Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Ecology and Conservation

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco

Original Research Article

Linking locally valued plants and places for conservation,

Community Baboon Sanctuary, Belize
Jill Korach a, *, Peter Herrera b, Chris Myers a
a
Project Dragonfly, Department of Biology, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA
b
Belize City, Belize

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Local people make daily decisions around land use, many living in or near conservation
Received 9 September 2019 areas. Community members may already value and care for important local areas by
Received in revised form 17 April 2020 employing self-imposed use restrictions regardless of formal conservation area designa-
Accepted 17 April 2020
tions. We set out to understand the places and plant species of greatest personal value to
the local community members and forest managers of Belize’s Community Baboon
Keywords:
Sanctuary, a group recognized for a well-established community conservation ethic. We
Community conservation
combined individual community interviews and plant transect data to assess: 1) locations
Place attachment
Personal values
of, place attachment, and personal values associated with an individual’s most important
Use Value place, 2) which plant species are valued and found within these key sites, and 3) what
Protected areas measures can influence local management and conservation decisions. Community
Community Baboon Sanctuary Belize members primarily valued individual places most (e.g., home gardens, farms) and we
uncovered a positive correlation between reported personal connections to place and
stronger personal values including happiness, dependence, and peacefulness associated
with important places. Higher place attachment also predicts a higher level of plant
knowledge reported by community members. Individuals noted 52 locally important plant
species with benefits including food, construction, and medicinal applications and we
calculated Use Value and Importance Value for each species. Pilot plant transects show
percentages of highly valued plants were found in personally important places, including
several key species that benefit the Sanctuary’s focal primate species, the black howler
monkey, Alouatta pigra. Better understanding of personal values, knowledge, and attach-
ment to key natural places can lead to improved forest plant diversity and more
comprehensive place-based strategies for conservation decisions made at the individual
and community level.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Understanding how local people value local places remains a central challenge in the management and conservation of
forest ecosystems. Although there has been progress made in integrating local people in conservation planning with some
exceptional examples (Berkes, 2007, 2017; Brooks, 2017; Gilmore and Young, 2012; Mistry et al., 2016; Mulrennan et al., 2012;
Young, 2008), most formal protected areas continue to be established by external government or conservation organizations

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: korachjk@miamioh.edu (J. Korach).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01065
2351-9894/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 J. Korach et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065

with only cursory consultation with local communities (Brooks et al., 2012; Gavin et al., 2015; Western and Wright, 1994). In
the worst cases, the values of local and external stakeholders are not aligned, basic ecological questions are left unaddressed,
and local people have little incentive to uphold protected area boundaries or respect use prohibitions.
Local values are especially relevant in situations where local agency is high, such as in community-managed or private
lands. Not typically delineated on government maps, these locally identified protected areas and forests can be critically
important to local livelihoods and ecosystems and collectively they constitute a major component of global biodiversity.
Communities may create their own protected and semi-protected areas for a wide variety of ecological, social, personal, or
cultural reasons. As the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) suggests
context-specific, place-based perspectives include a multidimensional look at all of nature’s contributions to local livelihoods
(Díaz et al., 2018). These diverse values may result in the preservation of a wider range of ecosystem services than areas
defined for protection by external agencies using more narrow or uniform criteria. Local values are also directly relevant to
conservation decisions made by individuals, whether within formal reserves, community forests, or private lands. Self-
imposed conservation actions and individual pro-environmental decisions are regularly used to protect personally impor-
tant places and species, actions that can be ecologically significant on an individual or collective basis. For instance, India’s
Western Ghats region, with few formally protected areas, is home to numerous sacred groves celebrated ecologically for high
species biodiversity and cultural importance. Residing sacred grove deities are known to protect local communities and there
is minimal to no use of plant and animal species within these groves (Bhagwat et al., 2014; Godbole et al., 2010; Khan et al.,
2008). Personal relationships and local attachments to place are common in many settings and understanding how com-
munity members value local places can contribute to more effective management and conservation planning across the range
of individual, community, and institutional contexts in which management decisions occur.
Previous research has demonstrated that connections to place, or place attachment (Altman and Low, 1992), can influence
personal decision making and drive positive conservation actions for natural areas (Gosling and Williams, 2010; Scannell and
Gifford, 2010a). Place connections are diverse, in part, because they are highly personal (Tuan, 1977), are influenced by in-
dividual human relationships with nature (Chan et al., 2016), and depend on our specific backgrounds and motivations (e.g.,
childhood experiences, location of a special event, material benefits, or fulfills needs such as time alone in nature). Personal
place attachment typically deepens over time spent in a particular location (Clayton and Myers, 2009) and connections to a
specific place are not interchangeable with other similar locations (Himes and Muraca, 2018). Personal-nature connections
can support an individual’s mental and physical well-being (Gifford, 2014), promote positive life satisfaction (Hummon, 1992;
Ramkissoon et al., 2013; Tadaki et al., 2017) can encourage feelings of community or belonging (Scannell and Gifford, 2017),
and it’s reported that natural place attachment can promote positive environmental behaviors whereas civic place connec-
tions do not (Scannell and Gifford, 2010a, 2010b). Most people consider themselves embedded in a particular place (Gifford,
2014) and evidence suggests that pro-environmental concern and behaviors are associated with knowledge of a place, feeling
responsible for its protection (Chan et al., 2016), and personal values held for that place (Himes and Muraca, 2018; Gifford,
2014; Scannell and Gifford, 2010a).
Understanding how we each express place-based knowledge of and values for natural areas and species can uncover novel
worldviews. For example, extensive knowledge of plants exists globally and is typically shared orally and locally, with only a
small fraction passed on to outsiders in written form (e.g., in Belize see Arnason et al., 1980; Arvigo and Balick, 1993; Arvigo
et al., 1994; Cox and Balick, 1994; Young, 2011). To capture a broader understanding to include ecological, personal, and
cultural perspectives, some researchers have employed quantitative socio-ecological plant measures such as Use Value
(Lucena et al., 2007; Phillips and Gentry, 1993), Importance Value (Byg and Balslev, 2001) and other indices (see Hoffman and
Gallaher, 2007 for a comprehensive review). These highly personal methods depend on years of trust and typically include
additional and equally rich qualitative plant species information and specific individual assessments and stories. In this work,
we were encouraged to take a pluralistic approach and combine place-based personal values and ecological knowledge.
We set out to expand on emerging socio-ecological approaches (Berkes, 2004; Brooks et al., 2012; Cadotte et al., 2017) and
contribute to the range of values-based methodologies (Tadaki et al., 2017) to better understand how local lands might be
more effectively planned and managed through knowledge and values of the specific plants and places that individuals and
local communities value most. We interviewed community members associated with Community Baboon Sanctuary, Belize,
and sampled plant species at important sites mentioned during personal interviews. Here, we address: 1) which natural
places are most important to local community members, 2) the personal values and level of attachment individuals associate
with locally valued places, 3) which plant species and plant benefits are of most importance, and 4) what measures can most
strongly influence management and conservation decisions at the individual and community level.

