Skip to main content



  • Access
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Chua, Liana 2018. What role for conservation in culture? A response to Schneider. Oryx, Vol. 52, Issue. 03, p. 416.

    Schneider, Helen 2018. Culture and conservation: a reply to Chua. Oryx, Vol. 52, Issue. 03, p. 417.



      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        What role for culture in conservation?
        Available formats
        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        What role for culture in conservation?
        Available formats
        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        What role for culture in conservation?
        Available formats
Export citation

Culture and cultural values are commonly associated in conservation with the spiritual and religious significance of landscapes and wildlife, manifested in sacred sites or spiritual landscapes, and in rituals, customs and ceremonies (Metcalfe et al., 2010; Riley, 2010; McKay et al., 2014; Mikusiński et al., 2014; Gupta et al., 2016). In this issue of Oryx, however, these matters are explored from a wider range of perspectives.

The most prevalent rationale for conservation engagement with culture is evident where conservation priorities based on Western science and values naturally align with local cultural values. In many cases, however, the significance of a particular site or species is cultural rather than biological. For example, there is significantly higher biodiversity associated with semi-natural sacred Neolithic standing stone monuments than on surrounding heathland (Shepheard-Walwyn & Bhagwat, 2018). The maintenance of the sites creates habitats for rare and threatened species even though the sites are valued for their heritage, recreation and spiritual attributes rather than for their biodiversity.

Taboos—social norms that protect species or places because of their role in folklore—are common manifestations of cultural values in conservation. In two cases concerning primates (Infield et al., 2018; Baker et al., 2018), beliefs appear to have partially protected particular populations, and sometimes associated sacred sites. However, both cases also report negative impacts such as increased crop-raiding, and protection of culturally significant species rarely extends to other taxa or habitats.

The animist values of the endemic Pemba flying fox Pteropus voeltzkowi, combined with scientific information on population decline, motivated village elders to establish bylaws to reduce disturbance and restrict hunting (Infield et al., 2018). In Madagascar, in contrast, the spiritual significance of sacred caves for bats and the taboos inhibiting hunting and consumption of bats are no longer widely recognized (Fernandez-Llamazares et al., 2018). This erosion of customary institutions has implications for the survival of roosts that are largely dependent on customary protection.

Although these cases illustrate synergies between local beliefs and conservation of species of global concern, in many cases the values of conservation policy-makers and practitioners clash with those of other stakeholders. In Uganda, failure to take into account local values brought communities into conflict with protected area authorities (Infield et al., 2018). In such cases the rationale for attention to cultural values is usually to improve stakeholder relationships and increase voluntary compliance with regulations.

These rationales are largely instrumentalist, seeking to integrate cultural values into conservation to achieve biodiversity outcomes. However, there are also clear ethical considerations for taking an approach based on cultural values. Many international human rights instruments include cultural rights, and for Indigenous Peoples these also include the right to self-determination and respect for customary decision-making processes (Springer et al., 2011). The Convention on Biological Diversity also requires signatory states ‘to protect and encourage the customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use’ (United Nations, 1992).

Delisle et al. (2018) describe a case in which national law recognizes the customary rights of indigenous communities to engage in traditional hunting of marine species whose commercial trade is prohibited by CITES. Using an ecosystem services framework (MEA, 2005), the authors identify the benefits and costs of Torres Strait islanders hunting dugong Dugong dugon and green turtle Chelonia mydas. Conservation policies tend to emphasize the income and nutritional benefits from wild meat, failing to incorporate socio-cultural factors of crucial importance to hunters, traders and consumers (Nasi et al., 2008). Delisle et al. (2018) demonstrate that traditional owners identify bundles of economic, social and cultural costs and benefits. Greater importance was placed on cultural rather than provisioning services. Where ecosystem services assessments are used to inform decision-making there is a danger that intangible cultural benefits are overlooked even though, as in this case, they are often valued at least as much, if not more, than economic benefits (Chan et al., 2012).

Discourse on the impacts of conservation on people has evolved from do no harm to rights-based approaches (Campese, 2009). It is now recognized that economic measures do not adequately reflect the impact of development on our planet or on us. Hence there have been influential calls to shift from measuring economic production to measuring well-being (Stigliz et al., 2009), where well-being includes factors such as sense of purpose, self-esteem, control over decisions, social cohesion, life satisfaction and confidence in the future. Many of these elements are derived, at least in part, through fulfilment of cultural and spiritual values.

Gogoi (2018) relates how members of rural communities in Assam use religious beliefs, alongside other socio-cultural coping strategies, to foster well-being by managing the stress caused by elephant damage to property and people. The majority of respondents were prepared to lose some of their crop, regarding this as an offering to God.

Holmes et al. (2018) explore how belief in magical animals affects conservation goals, and critique how conservation interventions tend to cherry-pick aspects of culture that appear to be positive for conservation while ignoring or trying to change those that are not.

