Research

INTRODUCTION

Biocultural diversity emerges from complex and dynamic relationships between human cultural and biological diversity (Bridgewater and Rotherham 2019, Hanspach et al. 2020). However, a growing number of studies have documented a growing disconnect between young students and the biological and cultural diversity of their localities (Rozzi et al. 2001, Østergaard 2017, Medina et al. 2020). The disconnect of students and, more broadly, citizenry with biocultural diversity is a recurring problem in today’s society and has been named “extinction of experience” (Pyle 1993, Poole 2018). Nowadays, fewer and fewer people have a daily, direct contact with nature. This lack of experience has negative consequences that affect health, reduce the affective connection with nature, and weaken people’s pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (Soga et al. 2015, Soga and Gaston 2016). Extinction of experience may also cause a reduction in people’s abilities to perceive biodiversity (Shwartz et al. 2014) or know local native biodiversity (Campos et al. 2012, Bermudez et al. 2017, 2018, Almeida et al. 2020). The causes for the extinction of experience are multiple and include formal education activities taking place in closed environments inside schools (Rozzi 2013), as well as processes of urbanization that limit the contact of students and citizens with the biocultural diversity of their regions (Miller 2005, Soga et al. 2015, Poole 2018). The absence of free unstructured time in daily lives is another possible cause of this problem (Louv 2010). The extinction of experience is both a driver and a product of biocultural homogenization and would affect people’s direct, experiential, and sensory knowledge of habitats and co-inhabitants (Ibarra et al. 2020).

Biocultural homogenization involves “complex and interwoven losses of biological and cultural diversity” (Rozzi 2018a:22). Biocultural homogenization is related to globalized one-dimensional ways of thinking, which ignore biophysical and cultural particularities of heterogenous regions of the planet. On a global scale, biocultural homogenization favors a small set of species, languages, and cultures to the detriment of others, which are excluded, oppressed, or exterminated (Maffi 2005, Rozzi 2013). Some examples of biocultural homogenization are: (1) the loss of native cultural and biological diversity due to urbanization processes and the prioritization of exotic species in urban green spaces (Campos et al. 2012, Celis-Diez et al. 2017, Jin et al. 2020), (2) the reduction of diversity in the traditional diets of Indigenous populations as a result of changes in systems of livelihood and the prevalence of Western diets (Barreau et al. 2019), or (3) the omission of native flora in formal education (Medina et al. 2020). These examples show how informal education (e.g., daily experiences, family life) and formal education (e.g., school, university) are critically affected by biocultural homogenization.

We report on our study aimed at evaluating how eventual processes of biocultural homogenization are developing in three contrasting ecoregions in Chile. We do so by examining patterns of perceptions among elementary education degree students (EEDS) from the three regions. Elementary education degree students are undergraduate students seeking an elementary school teaching degree. In Chile, elementary school teachers teach various subjects as general educators and spend an average of 5 hours a day with 6-to-12-year-old students, which can have a decisive influence on students’ perceptions and valuations of their co-inhabitants, habitats, and habits. Their training is based on the guidelines provided by the Ministry of Education regarding the knowledge and competences teachers should have: Guiding Standards for Elementary Education Programs (Ministerio de Educación 2012) and the Framework for Good Teaching (Ministerio de Educación 2021). Disciplinary contents follow international guidelines, which allow the comparison of Chilean students’ performance to that of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations. However, addressing environmental and sustainability issues is still a challenge for Chilean teachers (Condeza-Marmentini and Flores-González 2019) and the Ministry of Education that provides the guidelines.

To study how processes of biocultural homogenization are developing among EEDS, we adopted the conceptual framework of biocultural ethics that values the vital and reciprocal links between “co-inHabitants, Habitats, and Habits” (the 3Hs model; Rozzi 2013, Tauro et al. 2021). The term co-inhabitant refers to the various beings (human and other-than-human) that share a habitat. These co-inhabitants are viewed as subjects with agency who construct their identities and constitute habitats through habits of reciprocity and complementarity (Rozzi 2018a, Ibarra et al. 2022). Habitats include biophysical, cultural (symbolic-linguistic), and institutional dimensions in socio-political-technological contexts (Rozzi 2018a). These dimensions consider a plurality of worldviews, forms of social organization, and governance that influence the interactions between humans and nature. Habits refer to the ways of living, customs, and actions of human and other-than-human co-inhabitants, which often depend on the conservation of habitats (Rozzi 2018a). For this reason, it is critical to assess the degree in which EEDS, the future teachers of new generations, perceive and value the diversity of co-inhabitants and habitats in their respective regions. In particular, the daily life habits, knowledges, and perceptions these university students have about the biocultural diversity of their regions needs to be examined. Do these knowledges and perceptions differ among EEDS from contrasting regions in Chile (i.e., a desert in Norte Grande, a large city surrounded by agricultural areas in the Mediterranean center, and a temperate rainforest region in the south)? Or will they have similar knowledges and perceptions?

Perception and education

We consider perception as a pre-reflexive and pre-language way of knowing based on the body in interrelation with the world, which inextricably combines receptivity and spontaneity (Merleau-Ponty 1962, Ingold 2000). Therefore, it is not possible to speak of a “pure” perception, but rather of a perceptual experience always linked to the biological and cultural context of the perceiver. Perception plays an important role in education. At school students learn how and what to perceive, explicitly or implicitly (Marini 2021) and this affects their knowledges. This can hold decisive influence over the phenomenon of biocultural homogenization (Rozzi 2013). The set of experiences that shape everyday perceptions acts as a sometimes-imperceptible backdrop, from which a subject interacts, understands, and inhabits the world by making decisions on a daily basis (Saito 2017), favoring, or not, the process of biocultural homogenization.

Today it is undeniable that children’s perceptions and knowledges of their local environments are guided not only by formal education (school) but also by informal education, such as the information they receive from the Internet, books, zoos, television, and other media (Pergams and Zaradic 2006, Wason-Ellam 2010, Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2011, Campos et al. 2012, Barrutia et al. 2022, Hooykas et al. 2022). This information often focuses on “wilderness” far removed from their local experiences (Ballouard et al. 2011, Payne 2014, Almeida et al. 2020). Often children’s books also contribute to this decontextualization by presenting animal characters engaged in human activities, disconnected from their habitats and habits (Hooykaas et al. 2022). In this way, formal and informal education often contribute to biocultural homogenization. To offset biocultural homogenization, some authors propose strengthening sensitivity and “groundedness” in sustainability education (Østergaard 2017) or connecting the global social-environmental challenges with local practices and possibilities through a “glocal” approach (Murga-Menoyo and Novo 2017). A first step in reversing biocultural homogenization processes would be to make the existing perceptions about biological and cultural diversity in the education of new teachers visible, assess whether there are biases and preferences for a narrow number of co-inhabitants, and question the potential consequences of these biases and preferences on the co-inhabitant communities in each place (Saito 2010, 2017, 2018, Poole 2018).