2. Methods

2.1. Community Baboon Sanctuary, Belize

Located in central Belize, the Community Baboon Sanctuary (CBS) (17
330 N, 88
350 W) is a well-known benchmark in
community-based conservation (Horwich and Lyon, 1998; Wyman, 2008; Wyman and Stein, 2010; Young and Horwich,
2007). Belize is an equatorial country with approximately 300,000 people and 35% of its land preserved (“CARICOM”,
2004; “The World Bank”, 2014). The CBS includes seven rural villages and is dominated by the Belize River, secondary
growth broadleaf and riparian semi-deciduous rainforest fragments, family farms, and residential areas. Most Belizeans
 J. Korach et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065 3

residing in the central Belize River valley identify with Creole (or Kriol) heritage with past generations participating in logging
for commerce. Today, most of the approximately 2800 residents of the Belize River valley region participate in small-scale
agriculture (crops and animals), ecotourism, and other professions outside the area.
CBS was established in 1985 as a conservation-focused partnership among a core group of local residents, other
interested community members, and outside researchers. CBS is mission-driven to sustain large populations of Yucata
n
black howler monkeys, Alouatta pigra, (locally known in Kriol as baboons) through community-managed forests that
support monkey habitat for residence, foraging, and transit. The forest fragments of CBS are individually owned, located
adjacent to residential or farm areas, and serve the dual purpose of 1) preserving riverine habitats utilized by monkeys and
2) supporting sustainable tourism initiatives focused primarily on A. pigra to benefit and improve the livelihoods of local
community members.
As CBS was established, local residents were asked to voluntarily pledge, through a signed agreement, to preserve a 21 m
corridor of terrestrial riverine habitat adjacent to each land owner’s farm or residence along the Belize River to serve as a
forested corridor to support A. pigra. This was a first-of-its-kind voluntary agreement in Belize (Young and Horwich, 2007)
and in 1985, these riverine corridors consisted of a combination of secondary riparian forest and cut areas of scrub plants
(Horwich and Lyon, 1998; Wyman, 2008). Today, most of these forest corridors (herein identified as CBS agreement lands)
remain as private, forest fragments adjacent to maintained or abandoned home gardens (home plus surrounding cultivated
lands which contain fruiting trees, garden plants, and grasses) or farm fields which make up the remaining land area. Forested
CBS agreement lands typically include understory herbaceous plants, mid-story shrubs, and taller canopy trees. CBS agree-
ment land forests are minimally utilized to gain river access by landowners and other community members, as hunting trails,
to access plants for modest plant harvest, and by A. pigra. Approximately 50 of the original 77 families (J. Young, pers.
communication) who signed the original agreement still reside within the approximately 40 km2 CBS area (Fig. 1).
A. pigra is listed as endangered by the IUCN and a vulnerable species in Belize (IUCN, 2001). Consuming leaves and fruit,
primarily fig (Ficus spp.) and traveling in groups of two to ten individuals, black howler monkeys are best known for their loud,
unique vocalizations, which can travel up to 1.6 km due to the increased sound resonance of an enlarged hyoid bone. A. pigra
prefer aerial sites and can be found foraging in forested areas or in fruiting trees of local residents. Recent surveys performed
by CBS researchers report howler monkey populations increased from around 800 in the 1980s to approximately 4000e5000
monkeys today due to high populations of Ficus and increased forest connectivity though these forests remain fragmented
(Wyman et al., 2011). A. pigra attract local residents and local and outside visitors throughout the year as a favorite species for
viewing and storytelling.
For more than a decade, our research team has maintained a partnership with the CBS community. A common interest
emerged around how individual community members value CBS agreement lands and the surrounding areas, particularly
those that signed the original CBS voluntary agreement. In this study, we aspired to better understand community members’
personal connections to, values, and knowledge of locally important places and plant species.