Many of the examples described here illustrate how failure to consider the full range of stakeholder values can have negative consequences for both resource users and conservation managers. There are dangers in isolating individual cultural practices that align with international conservation priorities whilst ignoring complex interactions of other cultural and socio-economic factors. In practice people hold multiple and sometimes mutually incompatible values for different aspects of nature. These tangible and intangible values are complex and dynamic; they vary over space and time. Their interactions give rise to diverse worldviews that encompass different conceptualizations of nature.

It is increasingly acknowledged that integration of cultural values into decision-making can help to develop co-management processes with mutual biodiversity and well-being benefits (Delisle et al., 2018). However, significant challenges remain. Many aspects of culture are deeply embedded and difficult to articulate to outsiders. Within ecosystem services frameworks, creative and participatory methods are evolving to help assess intangible values but there is still a tendency to favour tangible economic benefits (Daniel et al., 2012).

How then can conservationists ensure that policy and practice take into account local as well as global values? The research presented in this issue of Oryx suggests the answer can at least partly be found through wider engagement with the social sciences and humanities, with religious and cultural institutions, and perhaps even with shamans, sorcerers, witches and wizards.

This Editorial and the Oryx articles cited herein are freely available as a virtual issue of the journal at


Baker, L.R., Tanimola, A.A. & Olubode, O.S. (2018) Complexities of local cultural protection in conservation: the case of an Endangered African primate and forest groves protected by social taboos. Oryx, 52, 262270.
Campese, J., Sunderland, T.C.H., Greiber, T. & Oviedo, G. (eds) (2009) Rights-based approaches: Exploring issues and opportunities for conservation. Center for International Forestry Research & IUCN, Bogor, Indonesia. Https:// [accessed 29 January 2018].
Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T. & Goldstein, J. (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 818.
Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A. et al. (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 88128819.
Delisle, A., Kiatkoski Kim, M., Stoeckl, N., Watkin Lui, F. & Marsh, H. (2018) The socio-cultural benefits and costs of the traditional hunting of dugongs Dugong dugon and green turtles Chelonia mydas in Torres Strait, Australia. Oryx, 52, 250261.
Fernández-Llamazares, A., López-Baucells, A., Rocha, R., Andriamitandrina, F.M., Andriatafika, Z.E., Burgas, D. et al. (2018) Are sacred caves still safe havens for the endemic bats of Madagascar? Oryx, 52, 271275.
Gogoi, M. (2018) Emotional coping among communities affected by wildlife–caused damage in north-east India: opportunities for building tolerance and improving conservation outcomes. Oryx, 52, 214219.
Gupta, N., Kanagavel, A., Dandekar, P., Dahanukar, N., Sivakumar, K., Mathur, V.B. & Raghavan, R. (2016) God's fishes: religion, culture and freshwater fish conservation in India. Oryx, 50, 244249.
Holmes, G., Smith, T.A. & Ward, C. (2018) Fantastic beasts and why to conserve them: animals, magic and biodiversity conservation. Oryx, 52, 231239.
Infield, M., Entwistle, A., Anthem, H., Mugisha, A. & Phillips, K. (2018) Reflections on cultural values approaches to conservation: lessons from 20 years of implementation. Oryx, 52, 220230.
McKay, J.E., Mangunjaya, F.M., Dinata, Y., Harrop, S.R. & Khalid, F. (2014) Practise what you preach: a faith-based approach to conservation in Indonesia. Oryx, 48, 2329.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Metcalfe, K., Ffrench-Constant, R. & Gordon, I. (2010) Sacred sites as hotspots for biodiversity: the Three Sisters Cave complex in coastal Kenya. Oryx, 44, 118123.
Mikusiński, G., Possingham, H.P. & Blicharska, M. (2014) Biodiversity priority areas and religions—a global analysis of spatial overlap. Oryx, 48, 1722.
Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., van Tol, G. & Christophersen, T. (2008) Conservation and Use of Wildlife-based Resources: The Bushmeat Crisis. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada, and Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. Technical Series no. 33. Https:// [accessed 12 February 2018].
Riley, E.P. (2010) The importance of human–macaque folklore for conservation in Lore Lindu National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Oryx, 44, 235240.
Shepheard-Walwyn, E. & Bhagwat, S.A. (2018) Maintaining standing stones benefits biodiversity in lowland heathland. Oryx, 52, 240249.
Springer, J., Campese, J. & Painter, M. (2011) Conservation and Human Rights: Key Issues and Contexts. Scoping Paper for the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights. Http:// [accessed 21 February 2018].
Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A. & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009) Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. European Commission, Paris, France. Http:// [accessed 29 January 2018].
United Nations (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity Https:// [accessed 29 January 2018].