Chapter 3

The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism

with a Hand Lens: Fundamental Concepts
and Practices

Ricardo Rozzi and Alejandra Tauro

Abstract Today a great diversity of living beings and human values are invisible to
the prevailing culture of global society. This culture usually associates the word
biodiversity with large organisms such as trees and mammals. Paradoxically, most of
the animal biodiversity is made up of small organisms that remain invisible in global
culture and are under-represented in philosophy, science, and education. In this
chapter, we present various conceptual lenses that contribute to broadening the
appreciation of biological and cultural diversity to capture the beauty and relevance
of small organisms and the multiplicity of languages, forms of knowledge, and
values that different cultural traditions give to biodiversity. We link these lenses
with didactic practices of a new recreational activity and formal education: ecotour-
ism with a magnifying glass. This activity integrates science, arts, humanities, and
ethics. It is nourished by the tradition of naturalists but with philosophical, scientific,
and technological concepts typical of the twenty-first century. Students, tourists, and
other participants practice forms of analogical thinking to co-create knowledge and
biocultural expressions of their own, instead of being passive recipients of informa-
tion. Finally, this field environmental philosophy activity combines bodily and
sensory activities with theoretical readings that provide conceptual foundations for
cultivating an appreciation for the small co-inhabitants with whom we share our
local habitats and the global biosphere.

Keywords Biodiversity · Biocultural ethics · Education · Field environmental

philosophy · Otherness

R. Rozzi (✉)
Sub-Antarctic Biocultural Conservation Program, Department of Philosophy and Religion and
Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Universidad de Magallanes, Puerto Williams, Chile
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Tauro
Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Universidad de Magallanes, Puerto Williams, Chile
El Colegio de Puebla A.C., Puebla, México

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 27

R. Rozzi et al. (eds.), Field Environmental Philosophy, Ecology and Ethics 5,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_3
28 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

3.1 Introduction

The Anthropocene is characterized by a sixth mass extinction of biodiversity

interwoven with global climate change and growing problems of socio-
environmental justice and degradation of human health and well-being (Primack
et al. 2001; McNeill and Engelke 2016). Educators, scientists, policymakers, and
other citizens are challenged today by conceptual and practical problems associated
with global change, which involves complex and interrelated ecological and social
dimensions (Bormann and Kellert 1991). To address these challenges educators and
researchers need to undertake a kind of “Kuhnian scientific revolution” (sensu Kuhn
1970), which conveys new scientific paradigms that emphasize the importance of
culture in research and education (Pickett et al. 1994; Worster 1994; Rozzi et al.
1998; Latour 1999).
Amidst the current massive extinction of biodiversity, it is pressing to develop
educational methodologies that can reconnect society with the beauty and the
multiple ecological, economic, and ethical values of the exuberant diversity of living
beings with whom we co-inhabit the biosphere. Biodiversity losses have cultural
drivers (Isbell et al. 2022). Hence to protect biodiversity we need cultural trans-
formations. With the so-called “digital world” the mediatization of knowledge has
been installed in formal and non-formal education, in the globalized culture. In the
predominantly urban global society, communication is carried out through media
communities, to the point of turning face-to-face encounters with biological and
cultural diversity into an atavistic memory (Bilbeny 1997). However, communica-
tion without face-to-face encounters and sensory experiences leads to a knowledge
about biological and cultural diversity that ends up not being felt. Beyond the
complexities of social-environmental problems that we face today, an ethical chal-
lenge for education in the information society is to train informed but indifferent
individuals. A pressing ethical task is to avoid apathy and that the senses fall asleep.
To awaken the senses, emotions, and feelings of empathy with the diversity of
living beings (including small organisms that often go unnoticed), field experiences,
offer a bright window for formal and non-formal education, including tourism. Field
experiences allow students and citizens of today’s digital world and prevailingly
urban society to reconnect with the biophysical reality that pulsates in amazing
urban, rural and wild habitats. To effectively orient this type of field experiences, an
indispensable step is to clearly understand the interrelationships of biophysical and
symbolic-linguistic dimensions involved in the observation and appreciation of
biodiversity. Very often, however, in science education as well as in nature tourism
the weight of words is forgotten and attention is given only to the biophysical reality
(Ahl and Allen 1996).
Our goal in this chapter is to present a conceptual framework and practical
activities that examine both the languages and values of culture and the biophysical
dimensions of biodiversity. We develop this biocultural approach to education based
on a new type of educational and slow tourism activity: ecotourism with a hand lens.
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 29