Fig. 1. Community Baboon Sanctuary (CBS) is located in the Belize River Valley, central Belize. Bermudian Landing, a central village of this region, houses the CBS
visitor’s center and museum. (Images from Google Maps.)
4 J. Korach et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065

2.2. Surveying local community members

In 2014, our team partnered with the governing CBS Women’s Group and the lead of homestay tourism initiatives for Prior
Informed Consent (PIC) and permission to conduct semi-structured interviews with any interested family members that
signed the original voluntary agreement or current family relatives of those that signed. The complete survey included 14
Likert-type questions with a response range of 1 (lowest score) to 9 (highest score), and 12 open-ended questions inviting
information on a variety of underlying individual and community values related to self-identified important places and
species taking a socio-ecological approach. We traveled to 35 individual households who agreed to participate and inter-
viewed each community member individually in their own home to determine: 1) the location of each community member’s
most important place in nature, 2) the personal values and level of place attachment associated with each significant place, 3)
important plant species found in valued sites, 4) the benefits of each important plant species, and 5) general demographic
information of village residents.
From compiled responses, we analyzed a portion of the quantitative information collected calculating Pearson’s product
moment correlation and performed regression analysis comparing value responses to assess associations at the individual
and community level. We gathered GPS coordinates for each important place mentioned during household surveys by
traveling to each site. Each important place reported was coded as either an individual or community site then into categories
by land type. Individual sites, defined as private lands managed by one person or family, included three land types 1) home
gardens, 2) family farms, and 3) CBS agreement lands. Community sites, those not clearly owned by a single individual and
presumably commons areas used by multiple community members, included river access points, community forests, or a
regional designation valuing the entire village or river valley.

2.3. Understanding place attachment and personal values

Place attachment research focuses on the psychological and environmental factors that shape how individuals and groups
connect to physical spaces. In this study, we adapted the Inclusion of Other in Self (IOS) scale (Aron et al., 1992) to quantify the
degree of connection reported by individuals in the CBS community to a self-identified important place. Originally developed
in the field of psychology to assess a respondent’s self-reported interconnectedness with others (Aron et al., 1992), IOS uses a
visual depiction of seven different sets of progressively overlapping circles. The IOS scale was later successfully modified and
has proven to be useful across a range of subjects and contexts including assessing human-nature connectedness (Martin and
Czellar, 2016; Schultz, 2000; Schultz, 2001), feeling happiness and positivity toward natural areas (Capaldi et al., 2014;
Zelenski and Nisbet, 2014), and promoting conservation action and protection (Khan et al., 2008). Here, we adapted the IOS
instrument by creating an Inclusion of Place in Self (IPS) scale (Fig. 2). The IPS scale was framed in this study to quantify an
individual’s level of place attachment referring specifically to each respondent’s most important place in nature and their
personal level of connection to that self-identified place.
Focusing on values that are associated with nature in positive and personal ways (Chan et al., 2016; Tadaki et al., 2017), we
chose values statements most relevant to our research. Likert-style questions focused on place dependence, feeling
responsible for place protection, peacefulness, inspiration, happiness, spiritual connections, safety, and seeing new oppor-
tunities associated with their specific important place. Respondents were read each survey question (e.g., how much do you
feel it is your responsibility to protect this place? How much do you depend on this place?) and asked to choose a rating from 1
(lowest score) to 9 (highest score). We employed Pearson’s product moment correlation and regression analysis for each
individual value combination and each value compared with a respondents’ IPS (place attachment) score to look for possible
trends.

Fig. 2. Inclusion of Place in Self (IPS) scale. Survey respondents were asked to choose one of seven sets of circles that best answered the question, how connected
are you to this place? Each respondent was asked to answer this question when referring to their one most important place in nature. Adapted from Aron et al.,
1992 and Schultz, 2001.
 J. Korach et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065 5

2.4. Assessing local plants and places

To investigate knowledge and values held for local plant species found within important places, we asked residents a
broader prompt than other surveys focused simply on medicinal or utilitarian applications for plants. Community members
were asked to free list the response to, which plants hold importance to you in this place? Several follow-on questions including,
why is this plant important? were also asked about each plant mentioned.
From compiled responses, we coded each plant species’ primary benefit category by totaling all individual references for
that species and the category with the largest number of mentions was considered that species’ primary benefit designation.
If other categories were mentioned for a species, those were coded as additional valued benefits. A priori expected categories
included: 1) food for humans, 2) construction use, 3) medicinal applications, 4) spiritual or symbolic use, or 5) aesthetic value,
and we included an open “other” category (Phillips and Gentry, 1993). Additional categories that emerged during analysis
included, i.e., plants valued for benefits to A. pigra, valued for benefits to other animals, and important for regulating
ecosystem services the plant provides (e.g., shade).
To include an on-site quantitative measure in this study, we obtained permission to perform pilot plant sampling activities
at seven important sites mentioned in household interviews including four home gardens and three community sites. Of the
home garden sites mentioned, we were interested in sampling two locations - both within the home/garden portion of the
property and again in the adjacent CBS agreement lands managed by the same landowner. Combined, we sampled 11 sites:
four home gardens, four adjacent CBS agreement lands, and three community areas. We used line transect sampling at each
CBS agreement and community site to gain an understanding of current plant species abundance and diversity, choosing 5
random points on each 100 m transect performing one to three transects at each site. At each point, all plants within a 5 m
radius were identified to species level (Arvigo and Balick, 1993; Gentry, 1996; Young, 2011) and no survey area overlapped
with any other transect line or area. GPS coordinates were also noted. Within each home garden site, the most effective and
culturally appropriate assessment method was to walk the entirety of the home garden area (with the homeowner when
possible) and catalogue all plant species within the managed portion of the site. Again, individual abundance and species
presence of all plants were noted. Home garden sites averaged 1 hectare in size. All plant sampling sites except one were
located directly adjacent (0.5e1 km) to the Belize River.
We employed two existing ethnobiological indices to further quantify the value and knowledge of each mentioned plant
species: 1) Species Use Value and 2) Importance Value. Species Use Value (UV) has been adapted in many contexts (Hoffman
and Gallaher, 2007; Lucena et al., 2007; Phillips and Gentry, 1993; Shrestha, 2013) and provides a quantitative measure of the
importance of any given plant species relative to other important plants. UV is determined by assessing the total number of
plant uses or benefits mentioned over the number of community members interviewed. We calculated Species UV using the
equation,