Biases in perceptions and valuations of biodiversity also affect school textbooks, scientific and humanities research, citations, and dissemination or funding for biological conservation, which mainly favor vertebrates (Bonnet et al. 2002, Clark and May 2002, Fjellstrom 2002, Hecnar 2009, Taborsky 2009, Martín-López et al. 2011, Donaldson et al. 2016, McRae et al. 2017, Rosenthal et al. 2017, Troudet et al. 2017, Gangwani and Landin 2018, Moore and Wilkie 2019). This bias toward vertebrates in education, science, and culture contrasts with the fact that the diversity of discovered biological species includes mostly invertebrates, particularly insects, which are fundamental to ecosystem functioning (Leather 2009). A cultural bias toward birds and mammals has also been detected in students’ and teachers’ perceptions and knowledge of biodiversity in different regions of the world (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2011, Campos et al. 2012, Bermudez et al. 2018, Almeida et al. 2020, Luvison Araújo and Dos Santos Alitto 2021, Barrutia et al. 2022). This preference toward mammals would be due to both biological and cultural reasons (Bonnet et al. 2002, Hecnar 2009, Shwartz et al. 2014, Rosenthal et al. 2017, Rozzi 2019). With respect to the latter, school plays a key role because school life can contribute to making the biological and cultural diversity of each region visible or invisible (Rozzi et al. 2023).

In particular, we investigated which co-inhabitants EEDS name, and how they describe their habitats and life habits of their regions. We assume that the named species are the ones perceived by the students, and that this would be mediated by their biocultural contexts (Lewis et al. 2018). We also presume that the descriptions of the habitats and habits will be influenced by a sense of place, related to affective bonds generated through situated embodied experiences (Tuan 2014, Masterson et al. 2017).

METHODS

To examine the elementary education degree students’ perceptions of their local co-inhabitants, habitats, and habits, we carried out research with participants from faculties of education located in three contrasting ecoregions in Chile (Fig. 1). Because of ethical restrictions, we call these institutions Northern Faculty, Central Faculty, and Southern Faculty. This research was conducted in 2021 in a pandemic context in which all the education faculties were locked down, thus we used online questionnaires in our investigation. It was not possible to use other methods recommended for studying perceptions that required in-situ or face-to-face techniques (Ghisloti Iared and Torres de Oliveira 2017).

Study areas

The Northern Faculty is located in the city of Antofagasta, a territory characterized by its arid climate and scarcity of water and vegetation, but with an associated rich marine biota (Weichler et al. 2004). In addition to fishing, the region’s economic activities include copper mining. Also, 14.1% of the region’s population consider themselves Indigenous or native people (INE 2018). The Central Faculty is located in the city of Santiago, an area with Mediterranean semi-arid climate. Its vegetation consists of sclerophyllous scrublands and forests, and Vachellia caven steppes (CONAMA 2008). Santiago is also the capital of the country and its economic and judicial center. Additionally, 10.1% of the region’s population considered themselves Indigenous or native people (INE 2018). Finally, the Southern Faculty is located in the city of Villarrica in an area characterized by the presence of temperate deciduous, evergreen, and mixed rainforests (CONAMA 2008). Its economic activities are mainly related to tourism, agriculture, livestock, and forestry based on non-native tree plantations. Additionally, 34.3% of the region’s population consider themselves Indigenous or native people (INE 2018).

Data collection

To investigate the perceptions of EEDS about their co-inhabitants, habitats, and habits, an online questionnaire called “Questionnaire on Nature and Connections with Nature” was sent via email to third- and fourth-year students of the three faculties. We received 78 answers of which 72 were complete. The faculties of education that participated in this study are small and have a reduced number of students, mainly local residents. The questionnaire included close-ended questions, adapted from Nisbet and Zelenski (2013) and other open-ended questions on co-inhabitants, habitats, and habits. Open-ended questions were not mandatory to answer.

We used an adaptation of the free listing technique (Newing et al. 2011) to investigate the perceptions of co-inhabitants. Participants were asked to write a list of plants and a list of animals they know from the place where they live and their surroundings. We used free lists as a proxy to perceptual aspects of the participants about the animals and plants with whom they inhabit. This technique has been used for comparing informants’ different perceptions of what items are important and which items belong to the cultural domain (Newing et al. 2011), in this case co-inhabitants. Moreover, “a name represents a biocultural connection, bringing that living being to the existence in the cultural sphere, while at the same time influencing decisively the perception of what is named” (Rozzi 2015:88-89). List of species that are named by students also permit the assessment of cultural taxonomic biases, which have been previously used to study biocultural homogenization (Medina et al. 2020), and are linked to the extinction of experience phenomenon (Celis-Diez et al. 2017). With respect to habitats they were asked, “If you had to give a name that characterizes the nature of the place where you live, what would you call it?” With respect to habits, they were asked: “What customs, traditions or habits are typical or characteristic of the place where you live? Please describe them.”

Data analysis

The results obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed in several ways. With respect to co-inhabitants, we used bibliographies (Rozzi Sachetti 1984, Chester 2016, Rozzi et al. 2010, Ibarra et al. 2019, D’Elía et al. 2020, Cordero et al. 2021), local nurseries’ webpages, and the webpage of the citizen science application “iNaturalist Chile” to obtain the scientific names from the common names given by the participants. We also classified and characterized the species in terms of origin, taxonomic categories, and uses. Most cases were identified to species level. In some cases, the generic names given by the participants did not allow us to classify the species origin. We considered introduced species those that were introduced post-European contact. This criterion includes animals such as dogs or cats (Carle et al. 2021). Subsequently, we calculated the frequency, average ranking, and Smith’s S Salience Index for each (Newing et al. 2011). The Smith’s S Salience Index is an index that combines the frequency in which an item is named by different participants, and the average position among the lists of the different participants. “The assumption is that the more salient an item is in a domain, the more likely it is to be mentioned sooner and the more people will mention it” (Newing et al. 2011:150). This index varies between 0 and 1; the closer to 1, the more culturally salient the item is. We generated scatter plots between the frequency and average ranking for the plants and animals with the highest Smith’s S Salience Index for each area.

We analyzed the open-ended questions using descriptive coding (Saldaña 2010). Later, narratives were generated from reiterative reading of the coded information (Newing et al. 2011). These synthesis-based narratives require an iterative process of writing, discussing, thinking, and going back to the data (participant’s quotes). These narratives were created with the objective of describing and interpreting our findings (Newing et al. 2011). With respect to habitats, the names given to describe the natures of everyday places were read iteratively, identifying differences and similarities between them. Subsequently, we analyzed the most frequently used qualifying nouns and adjectives and the connotations that emerged from them were interpreted in relation to the criteria of sense of place or affective connection to the place (Tuan 2014, Masterson et al. 2017), types of human-nature relationships (Rozzi 2018a), and understandings of nature (Payne 2014). In relation to habits, we identified differences and similarities between the descriptions of the habits, customs, and traditions of the everyday places and a synthesis-based narrative was generated from the identified patterns.

