'flagship species'. In: Entwistle A, Dunstone N (eds) Priorities for conservation of mammalian diversity: has the panda had its day?. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 53-84.
23. Lybecker DL, Lamb BL, Ponds PD (2002) Public attitudes and knowledge of the black-tailed prairie dog: a common and controversial species. Bioscience 52(7): 607-613.
24. MacDonald DW, Tattersall FH, Brown ED et al (1995) Reintroducing the European beaver to Britain: nostalgic meddling or restoring biodiversity? Mammal Rev 25(4): 161-200.
25. Meffe G, Carroll CR (1997) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
26. Nie M (2001) The sociopolitical dimensions of wolf management and restoration in the United States. Hum Ecol Rev 8(1): 1-12.
27. Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A (2003) Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Int J Press/Politics 8(2): 36-70.
28. Peterson MN, Birckhead JL, Leong K et al (2010) Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conserv Lett 3: 74-82.
29. Salafsky N, Salzer D (2005) The unglamorous essential foundation of conservation science. Oryx 39(3): 235-236.
30. Shoemaker PJ, Reese SD (1991) Mediating the message: theories of influences on mass media content. Longman, White Plains.
31. Silva M, Downing JA (1995) CRC handbook of mammalian body masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
32. Simberloff D (1998) Flagships, umbrellas and keystones: is single species management passé in the landscape era? Biol Conserv 83: 247-257.
33. Simpson J, Weiner E (eds) (1989) Oxford English dictionary. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
34. Trimble MJ, van Aarde RJ (2010) Species inequality in scientific study. Conserv Biol 24(3): 886-890.
35. Trumbo B, Dunwoody S, Griffin RJ (1998) Journalists, cognition, and the presentation of an epidemiologic study. Sci Commun 19: 238-265.
36. Webb TJ, Raffaelli D (2008) Conversations in conservation: revealing and dealing with language differences in environmental conflicts. J Appl Ecol 45: 1198-1204.
37. Wiegold MF (2001) Communicating science: a review of the literature. Sci Commun 23: 164-193.