P
UV ¼ Us / n

UV ¼ Species Use Value for each plant mentioned by an interviewed community member.

P
Us ¼ of total benefits mentioned by all community members for said plant species
n ¼ Total number of community members interviewed

Importance Value (Byg and Balslev, 2001) is determined by those interviewed focusing on human values by measuring the
“consensus” (Hoffman and Gallaher, 2007) or proportion of community members who regard a plant species as most
important. Importance Values (IV) range between 0 and 1 and are calculated using the equation,

IVs ¼ nis / n

IVs ¼ Importance Value for each plant mentioned by a community member.

nis ¼ Number of community members who consider that particular species most important
n ¼ Total number of community members interviewed

We expect UV and IV to be related because species that are identified beneficial by the community are also likely to be
considered important. Both indices are reported here to examine the inclusion of both UV (as a more species-focused
measure) and IV (as a more respondent-focused measure) and for comparisons with other studies.
6 J. Korach et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065

3. Results

3.1. Community members

The 35 CBS village residents interviewed have spent an average of 65% (SD¼ 31.3) of their lifetime residing in the region
including twelve respondents living in the area their entire lives. The average age of those interviewed was 59 years
(SD ¼ 17.3), ranging from 21 to 94 years old. Of the 19 men and 16 women interviewed, the majority report Kriol heritage and
families that include a spouse and children, some with grandchildren. Over three-quarters of those interviewed (78%) re-
ported working at home or farming as their primary occupation. Other occupations in order of prevalence included current or
retired teachers, tour guides, and security personnel.

3.2. Important places

Surveyed community members promptly identified 33 distinct important natural places with 60% (20 respondents)
mentioning individual sites as most important and 40% (13 respondents) reporting important community sites. Individual
important places included home gardens, family farms, and CBS set aside agreement land adjacent to an individual’s home
garden (Fig. 3). Community places reported as important included river access points, community forested land, or larger
regional designations (e.g., a whole village, entire river valley) (Fig. 3).
We recorded the geographic location of each specific important place mentioned and the majority of all important named
places are located adjacent to the Belize River typically offering river access. Home garden sites are maintained and planted by
those that reside on each property. Individual CBS agreement land mentioned as most important consisted of unmaintained
riverine forested areas though some reported periodically clearing plants and felling trees to facilitate river access on those
sites.

3.3. Place attachment and personal values

We used each respondent’s reported IPS score to assess place attachment to their most important place and uncovered an
average score of 5.5 (SD ¼ 1.7) out of 7. The majority of the 35 individuals interviewed answered the IPS survey question
(n ¼ 33). When important places were categorized and place attachment (IPS) evaluated, we discovered individual sites were
valued most with 50% of these sites (10 of 20 sites) scoring the highest score (7 out of 7) whereas only one of 13 community
sites mentioned was assigned the uppermost value of 7.
From compiled responses, we calculated Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients and regression analyses to
assess associations between personal value responses and each respondents’ reported place attachment (IPS) score. Several
personal values showed significant positive correlations with place attachment including dependence on place (r ¼ 0.38;

Fig. 3. Summary of important places mentioned during household interviews by category and number of respondents in Community Baboon Sanctuary resi-
dents, Belize (N ¼ 33).
 J. Korach et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065 7

Table 1
Personal values responses compared to place attachment score as reported by 35 residents of Community Baboon Sanctuary, Belize
(n ¼ 30e35). * denotes p < .05

Personal Values Place attachment

Pearson’s r p-value n
Dependence .38 .03* 35
Peacefulness .46 .01* 35
Inspiration .45 .01* 30
Happiness .50 .0003* 34
Spiritual connections .12 .56 30
Responsible for place protection .13 .48 34
New opportunities in place -.27 .14 33
Security .18 .32 35

p ¼ .03), peacefulness (r ¼ 0.46; p ¼ .007), inspiration (r ¼ 0.45; p ¼ .013), and happiness (r ¼ 0.50; p ¼ .0003) for the
important places mentioned (Table 1).