RESULTS

Animal and plant co-inhabitants

Regarding the co-inhabitants, participants were asked to name the plants and animals they knew from the places where they live and their surroundings. Adding the three study areas, a total of 138 animals and 187 plants were named (Fig. 2). In Antofagasta, the northern coastal desert, 36 animals (Appendix 1) and 50 plants (Appendix 2) were named. In Santiago, a large city surrounded by agricultural land and hills in the central area, 80 animals (Appendix 3) and 115 plants (Appendix 4) were named. In Villarrica, the southern area characterized by forests and lakes, 83 animals (Appendix 5) and 101 plants (Appendix 6) were named. Within each faculty, an interesting aspect was the difference in the number of species that participants living in the same locality were able to name. For example, at the Central Faculty, one participant only mentioned 3 animals, while another participant named 30 animals (perceiving different species of birds and insects, among others). At the Southern Faculty, one student failed to name any species of plants, while another student mentioned 27 species. The same happened at the Northern Faculty, one student couldn’t name any plant species while another named 10 species.

We used the Smith’s S Salience Index (S) to compare the cultural relevance of different species. Regarding animal species, this index varied between 0.73 and 0.00. The dog (Canis familiaris) was the most salient species, this means the most frequently named species, and the first to appear, on average, in the questionnaires of the three ecoregions (Figs. 3, 4, and 5). This species Smith’s S Salience Index (S) had values of 0.40 in the northern area, 0.73 in the central area, and 0.30 in the southern area. Regarding plants, the Smith’s S Salience Index varied between 0.41 and 0.00. The most mentioned species were different in each of the geographic regions, and representative of the local ecosystems. In the arid north, it was cacti (Family Cactaceae) (S = 0.41; Fig. 6); in the central area, lemon (Citrus limon) and orange (Citrus sinensis) trees (S = 0.25 each; Fig. 7); and in the south, native oak or hualle (Nothofagus obliqua; S = 0.31; Fig. 8). In the arid north, some species whose natural distributions do not correspond to the desert climate were named, such as Nothofagus obliqua (S = 0.07) or Jubaea chilensis (S = 0.07; Fig. 6). In the central area, several plants that are often found in orchards or gardens were mentioned, such as Mentha spp. (S = 0.20) or Ruta chalepensis (S = 0.19; Fig. 7). In the southern area, the species at the top of the lists were mainly native species such as Araucaria araucana (S = 0.18) or Aristotelia chilensis (S = 0.21; Fig. 8).

Regarding the biogeographic origin of the animal species, although the most mentioned species were mainly introduced species (i.e., dogs, cats, cows), most of the species named in the three geographic regions corresponded to native species (Table 1). In the north, 10 introduced species (27.8%) and 20 native species (55.5%) were named. Introduced species were mentioned 27 times (31.4%) and native species 53 times (61.6%). In the center, 23 introduced species (28.8%) and 34 native species (42.5%) were named. However, introduced species were mentioned more frequently, 119 times (56.4%) and native species 58 times (27.5%), despite being fewer in number. This fact is explained by the high frequency with which dogs (80.0%) and cats (77.0%) were named. On the other hand, 20 introduced species (24.1%) and 53 native species (63.9%) were named in the south. Introduced species were mentioned 91 times (37.8%) and native species 136 times (56.4%).

With respect to the biogeographic origin of the plant species, introduced species prevailed in all three areas (Table 2). According to species numbers, 31 introduced species (62.0%) and 11 native species (22.0%) were named in the north. Introduced species were mentioned 39 times (55.7%) and native species 14 times (20.0%). In the center, 84 introduced species (73.0%) and 22 native species (19.2%) were named. Introduced species were mentioned 195 times (78.5%) and native species 37 times (14.8%). In the south, 56 introduced species (55.4%) and 39 native species (38.7%) were named. Introduced species were mentioned 144 times (53.7%) and native species 116 times (43.2%). However, the most prominent plants in the north (Cactaceae) and south (Nothofagus obliqua) were mostly native species.

With respect to taxonomic categories, of the 138 animal taxa named, 108 were vertebrates (78.26%). This prevalence of vertebrates was especially marked in the northern and southern ecoregions (Table 3). For example, in the south they named 74 vertebrate species (89.2%) and 9 invertebrate species (9.0%). However, adding the times each species was named by different participants, vertebrates were mentioned 230 times (95.4%), whereas invertebrates only 11 times (4.6%). In addition, general categories such as “grasshoppers” or “butterflies” were often used for invertebrates. Other mentioned invertebrates were annelids, arthropods, and mollusks. Vertebrates included mainly birds and mammals, and to a lesser extent amphibians, fish, and reptiles (Fig. 9). Regarding the taxonomic categories of plants, all the species named in the three areas corresponded to vascular plants. Not even one non-vascular plant species was named (Table 4).

Contrasting wild versus domestic species, the former prevailed among the animals. However, a few domestic species were mentioned repeatedly (Table 5). For example, in the central area, 3 domestic pet species (3.7%) were mentioned 48 times (22.7%). On the other hand, the vast majority of the plants named were cultivated, mainly for food or medicinal uses. In the north and center, ornamental species were also important, and in the south, timber species (Table 6).

Habitats

We asked participants: “If you had to give a name that characterizes the nature of the place where you live, what would you call it?” The names given by the participants to their everyday places suggest diverse and contrasting relationships with their habitats (Table 7). On the one hand, many names show affective links, such as “the hidden beauty” (student 1 northern area), “the paradise of the central zone: Curacaví” (student 2 central area), or “richness of vegetation and living beings” (student 3 southern area). In the southern area almost all the names given have positive connotations related to humidity, richness, or diversity. On the other hand, an idea of nature associated with the color green was observed in expressions such as “abundant green” (student 4 southern area) and “urban green” (student 5 central area). This idea was also evident in the difficulties in naming other colors of nature: “I can’t really think, since it is a dry place, it has little green...” (student 6 northern area); “I live in Antofagasta, it is ugly, dirty, no greenery” (student 7 northern area). Other participants made up names that referred to diverse nature such as deserts, sea, and city, among other landscapes. For instance: “urban nature” (student 8 central area) and “native desert” (student 9 northern area). With respect to urban habitats, two divergent trends in human-nature relationships were identified. Some statements evidenced a close human-nature relationship as “a privilege that the poorest of us organize ourselves in order to live together with her” (student 10 central area), while others evidenced a tension between human presence and nature as if one excluded the other, “the survivors, since they survive the city and the human being” (student 11 central area).