3.2 Ecological and Philosophical Lenses

3.2.1 An Ecological Lens: Biodiversity Components,

Patterns, and Processes

The word “biodiversity,” a compound term referring to biological diversity, was

coined by various authors (Laura Tangley, Thomas Lovejoy, Robert L. Peters, and
Walter G. Rosen) in the early 1980s (Sarkar 2021). This simultaneous and indepen-
dent creation of the term underlines that scientific innovations are products of
cultural and historical contexts (Rozzi 2023a). Initially, biodiversity was most
commonly used to describe the number of species (Lovejoy 1980; Swingland
2001). This focus aligned with the prevailing interest inherited from modernity in
the collection and enumeration of biological species, and the logic of the specimen
(Neri 2011). In summary, in the early 1980s uses and measurements of biodiversity
tended to narrowly focus on units or components of biological diversity (Worster
1994).
The meaning of the term biodiversity, however, rapidly expanded to include
components at multiple scales from genes to species, and ecosystems. For example,
it was defined as “the abundance, variety, and genetic constitution of native animals
and plants” (Dodson et al. 1998), and later encompassed all living kingdoms (Noss
1990). In addition, in the 1990s, growing attention was given to ecological patterns
and processes among biodiversity components (Rozzi 2001). For example, interest
directed toward understanding and conserving the diversity of ecological interac-
tions (Young et al. 2016) and evolutionary processes (Primack et al. 2001), which
highlighted the dynamic character of biological systems. Hence, biological units are
not static, like items in museum collections, but are dynamic entities with internal
processes and interactions with other entities.
A systemic approach is helpful to interrelate biodiversity: components, patterns,
and processes. One of these approaches was developed by forest ecologist Jerry
Franklin and his collaborators (1981) who recognized three primary attributes of
ecosystems: composition, structure, and function. To characterize the biodiversity of
an area, Ricardo Rozzi and collaborators (2001) adapted and defined Franklin’s three
attributes as follows:
• Composition refers to the identity and variety of elements or components in a
collection and includes species lists as well as measures of species diversity and
genetic diversity.
• Pattern refers to the structure of a system, and includes the ways elements (e.g.,
populations of species and their gene pools) are distributed in a given habitat and
the complexity of biophysical organization from the small scale of microhabitats
(e.g., cracks in rocks, cavities in logs) to the large scales of landscapes (e.g., a
river basin, mountainous slopes across altitudinal gradients) or planet Earth (e.g.,
distribution of tropical, temperate, and polar biomes).
30 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

• Process refers to ecological interactions and evolutionary phenomena that take

place among the components in a given habitat and across habitats, and includes
migration of populations, gene flows, disturbances, and nutrient cycling.
For field ecology education, this systemic has a great heuristic value. Students can
practice observations and drawings in which they identify different species (com-
position), they understand how they are distributed in the habitat (patterns), and
recognize ecological interactions (e.g., processes). Students can also clearly under-
stand how the three attributes are interdependent. For example, a structural simpli-
fication of an ecosystem (e.g., transformation of diverse forests into a monospecific
plantation) might disrupt fundamental ecological processes (e.g., pollination inter-
actions), which lead to losses of the composition (e.g., losses of local populations or
even endemic species).
For field environmental philosophy (FEP), however, these attributes are not
sufficient. As mentioned in the Introduction to Part I (Rozzi 2023b), this methodo-
logical approach differs from field ecology because FEP integrates epistemological,
ontological, and ethical dimensions. FEP students and other participants address
epistemological questions to not only study biological diversity, but also the
methods for investigating and naming biodiversity. They analyze philosophical,
ethnographic, and ecological texts to investigate interrelated biophysical and cultural
(both material and immaterial culture with its symbolic-linguistic features) dimen-
sions of biodiversity. Ontological questions are critical today, because the web has
become one of the main sources of biodiversity information, providing detailed
information about specimens’ distribution in space and time. Field experiences
complemented with philosophical and biological research prepare FEP students to
ask about the nature of other-than-human living beings. Are they merely objects for
human use and study? Or, are they subjects with intentionality and sentiency?
Epistemological and ontological questions provide a basis for ethical questions
about ways humans interact with biodiversity and value other-than-human living
beings. To address these philosophical questions, in the practice of FEP we have
adopted the “3Hs” conceptual framework of the biocultural ethic (sensu Rozzi
2013), which complements the ecological framework to characterize biodiversity.

3.2.2 A Philosophical Lens: The 3Hs Triad of the Biocultural

Ethic

The “3Hs” conceptual framework of the biocultural ethic values the vital links
among co-in-Habitants and their life Habits that take place in shared Habitats, as
has been explained in previous chapters. Below we concisely define these terms to
facilitate its application in the practice of ecotourism with a hand lens.
The term co-inhabitant was coined by Ricardo Rozzi motivated by early field
experiences (Rozzi 2004). Rozzi spent his childhood in the Andean mountains of
central Chile, where in the mornings he was woken up by the songs of thrushes, the
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 31