3.4. Important species, plant benefits, and indices

A total of 52 unique plant species were reported as important by 35 CBS community members during household in-
terviews (Table 2 highlights 15 of 52 named plant species). Each person interviewed named an average of 4 different
important plant species (SD ¼ 1.8) and an average of 5 plant benefits (SD ¼ 2.5) were reported for those species valued within
an individual’s most important place. These 52 important plant species fall into 28 plant families with those most represented
including Fabaceae (pea family (15% of responses; 8 out of 53 spp.), Arecaceae (palms) (11%; 6/53 spp.), and Myrtaceae (wood
myrtles) (7%; 4/53 spp.).
When categorized by primary benefit, important plant species of the CBS community are valued most as human food
(35%), for medicinal purposes (25%), for construction use (15%), valued for their benefits to A. pigra (8%), use by other animals
(4%), regulating ecosystem services it provides (i.e., shade tree) (4%), plants valued for aesthetic reasons (2%), and 6% were not
able to be sorted into only one single importance category (Table 2). Eighteen of the 35 people (51%) interviewed named more
than one benefit for a single plant species totaling 35% of plants reported with more than one benefit.
Considering both value indices, we identified the one species in each primary benefit category with the highest UV and IV
score. Anacardium occidentale or cashew (UV ¼ 0.29; IV ¼ 0.17) scored highest for human food benefits offered by its false fruit
pseudocarp “apple” which is stewed and its drupe which houses the cashew seed which is typically roasted. Cassia grandis
(known locally as bucut) was valued most for medicinal properties as a “blood thickener” with seed pods rich in iron

Table 2
Summary of 15 of the 52 plant species regarded as important as reported by 35 local residents of Community Baboon Sanctuary, Belize, during household
interviews. The number of important plant species, and plant benefits are also reported. Use Value and Importance Value are calculated for each plant
species. Primary plant benefits by species are coded to include human food (HF), medicinal use (MED), construction (CON), plants that benefit howler
monkeys (MON), plants used by other animals (AN), species provides a regulating ecosystem service (ES), plants offer aesthetic value (AE) or left blank when
no one primary benefit can be assigned. Plants are presented in decreasing order of calculated IV then UV.

Pllant name Common name Family name No. No. Total no. Primary Use Value (UV) Importance Value (IV)
reported reported plant plant
plant as plant first benefit benefit
important by free- mentioned
(total) listing
(total)
Guazuma unifolia Bay cedar Malvaceae 8 7 14 CON .23 .20
Cassia grandis Bucut Fabaceae 10 6 15 MED .29 .17
Anacardium occidentale Cashew Anacardiaceae 10 6 12 HF .29 .17
Ficus spp. Fig Moraceae 6 3 8 MON .17 .09
Attalea cohune Cahune palm Arecaceae 7 2 9 HF .20 .06
Cocos nucifera Coconut Arecaceae 6 2 6 HF .17 .06
Roystonea regia Cabbage palm Arecaceae 3 1 3 CON .09 .03
Inga edulis Bri bri Fabaceae 2 1 3 MON .06 .03
Acosmium panamense Billyweb Fabaceae 1 1 1 MED .03 .03
Aloe spp. Aloe Xanthorrhoeaceae 1 1 1 MED .03 .03
Desmoncus shippii Basket vine Lamiaceae 1 1 1 CON .03 .03
Pimenta dioica All spice Myrtaceae 1 1 1 HF .03 .03
Syzygium cumini Blackberry Myrtaceae 1 1 1 HF .03 .03
Terminalia catappa Almond Combretaceae 1 1 1 MED .03 .03
Vochysia hondurensis Yemeri Vochysiaceae 1 1 1 CON .03 .03
8 J. Korach et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065

Fig. 4. Summary of Pearson’s product moment correlation calculations assessing the relationship of (a) place attachment to the number of important plant
species and (b) place attachment and the number of plant benefits reported by each interviewed community member in Community Baboon Sanctuary, Belize
(N ¼ 33). Alpha .05.

(UV ¼ .29; IV ¼ 0.17) and Guazuma unifolia (UV ¼ 0.23; IV ¼ 0.20) is valued for its use in construction (as lumber and spe-
cifically, for canoe making). Ficus spp. (UV ¼ 0.17; IV ¼ 0.09) scored highest for its fruits as a beneficial food source for A. pigra.
Further, of all 52 important plant species mentioned in household interviews, 12 plant species were mentioned as important
to animals in general and 8 of those species valued specifically for their benefits to A. pigra (Table 1).
Corresponding line transects uncovered 45e85% of plants sampled at 11 different sites were considered important to local
community members. Specifically, an average of 71% of sampled plants from individual sites (home gardens or CBS lands) and
60% of plants sampled at community sites were considered important. Species reported as having benefits to A. pigra were
present in all samples and averaged 21% of the plant abundance at each site with CBS agreement land comprising the highest
average (26%) followed by home gardens (19%) and community sites (15%).