Habits

With respect to habits, similar and different elements were observed among the ecoregions. Some typical habits of the northern area were visiting the coastline or the celebration of La Tirana, a religious festival with cultural dances and music (Fig. 10). In the central area, the habit of getting together was mentioned, as well as the habit of leaving garbage in prohibited areas. Numerous students from the southern area mentioned “several customs linked to Mapuche traditions, for example, holding ceremonies or celebrating harvests” (student 12 southern area), such as the Nguillatun, a Mapuche rite of praying to and thanking the gods. They also mentioned the Mapuche ceremony of We tripantu, which is held during the winter solstice and celebrates the renewal of the cycles of nature.

Some similar habits among the ecoregions were local commerce, whether formal or informal, and fairs or traditional festivals. Other similar habits among students from different areas, especially urban areas, were the implementation of community activities that involved the organization of neighbors for mutual support. On the contrary, other participants from urban sites indicated that in the places where they live there is selfishness, haste, carelessness, and little community life.

With respect to traditions, religious and rural festivities were mentioned, such as La Tirana Festival in the north (Fig. 10) or the Festival of la Virgen del Carmen in the center. Among the festivals related to agricultural activities, students from the central and southern areas mentioned the threshing festival, the berry festival, the shearing festival, the Chilean rodeo (Fig. 11), the chicha festival, the grape harvest festival, and the huma festival. These festivals usually celebrate the harvests and feature traditional food, drinks, and music. Some of these festivals involve animals such as horses, cows, and sheep. Other traditions linked to food were the collection of piñones (Fig. 12), digüeñes, fishing, the collection of sea products, or land shrimp; as mentioned mainly by students from the southern area.

DISCUSSION

Our multi-site study across a wide latitudinal gradient identified differences and similarities in the perceptions of elementary education degree students (EEDS) about the co-inhabitants, habitats, and habits of their ecoregions. The similarities between the sites might indicate a degree of biocultural homogenization. For example, the animals perceived in all ecoregions corresponded mostly to vertebrates, mainly birds and mammals, despite being a minority component of the country’s biodiversity. In addition, the same species, the dog, was the most mentioned in all ecoregions. Likewise, most of the plant species named were introduced plants with food or medicinal uses, present in many countries. On the other hand, regarding habits, several participants described customs related to trade activities.

Regarding differences between sites, participants also named co-inhabitants and described habits specific to their contexts, such as the collection of native species of mushrooms, plants, or animals for food use, or the knowledge of ritual celebrations typical of their localities and linked to their habitats. This suggests diverse valuations of biodiversity and local knowledge (IPBES 2022), and thus a degree of conservation of the local biocultural diversity.

Animal and plant co-inhabitants

With respect to animal co-inhabitants, we found a marked bias toward naming vertebrates. This bias contrasts with the greater richness of invertebrate species present in Chile; 15,466 native invertebrate species and 2036 vertebrate species, of which 464 correspond to birds and 162 to mammals (Ministerio del Medio Ambiente 2019). These results are consistent with numerous studies showing that students and teachers name or recognize more mammals and birds than other taxonomic groups (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2011, Campos et al. 2012, Bermudez et al. 2017, Almeida et al. 2020, Luvison Araújo and Dos Santos Alitto 2021, Barrutia et al. 2022). This could be due to aesthetic preferences, personal tastes, our own biology (Bonnet et al. 2002, Hecnar 2009, Shwartz et al. 2014, Rosenthal et al. 2017), or historical and philosophical reasons (Rozzi 2018b). Rozzi (2019) pointed out that the scarce attention toward invertebrates hinders moral consideration about them as less relevant for life.

When examining the total list of animal species named, we found a greater number of native than introduced species. However, when observing the most frequently mentioned species, the first places were occupied by introduced and/or domestic species in central and southern Chile. This finding coincides with the results of another study (Campos et al. 2012). These results show that dogs and cats are culturally relevant species. Studies have reported that these species can contribute to biotic homogenization by threatening local native biodiversity (Crego et al. 2018, Carle et al. 2021). In that sense, this result suggests biocultural homogenization both as a product and a driver. There is a cultural domain that tends to value these species above others, and, in some cases, these preferred species threaten the diversity of other animals through their predatory habits or disease transmissions (Crego et al. 2018). In contrast, in northern Chile, seven of the most mentioned species corresponded to native species and only four to introduced species. In addition, many of the species named were marine birds and mammals. These results suggest an attentive observation of the context and a possible connection with the habitat by the students who referred to this habitat as “native desert” or “coast-desert.”

A striking result of our research is that university students named more plants than animals. This result differs from studies that found that school children more often name animal than plant species (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2011, Campos et al. 2012, Barrutia et al. 2022). This contrast with our study suggests that age may influence perceptions of different taxonomic groups, a subject that has been little studied (Botzat et al. 2016).

In relation to plant co-inhabitants, all plant species mentioned by EEDS were vascular plants. This bias is an extreme case of the lack of attention to non-vascular plants (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2011, Medina et al. 2020, Barrutia et al. 2022). This pattern could derive in part from the lack of common names for non-vascular plants, which would make them “invisible,” i.e., lacking perception and cultural appreciation (Lewis et al. 2018). Notwithstanding, there are growing initiatives trying to change this lack of names for non-vascular plants by creating new common names and providing experiences in direct contact with these non-vascular plants. In addition, most of the plants named corresponded to introduced species, many of them with food, medicinal, or ornamental uses. This coincides with the literature pointing out that students tend to know more about domestic plants from their garden experiences (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2011, Campos et al. 2012, Bermudez et al. 2018, Medina et al. 2020, Barrutia et al. 2022). The pattern of naming more introduced species occurred for the northern and central participants. In contrast, in the southern area, seven of the most mentioned species were native plants and only four were introduced species. Some possible explanations for this can be related to a larger number of public protected areas in the southern area or in the study programs of the Southern Faculty, which focuses on local knowledge about plants and other environmental attributes. This could also explain why a greater number of native species with dyeing, food, and medicinal uses, among others, were named in this area. Moreover, students from the south reported various activities related to the collection of edible species that are native to their region. In this sense, the southern area could correspond to a biocultural refuge, that is, “places that not only shelter species, but also carry knowledge and experience about practical management of biodiversity and ecosystem services” (Barthel et al. 2013:1143).