3.5. Place attachment and personal plant knowledge

When examining an individual’s place attachment (IPS score) and the number of plant species and benefits reported by
each community member, we employed Pearson’s correlation to look for possible trends. In our analyses, as a person’s place
attachment increases, individuals list both a larger number of personally important plant species (r ¼ 0.33; p ¼ .06) and report
a larger number of plant benefits (r ¼ 0.40; p ¼ .02) (Fig. 4). A positive relationship is revealed whereby greater individual
plant knowledge can predict greater place attachment.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to identify the important places, associated personal values and place attachments, and the
benefits of valued plant species found in these important sites as related by CBS community members. Individual sites like
home gardens were considered important most often. Broadening considerations to include these locally valued areas may
gain the support of additional landowners who personally manage these lands thereby increasing local conservation efforts.
Individual sites are described by more CBS community members are associated with higher dependence on these important
sites, increased positive personal values including feeling happiness, inspiration, and peacefulness, and a higher level of place
attachment. With most conservation work globally being performed in delineated formal preserves, shifting focus to smaller,
personally important places that already offer positive life satisfaction can contribute to site-specific, place-based conser-
vation approaches.
Personal values that can reveal our relationships with nature (Chan et al., 2016) have a place in understanding the holistic
value of locally important places and can highlight unique local perspectives. While we expected stronger place dependence
linked to useful, maintained home garden areas and farms, in the CBS community, we welcomed the findings that happiness,
peacefulness, and inspiration also predict increased place attachment for self-identified important places. Not guided by one
primary value, personal place-based values are pluralistic and with IPBES research suggesting more studies on values are
needed (Díaz et al., 2019), it is relevant to consider how values influence personal-nature connections and related conser-
vation actions.
Higher place attachment revealed CBS community members reporting a greater number of important plant species and
plant benefits than those who reported lower IPS scores. If community members with more plant knowledge are offered ways
to contribute additional plant understanding to other community members and to managers responsible for conservation
planning, that information may influence inferred social norms by leaving important plant species in place. If home is the
most valued place, when coupled with individual decision making, further fostering the worth of place-based plant
 J. Korach et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065 9

knowledge could positively impact pro-environmental choices to keep important species populations intact and thereby
increasing the ecological resilience of adjacent forested and riverine ecosystems.
CBS community members acknowledge a considerable number of plant species as important. While this work only
focused on personally-important sites, those interviewed observe, recognize, and value these important plants for a variety of
reasons at the species level. This research contributes additional methods that value place-based community members’
perspectives and supports the findings of other global studies on useful plants conducted in Nepal (Shrestha, 2013), Peru
(Gilmore and Young, 2012), Jordan (Abdelhalim et al., 2017), and Belize (Arvigo et al., 1994; Young, 2011) among other studies.
This study differs in a critical way as CBS members were asked to share a range of plant benefits and not only utilitarian plant
applications. Work is underway to create exhibits in the CBS museum that highlight the most important plants and places of
the region to further reveal this combined community values and knowledge.
Plant sampling was allowed at 11 sites, and while not enough to draw broader conclusions, important plant species are
found at important sites and are preferred for primarily utilitarian reasons following a priori predictions. Interestingly, just
over a tenth of plant benefits mentioned are considered important for their relational value to other animals, primarily A.
pigra. This is worth noting as A. pigra is a wild species with seemingly fewer benefits to humans than more traditionally useful
livestock species though A. pigra may hold greater value as a focal ecotourism species of the region. To note, respondents were
surveyed solely on the premise of their own personally important places and plants and not in the context of CBS’s con-
servation mission. With important plants documented in higher abundance within sampled important sites, it can be inferred
that these plants are used only conservatively and may be left or shared for the benefits offered to A. pigra. Future conser-
vation planning can also focus on A. pigra use of multiple land use types. A. pigra are harvesting fruits from the home gardens
of the community and these garden trees may be important feeding and transit locations for monkeys moving through area
forest fragments. These findings inspire a further examination of how the community’s commitment to this focal species and
the CBS mission is influenced by other co-dependent variables and values (e.g., land ownership, attitudes on conservation,
further explained personal-nature relations, intrinsic motivations) and how these can promote pro-environmental behavior
and positive conservation actions. A mission-driven approach is common in species-based conservation efforts though the
depth of that commitment is not always fully understood. Knowing personal decisions matter in conservation, seeing local
community members as influential place-based conservation managers deserves attention at the forefront of the conser-
vation agenda.
This is the first known study in the region evaluating species UV and IV of locally important plants. High UV and IV species
include primarily native neotropical plants where leaves, fruits, or stems are harvested for multiple, primarily utilitarian
applications (i.e., food, medicine, construction). This compares to other neotropical studies linking higher UV and IV to greater
plant availability (Albuquerque et al., 2015) which may explain the higher percentage of important plants sampled in this
study. While these indices are clearly related, we see using both insightful combining species-based (UV) and more human-
centered (IV) quantitative measures to supplement previously published CBS plant-focused studies (Young, 2011). When UV
and IV indices are coupled with individual plant knowledge and personal values, these measures can build a clearer picture of
which natural sites and species are seen as most valuable.
Combining in situ evaluative methods like household surveys with existing quantitative indices like place attachment, IV,
and UV can highlight a revealing angle on personal and community values and knowledge. Place attachment presented as IPS
was easily interpreted by community members and individual interviews and similar participatory approaches with com-
munities could play a key role in further informing forest managers. Conservation managers with limited time and resources
may find indices like these enticing options to learn place-centered ecological information on important plants and places
during routine community interactions. Building on a community’s established personal values and knowledge may enable us
to lessen the focus on maintaining areas as formal reserves with forced and monitored protections. We focused this work on
simple quantitative measures but future work can include additional qualitative responses (Korach and Myers, in preparation).
It is possible to increase our conservation reach by working directly with local communities already holding personal values
and practicing positive conservation management practices on individual and community lands.