Habitats

In relation to habitats, different trends were identified. For example, some expressions, such as “the hidden beauty,” suggest a sense of place that implies affective bonds built through experiences and interactions (Tuan 2014, Masterson et al. 2017, Pramova et al. 2021). One striking aspect is the repeated association of nature with the color green, regardless of the geographical context. This could be related with a perceptive expectation dissociated from everyday reality in the north and central ecoregions, which tends to ignore the nature that is there (and is not green), minimizing its value or possibilities of being protected and restored (Gobster et al. 2007). This tendency can be associated with esthetic preferences for green landscapes associated with fertility and the general repulsion for brownish and yellowish landscapes associated with dryness (Bidegain et al. 2020); or a greater ability to perceive plants, especially flowers and trees, than other organisms (Shwartz et al. 2014, Fischer et al. 2018, Gonçalves et al. 2021, Tomitaka et al. 2021). This pattern has also been frequently found in research of urban environments (Soga et al. 2015, Buizer et al. 2016, Soga and Gaston 2016, Vierikko et al. 2017, Elands et al. 2019). This prevalence of a mental image of “green nature” might be problematic because it could contribute to rendering invisible nature that tends to be other colors; for example, arid or marine habitats that host numerous co-inhabitants often underperceived, such as reptiles, invertebrates, or fishes. This was evident in the northern area, where some students had difficulty recognizing nature in a dry and sparsely green place. However, these students were able to name marine species inhabiting their daily environments.

Another understanding among students that might distance them from nature was the idea of a “violated nature” (student 13 southern area) by humans. Students from urban settings expressed that plants and animals are “the survivors, since they survive the city and the human being” (student 14 central area). This type of perception has been also found among school children (Payne 2014, Pointon 2014). The negative perception about the impact of humans on nature could be also linked to the lack of consideration of cultural diversity in schools, which consequently can act as a driver of biocultural homogenization (Rozzi 2012). In a broader context, this detachment of schools from local biodiversity can be associated with the dominant idea in Western civilization that has separated citizens from nature (Latour 2007).

Habits

With respect to habits, we found several specific links between habitats and co-inhabitants that reflect the biocultural diversity found among students from different ecoregions of Chile. Most of these habits are the result of years of interaction and coevolution between the habitats and people. For example, EEDS from coastal areas collected marine species, and students from the south collected edible species from the forest. On the other hand, students mentioned rites that suggest a strong connection with habitats and co-inhabitants, such as celebrating seasonal cycles or praying for harvests. Some EEDS highlighted agricultural traditions linked to rural habitats and mentioned species such as cows or horses. This has also been found among students from other regions in South America (Campos et al. 2012, Bermudez et al. 2017), but not so among students from England or the United States (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2011). These results suggest that everyday connections with farm life may be more present in South America than other areas. An interesting finding among our EEDS is that they named practices of collaboration among neighbors to generate common places for co-habitation in urban habitats. This type of community habit can favor the cultivation of links between cultural and biological diversity in cities.

CONCLUSION

This research is an exploratory study with a limited number of students. However, it contributes to the investigation of perceptions and valuations that affect the problem of biocultural homogenization in different ways. Several studies point out that students from different countries are more familiar with pets or African animals, which they know through the media or zoo visits, than with local native species (Ballouard et al. 2011, Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2011, Campos et al. 2012, Almeida et al. 2020, Barrutia et al. 2022, Hooykaas et al. 2022). This pattern suggests that biocultural homogenization is occurring and that it is probably facilitated by the process of extinction of experience. This may be because children’s initial knowledge is increasingly indirect and decontextualized (Ballouard et al. 2011, Campos et al. 2012, Hooykaas et al. 2022), or because the majority of them live in urbanized areas (Miller 2005, Soga and Gaston 2016, Celis-Diez et al. 2017), or due to their decreased ability to pay attention and perceive biodiversity (Shwartz et al. 2014).

We analyze the perceptions of co-inhabitants, habitats, and habits of future teachers, who will influence the perceptions and valuations of future generations through their practices (Shwartz et al. 2014, Bernardo et al. 2021, Barrutia et al. 2022). On the one hand, biocultural homogenization was observed in their perceptions of the environment, which was stated in the bias toward certain types of animals, plants, habits, or ideas of nature. On the other hand, there was evidence of an attentive knowledge about the biological and cultural particularities of their localities. In this sense, the work of teachers that pay attention to territorial contexts and knowledge could be a biocultural refuge, by rescuing and transmitting knowledge of their co-inhabitants, habitats, and habits. By doing this, they could also contribute to the generation of biocultural diversity and new care practices, for example, in urban areas where there is high dynamism and convergence of cultural diversities (Vierikko et al. 2017, Elands et al. 2019, McMillen et al. 2020, Stålhammar and Brink 2020). The development of an ecologically informed sensitivity could foster the cultivation of a biocultural ethics among EEDS through their education process. In turn, this could contribute to the knowledge and valuation of co-inhabitants, habitats, and habits that are still scarcely perceived and valued.

To “make visible” biocultural diversity, teaching could help sharpen the ability to perceive and appreciate the diversity of organisms present in daily life and to transfer knowledge about their ecological and cultural importance in future generations (Shwartz et al. 2014, Palmberg et al. 2015, Gonçalves et al. 2021, Barrutia et al. 2022). This ability could help to overcome taxonomic biases that exclude most living beings and to develop an ecologically informed sensitivity (Gobster et al. 2007, Saito 2010). Teaching that fosters students’ hands-on experiences in direct contact with biocultural diversities can help develop an emotional connection to local habitats and co-inhabitants and generate a positive attitude toward them (Ibarra et al. 2020). In this sense, a formal education that pays attention to the inextricable links between co-inhabitants, habitats, and habits offers an approach for teaching practices. These would criticize ways of thinking and acting that disregard those links and promote biocultural homogenization, instead, valuing knowledge and habits of life that perceive those links and promote biocultural conservation.

LITERATURE CITED

Almeida, A., B. García Fernández, and O. Strecht-Ribeiro. 2020. Children’s knowledge and contact with native fauna: a comparative study between Portugal and Spain. Journal of Biological Education 54(1):17-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1538017

Ballouard, J.-M., F. Brischoux, and X. Bonnet. 2011. Children prioritize virtual exotic biodiversity over local biodiversity. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023152

Barreau, A., J. T. Ibarra, F. S. Wyndham, and R. A. Kozak. 2019. Shifts in Mapuche food systems in Southern Andean forest landscapes: historical processes and current trends of biocultural homogenization. Mountain Research and Development 39(1):R12-R23. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-18-00015.1

Barrutia, O., A. Ruiz-González, I. Sanz-Azkue, and J.-R. Díez. 2022. Secondary school students’ familiarity with animals and plants: hometown size matters. Environmental Education Research 28(10):1564-1583. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2086689

Barthel, S., C. Crumley, and U. Svedin. 2013. Bio-cultural refugia - safeguarding diversity of practices for food security and biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 23(5):1142-1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.001

Bermudez, G. M. A., L. V. Battistón, M. C. García Capocasa, and A. L. De Longhi. 2017. Sociocultural variables that impact high school students’ perceptions of native fauna: a study on the species component of the biodiversity concept. Research in Science Education 47:203-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9496-4