5. Conclusions

This work highlights that personal values and knowledge coupled with existing measures like UV, IV, and place attach-
ment can guide future conservation management efforts. Locally-embedded studies can serve an essential aspect of con-
servation projects, supporting local individuals as knowledgeable experts contributing to the social and ecological health of
their environment (Teel et al., 2018). Plant knowledge and positive personal values serve as an indicator of place attachment
per our study and 1) can assist in determining community members attachment to locally important places and 2) may serve
as a basis for increasing pro-environmental actions (Scannell and Gifford, 2010b; Chan et al., 2016). That relationships among
place attachment, personal values, and place-based knowledge have predictive qualities in CBS inspires a deeper investi-
gation at how other communities connect to important places and species and what additional factors mediate these
personal-nature connections. This information can drive future species monitoring, continue to promote local livelihoods,
respect use prohibitions, and assist in defining important places and community-supported natural area boundaries.
CBS community members collective knowledge of important local places and plant species can support current conser-
vation management and could usefully inform future work to sustain these forested systems. The inclusion of A. pigra in
community responses in this study could serve as a basis for conservation managers to further consider the mission of local
10 J. Korach et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065

organizations as a way to prioritize and include and not exclude important places as defined by the community. Approaches
that include individual knowledge, personal values, and place attachment connections have promise and can serve as a
concrete method for engaging local community members working to promote additional positive conservation behaviors.
With many biodiverse regions located in areas where local agency is high, land management plans that both value and build
on existing community knowledge and include the local community as stewards have the potential to transcend current
models of conservation planning and support individual conservation efforts at the local level.

Acknowledgements

Appreciation to the entire Community Baboon Sanctuary community and Women’s Group for their expertise and honesty.
This research was improved by M. Gilmore, A. Boyle, research compliance (approval #01219e), A. McConnell, H. Eshbaugh, and
R. Lee. Research was supported by Miami University's Project Dragonfly.
The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01065.

References

Abdelhalim, A., Aburjai, T., Hanrahan, J., Abdel-Halim, H., 2017. Medicinal plants used by traditional healers in Jordan, the Tafila region. Phcog. Mag. 13
(Suppl. 1), S95. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1296.203975.
Albuquerque, U.P., Soldati, G.T., Ramos, M.A., de Melo, J.G., de Medeiros, P.M., Nascimento, A.L.B., Júnior, W.S.F., 2015. The influence of the environment on
natural resource use: evidence of apparency. In: Albuquerque, U.P., de Medeiros, P.M., Casas, A. (Eds.), Evolutionary Ethnobiology. Springer, pp. 131e147.
Altman, I., Low, S., 1992. Place Attachment. Springer, New York, NY.
Arnason, T., Uck, F., Lambert, J., Hebda, R., 1980. Maya medicinal plants of San Jose Succotz, Belize. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2, 345e364.
Aron, A., Aron, E.N., Smollan, D., 1992. Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63 (4), 596.
Arvigo, R., Balick, M., 1993. Rainforest Remedies: One Hundred Healing Herbs of Belize, second ed. Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, WI.
Arvigo, R., Epstein, N., Yaquinto, M., 1994. Sastun: My Apprenticeship with a Maya Healer. Harper-Collins, New York, NY.
Berkes, F., 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18 (3), 621e630.
Berkes, F., 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 104 (39), 15188e15193.
Berkes, F., 2017. Sacred Ecology, third ed. Routledge, New York, NY.
Bhagwat, S.A., Nogue
, S., Willis, K.J., 2014. Cultural drivers of reforestation in tropical forest groves of the Western Ghats of India. For. Ecol. Manag. 329,
393e400.
Brooks, J.S., 2017. Design features and project age contribute to joint success in social, ecological, and economic outcomes of community-based conservation
projects. Conserv. Lett. 10 (1), 23e32.
Brooks, J.S., Waylen, K.A., Mulder, M.B., 2012. How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-
based conservation projects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 109 (52), 21265e21270.
Byg, A., Balslev, H., 2001. Diversity and use of palms in Zahamena, eastern Madagascar. Biodivers. Conserv. 10 (6), 951e970.
Cadotte, M.W., Barlow, J., Nun ~ ez, M.A., Pettorelli, N., Stephens, P.A., 2017. Solving environmental problems in the Anthropocene: the need to bring novel
theoretical advances into the applied ecology fold. J. Appl. Ecol. 54 (1), 1e6.
Capaldi, C.A., Dopko, R.L., Zelenski, J.M., 2014. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 5, 976.
CARICOM, 2004. The CARICOM environment in figures 2004. Retrieved from. http://www.caricomstats.org/Environ2004pub.htm.
Chan, K.M., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Go
mez-Baggethun, E., Luck, G.W., 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the
environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 113 (6), 1462e1465.
Clayton, S.D., Myers, G., 2009. Conservation Psychology: Understanding and Promoting Human Care for Nature. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK.
Cox, P., Balick, M., 1994. The ethnobotanical approach to drug discovery. Sci. Am. 270 (6), 82e87.
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-Lo
pez, B., Watson, R.T., Moln
ar, Z., Polasky, S., 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359 (6373),
270e272.
Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E., Ngo, H., Gue ze, M., Agard, J., Chan, K., 2019. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. United Nations: IPBES/7/10/Add.1.
Gavin, M., McCarter, J., Mead, A., Berkes, F., Stepp, J., Peterson, D., Tang, R., 2015. Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1895,
1e6.
Gentry, A., 1996. A Field Guide to the Woody Plants of Northwest South America (Columbia, Ecuador, Peru). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. IL.
Gifford, R., 2014. Environmental psychology matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 541e579. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048.
Gilmore, M.P., Young, J., 2012. The use of participatory mapping in ethnobiological research, biocultural conservation, and community empowerment: a case
study from the Peruvian Amazon. J. Ethnobiol. 32 (1), 6e29.
Godbole, A., Sarnaik, J., Punde, S., 2010. Culture-based conservation of sacred groves: experiences from north western Ghats, India. In: Verschuuren, B.,
Wild, R., McNeely, J., Oviedo G, G. (Eds.), Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture, pp. 219e228 (UK: Earthscan).
Gosling, E., Williams, K.J., 2010. Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: testing connectedness theory among farmers. J.
Environ. Psychol. 30 (3), 298e304.
Himes, A., Muraca, B., 2018. Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 1e7.
Hoffman, B., Gallaher, T., 2007. Importance indices in ethnobotany. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 5, 201e218.
Horwich, R.H., Lyon, J., 1998. Community-based development as a conservation tool: the community baboon sanctuary and the gales point manatee project.
In: Primack, R.B. (Ed.), Timber, Tourists, and Temples: Conservation and Development in the Maya Forest of Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico. Island Press,
Washington, DC, pp. 343e364.
Hummon, D.M., 1992. Community attachment. In: Place attachment. Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 253e278.
IUCN, 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K, Version 3.1. http://
www.iucnredlist.org/details/914/0. (Accessed 25 July 2018).
Khan, M.L., Khumbongmayum, A.D., Tripathi, R.S., 2008. The sacred groves and their significance in conserving biodiversity: an overview. Int. J. Ecol.
Environ. Sci. 34 (3), 277e291.
Lucena, R.F.P., Lima Araújo, E., Albuquerque, U.P., 2007. Does the local availability of woody Caatinga plants (Northeastern Brazil) explain their Use Value?
Econ. Bot. 61 (4), 347e359.
 J. Korach et al. / Global Ecology and Conservation 23 (2020) e01065 11