Bermudez, G. M. A., S. Díaz, and A. L. De Longhi. 2018. Native plant naming by high-school students of different socioeconomic status: implications for botany education. International Journal of Science Education 40(1):46-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1397297

Bernardo, F., I. Loupa-Ramos, and J. Carvalheiro. 2021. Are biodiversity perception and attitudes context dependent? A comparative study using a mixed-method approach. Land Use Policy 109:105703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105703

Bidegain, I., C. A. López-Santiago, J. A. González, R. Martínez-Sastre, F. Ravera, and C. Cerda. 2020. Social valuation of Mediterranean cultural landscapes: exploring landscape preferences and ecosystem services perceptions through a visual approach. Land 9(10):390. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100390

Bonnet, X., R. Shine, and O. Lourdais. 2002. Taxonomic chauvinism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17(1):1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02381-3

Botzat, A., L. K. Fischer, and I. Kowarik. 2016. Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Global Environmental Change 39:220-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.008

Bridgewater, P., and I. D. Rotherham. 2019. A critical perspective on the concept of biocultural diversity and its emerging role in nature and heritage conservation. People and Nature 1:291-304. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10040

Buizer, M., B. Elands, and K. Vierikko. 2016. Governing cities reflexively — the biocultural diversity concept as an alternative to ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy 62(2016):7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.003

Campos, C. M., S. Greco, J. J. Ciarlante, M. Balangione, J. B. Bender, J. Nates., and P. Lindemann-Matthies. 2012. Students’ familiarity and initial contact with species in the Monte desert (Mendoza, Argentina). Journal of Arid Environments 82:98-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.02.013

Carle, R. D., A. B. Fleishman, T. Varela, P. Manríquez Angulo, G. De Rodt, P. Hodum, V. Colodro, V. López, and H. Gutiérrez-Guzmán. 2021. Introduced and native vertebrates in Pink-footed Shearwater (Ardenna creatopus) breeding colonies in Chile. PLoS ONE 16(7):e0254416. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254416

Celis-Diez, J. L., C. E. Muñoz, S. Abades, P. A. Marquet, and J. J. Armesto. 2017. Biocultural homogenization in urban settings: public knowledge of birds in city parks of Santiago, Chile. Sustainability 9(4):485. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040485

Chester, S. 2016. Flora y fauna de Chile. Guía de identificación. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, España.

Clark, J. A., and R. M. May. 2002. Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297(5579):191-192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.297.5579.191b

Comisión Nacional de Medio Ambiente (CONAMA). 2008. Biodiversidad de Chile: patrimonio y desafíos. Ocho Libros Editores, Santiago, Chile.

Condeza-Marmentini, A., and L. Flores-González. 2019. Teachers’ transgressive pedagogical practices in context: ecology, politics, and social change. Sustainability 11(21):6145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216145

Cordero, S., F. Gálvez, and L. Abello. 2021. Usos tradicionales de la flora De Chile. Ediciones Botánicas, Valparaíso, Chile.

Crego, R. D., N. Ward, J. E. Jiménez, F. Massardo, and R. Rozzi. 2018. Los ojos del érbol: percibiendo, registrando, comprendiendo y contrarrestando las invasiones biológicas en tiempos de rápida homogeneización biocultural. Magallania 46(1):137-153. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22442018000100137

D’Elía, G., J. Canto, G. Ossa, L. Darcy Verde-Arregoitia, E. Bostelmann, A. Iriarte, L. Amador, M. Quiroga-Carmona, N. Hurtado, R. Cadenillas, and L. Valdez. 2020. Lista actualizada de los mamíferos vivientes de Chile. Boletín del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural 69(2):67-98. https://doi.org/10.54830/bmnhn.v69.n2.2020.6

Donaldson, M. R., N. J. Burnett, D. C. Braun, C. D. Suski, S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, and J. T. Kerr. 2016. Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research. Facets 1:105-113. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0011

Elands, B. H. M., K. Vierikko, E. Andersson, L. K. Fischer, P. Gonçalves, D. Haase, I. Kowarik, A. C. Luz, J. Niemela, M. Santos-Reis, and K. F. Wiersum. 2019. Biocultural diversity: a novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 40:29-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.006

Fischer, L. K., J. Honold, R. Cvejić, T. Delshammar, S. Hilbert, R. Lafortezza, M. Nastran, A. B. Nielsen, M. Pintar, A. P. N. van der Jagt, and I. Kowarik. 2018. Beyond green: broad support for biodiversity in multicultural European cities. Global Environmental Change 49:35-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.001

Fjellstrom, R. 2002. Specifying speciesism. Environmental Values 11(1):63-74. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327102129340984

Gangwani, K., and J. Landin. 2018. The decline of insect representation in biology textbooks over time. American Entomologist 64(4):252-257. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/tmy064

Ghisloti Iared, V., and H. Torres de Oliveira. 2017. Walking ethnography for the comprehension of corporeal and multisensorial interactions in environmental education. Ambiente y Sociedade 20(3):97-114. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc174r1v2032017

Gobster, P. H., J. I. Nassauer, T. C. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22:959-972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x

Gonçalves, P., F. Grilo, R. C. Mendes, K. Vierikko, B. Elands, T. A. Marques, and M. Santos-Reis. 2021. What’s biodiversity got to do with it? Perceptions of biodiversity and restorativeness in urban parks. Ecology and Society 26(3):25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12598-260325

Hanspach, J., L. J. Haider, E. Oteros-Rozas, A. Stahl Olafsson, N. M. Gulsrud, C. M. Raymond, M. Torralba, B. Martín-López, C. Bieling, M. García-Martín, C. Albert, T. H. Beery, N. Fagerholm, I. Díaz-Reviriego, A. Drews-Shambroom, and T. Plieninger. 2020. Biocultural approaches to sustainability: a systematic review of the scientific literature. People and Nature 2:643-659. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10120

Hecnar, S. J. 2009. Human bias and the biodiversity knowledge base: an examination of the published literature on vertebrates. Biodiversity 10(1):18-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2009.9712633

Hooykaas, M. J. D., M. G. Holierhoek, J. S. Westerveld, M. Schilthuizen, and I. Smeets. 2022. Animal biodiversity and specificity in children’s picture books. Public Understanding of Science 31(5):671-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221089811

Ibarra, J. T., A. Barreau, J. Caviedes, N. Pessa, J. Valenzuela, S. Navarro-Manquilef, C. Monterrubio-Solís, A. Ried, and J. C. Pizarro. 2020. Listening to elders: birds and forests as intergenerational links for nurturing biocultural memory in the southern Andes. Pages 160-175 in V. Derr, and Y. Corona, editors. Latin American transnational children and youth: experiences of nature and place, culture and care across the Americas. Routledge, Abingdon, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003028512-13

Ibarra, J. T., J. Caviedes, A. Barreau, and N. Pessa. 2019. Huertas familiares y comunitarias: cultivando soberanía alimentaria. Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile, Villarrica, Chile. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvkrkkbx

Ibarra, J. T., R. Petitpas, A. Barreau, J. Caviedes, J. Cortés, G. Orrego, G. Salazar, and T. A. Altamirano. 2022. Becoming tree, becoming memory: social-ecological fabrics in Pewen (Araucaria araucaria) landscapes of the southern Andes. Pages 15-31 in J. Wall, editor. The cultural value of trees: folk value and biocultural conservation. Routledge, Abingdon, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429320897-3

Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.

Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE). 2018. Síntesis de resultados censo 2017. INE, Santiago, Chile. http://www.censo2017.cl/descargas/home/sintesis-de-resultados-censo2017.pdf

Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). 2021. Medio ambiente. Informe anual 2021. INE, Santiago, Chile. https://www.ine.gob.cl/docs/default-source/variables-basicas-ambientales/publicaciones-y-anuarios/informe-anual-de-medio-ambiente/informe-anual-de-medio-ambiente-2021-(versi%C3%B3n-actualizada-al-06-de-abril-del-2022).pd

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service (IPBES). 2022. The assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of Nature: summary for policymakers. U. Pascual, P. Balvanera, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, D. N. Barton, R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Jacobs, E. Kelemen, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, A. Martin, T. H. Mwampamba, B. Nakangu, P. O’Farrell, C. M. Raymond, S. M. Subramanian, M. Termansen, M. an Noordwijk, and A. Vatn, editors. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://zenodo.org/record/7410287#.ZDw-zuzMKhY

Jin, C., M. Zheng, L. Huang, S. Qian, C. Y. Jim, D. Lin, L. Zhao, J. Minor, C. Coggins, B. Chen, J. Zhang, and Y. Yang. 2020. Co-existence between humans and nature: Heritage trees in China’s Yangtze River region. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 54:126748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126748

Latour, B. 2007. Nunca fuimos modernos. Ensayo de antropología simétrica. Siglo veintiuno editores Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Leather, S. R. 2009. Taxonomic chauvinism threatens the future of entomology. Biologist 56(1):10-13. https://cb.naturalsciences.be/ants/pdf_free/Biol_56_1_IMV.pdf

Lewis, L., C. Gottschalk-Druschke, C. Saldías, R. Mackenzie, J. Malebrán, B. Goffinet, and R. Rozzi. 2018. Cultivando un jardín de nombres en los bosques en miniatura del Cabo de Hornos: extensión de la conservación biocultural y la ética a seres vivos poco percibidos. Magallania 46(1):103-123. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22442018000100103

Louv, R. 2010. Last child in the woods: saving our children from Nature-deficit disorder. Workman Publishing, New York, New York, USA.

Luvison Araújo, L. A., and R. A. Dos Santos Alitto. 2021. Teaching native biodiversity: an exploratory study with Brazilian teachers. Journal of Biological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.2006271

Maffi, L. 2005. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:599-617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437

Marini, G. 2021. An Introduction to Everyday Aesthetics in Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 40:39-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-020-09740-x

Martín-López, B., I. Martín-Forés, J. A. González, and C. Montes. 2011. La conservación de biodiversidad en España: atención científica, construcción social e interés político. Ecosistemas 20(1):103-113.

Masterson, V. A., R. C. Stedman, J. Enqvist, M. Tengö, M. Giusti, D. Wahl, and U. Svedin. 2017. The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecology and Society 22(1):49. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08872-220149

McMillen, H. L., L. K. Campbell, E. S. Svendsen, K. Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K. S. Francisco, and C. P. Giardina. 2020. Biocultural stewardship, Indigenous and local ecological knowledge, and the urban crucible. Ecology and Society 25(2):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11386-250209

McRae, L., S. Deinet, and R. Freeman. 2017. The diversity-weighted living planet index: controlling for taxonomic bias in a global biodiversity indicator. PLoS ONE 12(1):e0169156. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169156

Medina, Y., F. Massardo, and R. Rozzi. 2020. Educación, ecoturismo y conservación biocultural en los bosques en miniatura del Cabo de Hornos. Magallania 48(2):183-211. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22442020000200183

Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of perception. Routledge, London, England.

Miller, J. R. 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(8):430-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013

Ministerio de Educación (MINEDUC). 2012. Estándares orientadores para egresados de carreras de pedagogía en educación básica: estándares pedagógicos y disciplinarios. MINEDUC, Santiago, Chile. https://bibliotecadigital.mineduc.cl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12365/2226/mono-607.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Ministerio de Educación (MINEDUC). 2021. Estándares de la profesión docente: marco para la buena enseñanza. MINEDUC, Santiago, Chile. https://estandaresdocentes.mineduc.cl/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/MBE-2.pdf

Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. 2019. Sexto informe nacional de biodiversidad de Chile ante el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CDB). Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Santiago, Chile. https://mma.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6NR_FINAL_ALTA-web.pdf

Moore, L. J., and R. M. Wilkie. 2019. Introduction to the silent majority: invertebrates in human-animal studies. Society and Animals 27:653-655. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-00001903

Murga-Menoyo, M. Á., and M. Novo. 2017. Sostenibilidad, desarrollo “glocal” y ciudadanía planetaria. Referentes de una pedagogía para el desarrollo sostenible. Teoría de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria 29:55-78. https://doi.org/10.14201/teoredu2915579

Newing, H, C. Eagle, R. Puri and C. W. Watson. 2011. Conducting research in conservation: social science methods and practice. Routledge, Abigdon, Oxon, England. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846452

Nisbet, E. K., and J. M. Zelenski. 2013. The NR-6: a new brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology 4:813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813

Østergaard, E. 2017. Earth at rest: aesthetic experience and students’ grounding in science education. Science and Education 26:557-582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9906-2

Palmberg, I., I. Berg, E. Jeronen, S. Kärkkäinen, P. Norrgård-Sillanpää, C. R. Persson, R. Vilkons and E. Yli-Panula. 2015. Nordic-Baltic student teachers’ identification of and interest in plant and animal species: the importance of species identification and biodiversity for sustainable development. Journal of Science Teacher Education 26:549-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9438-z

Patrick, P., and S. D. Tunnicliffe. 2011. What plants and animals do early childhood and primary students’ name? Where do they see them? Journal of Science Education and Technology 20(5):630-642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9290-7

Payne, P. 2014. Childrens’ conceptions of nature. Australian Journal of Environmental Education 30(1):68-75. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2014.26

Pergams, O. R. W., and P. A. Zaradic. 2006. Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management 80:387-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.02.001