Martin, C., Czellar, S., 2016. The extended inclusion of nature in self scale. J. Environ. Psychol. 47, 181e194.
Mistry, J., Berardi, A., Tschirhart, C., Bignante, E., Haynes, L., Benjamin, R., De Ville, G., 2016. Community owned solutions: identifying local best practices for
social-ecological sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 21 (2) https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08496-210242, 42.
Mulrennan, M.E., Mark, R., Scott, C.H., 2012. Revamping community-based conservation through participatory research. Can. Geogr./Le. Ge
ogr. Can. 56 (2),
243e259.
Phillips, O., Gentry, A.H., 1993. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: II. Additional hypothesis testing in quantitative ethnobotany. Econ. Bot. 47 (1), 33e43.
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L.D.G., Weiler, B., 2013. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-
environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach. Tourism Manag. 36, 552e566.
Scannell, L., Gifford, R., 2010a. Defining place attachment: a tripartite organizing framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (1), 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.
2009.09.006.
Scannell, L., Gifford, R., 2010b. The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 289e297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.010.
Scannell, L., Gifford, R., 2017. Place attachment enhances psychological need satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 49 (4), 359e389.
Schultz, W., 2000. Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues-statis. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 391e406.
Schultz, P.W., 2001. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 21 (4), 327e339.
Shrestha, S., 2013. Global localism at the Manaslu Conservation Area in the eastern Himalaya, Nepal: integrating forest ecological and ethnobotanical
knowledge for biodiversity conservation. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from. https://etd.ohiolink.edu.
Tadaki, M., Sinner, J., Chan, K.M., 2017. Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecol. Soc. 22 (1).
Teel, T.L., Anderson, C.B., Burgman, M.A., Cinner, J., Clark, D., Este
vez, R.A., St John, F.A., 2018. Publishing social science research in Conservation Biology to
move beyond biology. Conserv. Biol. 32 (1), 6e8.
The World Bank, 2014. Data on terrestrial protected areas. Retrieved from. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.LND.PTLD.ZS.
Tuan, Y., 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. U. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Western, D., Wright, R.M., 1994. The background to community-based conservation. In: Western, D., Wright, M. (Eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in
Community-Based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1e12.
Wyman, M.S., 2008. Conservation initiatives, community perceptions, and forest cover change: a study of the community baboon sanctuary, Belize.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0022006/wyman_m.pdf. .
Wyman, M.S., Stein, T.V., 2010. Modeling social and land-use/land-cover change data to assess drivers of smallholder deforestation in Belize. Appl. Geogr. 30
(3), 329e342.
Wyman, M.S., Stein, T., Southworth, J., Horwich, R., 2011. Does population increase equate to conservation success? Forest fragmentation and conservation
of the black howler monkey. Conserv. Soc. 9 (3), 216e228. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.86992.
Young, C.A., 2008. Belize’s ecosystems: threats and challenges to conservation in Belize. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 1 (1), 18e33. Retrieved from tropi-
calconservationscience.org.
Young, C.A., 2011. A quantitative and comprehensive assessment of Belizean Creole ethnobotany: Implications for forest conservation (Doctoral Dissertation).
Retrieved from. http://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3187768.
Young, C., Horwich, R., 2007. History of protected area designation, co-management and community participation in Belize. Taking Stock.: Bel Age 25,
123e145.
Zelenski, J.M., Nisbet, E.K., 2014. Happiness and feeling connected: the distinct role of nature relatedness. Environ. Behav. 46 (1), 3e23.