Pointon, P. 2014. ‘The city snuffs out nature’: young people’s conceptions of and relationship with nature. Environmental Education Research 20(6):776-794. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833595

Poole, A. K. 2018. The UN sustainable development goals and the biocultural heritage lacuna: where is goal number 18? Pages 315-331 in R. Rozzi, R. H. May, Jr., F. S. Chapin, III, F. Massardo, M. C. Gavin, I. J. Klaver, A. Pauchard, M. A. Nuñez, and D. Simberloff, editors. From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Ecology and ethics, vol. 3. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_20

Pramova, E., B. Locatelli, M. Valdivia-Díaz, A. Vallet, Y. Quispe Conde, H. Djoudi, M. J. Colloff, F. Bousquet, J. Tassin, and C. Munera Roldan. 2021. Sensing, feeling, thinking: relating to nature with the body, heart and mind. People and Nature 4:351-364. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10286

Pyle, R. M. 1993. The thunder tree: lessons from an urban wildland. Houghton Mifflin. Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Rosenthal, M. F., M. Gertler, A. D. Hamilton, S. Prasad, and M. C. B. Andrade. 2017. Taxonomic bias in animal behaviour publications. Animal Behaviour 127:83-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.02.017

Rozzi Sachetti, Q. F. S. 1984. Las plantas, fuente de salud. COVINAT, Santiago, Chile.

Rozzi, R, C. Anderson, F. Massardo, and J. Silander, Jr. 2001. Diversidad biocultural subantártica: una mirada desde el Parque Etnobotánico Omora. Chloris Chilensis 4(2):17-34. http://www.chlorischile.cl./

Rozzi, R. 2012. Biocultural ethics: recovering the vital Links between the inhabitants, their habits, and habitats. Environmental Ethics 34(1):27-50. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20123414

Rozzi, R. 2013. Biocultural ethics: from biocultural homogenization toward biocultural conservation. Pages 9-32 in R. Rozzi, S. T. A. Pickett, C. Palmer, J. J. Armesto, and J. B. Callicott, editors. Linking ecology and ethics for a changing world: values, philosophy, and action. Ecology and ethics, vol. 1. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7470-4_2

Rozzi, R. 2015. Earth stewardship and the biocultural ethic: Latin American perspectives. Pages 87-112 in R. Rozzi, F. S. I. Chapin, J. B. Callicott, S. T. A. Pickett, M. E. Power, J. J. Armesto, and R. H. May, editors. Earth stewardship: linking ecology and ethics in theory and practice. Second edition. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_8

Rozzi, R. 2018a. Biocultural homogenization: a wicked problem in the Anthropocene. Pages 21-48 in R. Rozzi, R. H. May, Jr., F. S. Chapin, III, F. Massardo, M. C. Gavin, I. J. Klaver, A. Pauchard, M. A. Nuñez, and D. Simberloff, editors. From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Ecology and ethics, vol. 3. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_2

Rozzi, R. 2018b. Overcoming biocultural homogenization in modern philosophy: Hume’s noble oyster. Pages 185-204 in R. Rozzi, R. H. May, Jr., F. S. Chapin, III, F. Massardo, M. C. Gavin, I. J. Klaver, A. Pauchard, M. A. Nuñez, and D. Simberloff, editors. From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Ecology and ethics, vol. 3. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_11

Rozzi, R. 2019. Taxonomic chauvinism, no more! Antidotes from Hume, Darwin, and biocultural ethics. Environmental Ethics 41(3):249-282. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201941325

Rozzi, R., F. Massardo, C. Anderson, S. McGehee, G. Clark, G. Egli, E. Ramilo, U. Calderón, C. Calderón, L. Aillapan, and C. Zárraga. 2010. Multi-ethnic bird guide of the Sub-Antarctic forests of South America. University of North Texas Press/Ediciones Universidad de Magallanes, Denton, Texas, USA.

Rozzi, R., A. Tauro, T. Wright, N. Avriel-Avnim, and R. H. May, Jr., editors. 2023. Field environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. In press.

Saito, Y. 2010. Everyday aesthetics. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Saito, Y. 2017. Aesthetics of the familiar: everyday life and world-making. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199672103.001.0001

Saito, Y. 2018. Consumer aesthetics and environmental ethics: problems and possibilities. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 76(4):429-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12594

Shwartz, A., A. Turbé, L. Simon, and R. Julliard. 2014. Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: an experiment. Biological Conservation 171:82-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.009

Saldaña, J. 2010. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE, London, England.

Soga, M., and K. J. Gaston. 2016. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(2):94-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225

Soga, M., Y. Yamaura, T. Aikoh, Y. Shoji, T. Kubo, and K. J. Gaston. 2015. Reducing the extinction of experience: association between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace. Landscape and Urban Planning 143:69-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.003

Stålhammar, S., and E. Brink. 2020. ‘Urban biocultural diversity’ as a framework for human-nature interactions: reflections from a Brazilian favela. Urban Ecosystems 24:601-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01058-3

Taborsky, M. 2009. Biased citation practice and taxonomic parochialism. Ethology 115(2):105-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01610.x

Tauro, A., J. Ojeda, T. Caviness, K. P. Moses, R. Moreno-Terrazas, T. Wright, D. Zhu, A. K. Poole, F. Massardo, and R. Rozzi. 2021. Field environmental philosophy: a biocultural ethic approach to education and ecotourism for sustainability. Sustainability 13(8):4526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084526

Tomitaka, M., S. Uchihara, A. Goto, and T. Sasaki. 2021. Species richness and flower color diversity determine aesthetic preferences of natural-park and urban-park visitors for plant communities. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 11:100130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100130

Troudet, J., P. Grandcolas, A. Blin, R. Vignes-Lebbe, and F. Legendre. 2017. Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Scientific Reports 7:9132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6

Tuan, Y.-F. 2014. Space and place: the perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Vierikko, K., B. Elands, J. Niemelä, E. Andersson, A. Buijs, L. K. Fischer, D. Haase, N. Kabisch, I. Kowarik, A. C. Luz, A. O. Stahl, L. Száraz, A. Van der Jagt, and C. K. van den Bosch. 2017. Considering the ways biocultural diversity helps enforce the urban green infrastructure in times of urban transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22:7-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.006

Wason-Ellam, L. 2010. Children’s literature as a springboard to place-based embodied learning. Environmental Education Research 16(3-4):279-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903549771

Weichler, T., S. Garthe, G. Luna-Jorquera, and J. Moraga. 2004. Seabird distribution on the Humboldt Current in northern Chile in relation to hydrography, productivity, and fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61(1):148-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2003.07.001

Copyright © 2023 by the author(s). Published here under license by The Resilience Alliance. This article is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You may share and adapt the work provided the original author and source are credited, you indicate whether any changes were made, and you include a link to the license.