condors raised their chicks with dedication and some sparrows regularly came to ask
him for food. It is surprising how the Scottish philosopher David Hume also paid
attention to the ability of understanding and caring behavior of birds. From early
field experiences and readings of Hume and other philosophers and ethologists,
Rozzi conceives birds as subjects, not merely objects of study. Birds present
intentional behaviors, have sentient capacity and a type of moral sentiments for the
care of their progeny. In addition, with birds we share habitats, hence we are
co-inhabitants.
The term co-inhabitant acquires a descriptive and also a normative sense.
Descriptive, because habitat sharing is a phenomenon that has emerged from a
long history of ecological and evolutionary interactions among humans, birds, and
other living beings. Normative, because taking care of the habitat for the well-being
of human beings, birds, and other living beings is a necessary condition for an ethic
of co-inhabiting biodiverse communities. We can understand this double meaning
(descriptive and normative) of the term co-inhabitant through an analogy with the
term companion. The latter originally alluded to sharing bread (from the Latin,
cum = with; panis = bread), and in many communities to share the bread (food)
is part of rituals and an ethical imperative (Rozzi 2018). Co-inhabitant refers to
sharing a habitat, and it should also become a conscious understanding and an ethical
imperative for having relationships of care with other co-inhabitants and the shared
habitats.
Habitats are the condition of possibility for the existence of cohabitants and their
life habits. For example, a woodpecker can only dig holes if there are trees to dig. If
the trees disappear, the habit of digging also disappears and the population of
woodpeckers will probably become extinct since they will not be able to feed or
reproduce in a habitat devoid of trees. These biophysical interactions are captured by
diverse languages. At the southern end of the Americas, in the forests of Cape Horn,
the Magellanic woodpecker (Campephilus magellanicus) is called by the indigenous
Yahgan people: “lana.” This name derives from the Yahgan word “lan,” which
means tongue. It alludes to the habit of the woodpecker to extending its long tongue
to extract larvae from the holes it pecks in the trunks of old growth trees. The
scientific name of the genus, Campephilus, defines the bird as a lover (philus in
Greek) of caterpillar (Campei in Greek), and its specific name indicates that it
inhabits the forests of Magallanes (magellanicus in Latin). Its English common
name, Magellanic woodpecker, characterizes the identity of this bird by its habit
of pecking wood in the austral woodlands. Hence, the connections between the
habitats, habits, and the identity of this bird co-inhabitant can be detected in the
biophysical existence of the forests as well as in the cultural meanings of the
languages of indigenous populations, scientific nomenclature, and European settlers.
This type of biophysical and cultural interrelationship helps us to introduce the
biocultural meaning of the “hand lens” in the following section.
32 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

3.3 Four Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens

In this section, we present four types of conceptual lenses that we use in the activity
of ecotourism with a hand lens: the biocultural lens, the aesthetic lens, the ethical
lens, and the economic lens. These conceptual lenses orient students, tourists, and
other visitors to appreciate biological and cultural diversity. For each lens, we first
introduce ecological and philosophical concepts, then we propose a didactic activity,
and we finish by outlining a concise reflection that integrates perspectives from the
sciences, the arts, the humanities, and ethics.

3.3.1 The Biocultural Lens of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens

We, humans, participate not only in the biophysical but also in the cultural structures
and processes of habitats. Our human perceptions and understanding of biological
diversity are informed by the properties of other living beings as well as by attributes
of our material (technology) and immaterial (symbolic and linguistic) culture. The
compound term biocultural expresses this integration. We use the concept of
“biocultural lenses” to indicate that any human “observer” (including scientists
with their research methods, and conceptual taxonomies) interprets biodiversity
informed by biophysical and cultural attributes (Fig. 3.1). In turn, the ways we
humans perceive and understand biodiversity and their environment will influence
the ways we coinhabit ecosystems, modifying (conserving or disrupting) their
structure, processes, and composition. We will illustrate this point with the practice
of ecotourism with a hand lens.
As illustrated above in the woodpecker example, organisms are named by
different languages. Let us now review the case of the lichen observed in Fig. 3.1,
considering four languages used by different human cultures that coinhabit the
region of southern South America where this lichen grows (Fig. 3.2). First, the
indigenous culture of the Mapuche people calls this lichen kalcha-aliwen, where
kalcha means hair and aliwen means tree. This Mapuche name expresses a remark-
able similarity with the lens of the 3Hs of biocultural ethics. Kalcha-aliwen indicates
that the habit of this lichen is to grow in the form of hair and to do so on another
cohabitant, a tree. Both the lichen and the tree share the habitat of the temperate
forests of South America. Second, the culture of the Yagan people calls this lichen
“chirlej.” In the Yagan language, this is a generic name for lichens and mosses.
Third, the scientific name coined by the Argentine lichenologist, Susana Calvelo, is
Protousnea magellanica. The name of the genus expresses an evolutionary attribute
proposing that it is an ancestral form (Proto in Greek) of the lichens of the genus
Usnea. Its specific name indicates that its geographical distribution corresponds to
the Magellanic forests. Fourth, the Arabic ushnah is the source for the scientific
name of the genus Usnea. Fifth and sixth, the English and Spanish names for this
lichen are Old Man’s beard and Barba de Viejo, respectively. The meaning of these
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 33

Fig. 3.1 Scheme of the use of a biocultural hand lens. The bidirectional dotted line illustrates that
observing biodiversity entails dialectical relationships between the biophysical attributes of the
observed living beings (e.g., a lichen) and the cultural attributes of the human observer. The latter
includes material culture (e.g., technological devices such as a magnifying glass) and immaterial
culture (e.g., languages that include scientific and/or vernacular names of other living beings).
Illustration drawn by Mauricio Álvarez

two European languages is the same, and they point out an analogy between the
shape of human beard hairs and that of lichens hanging from trees. This analogy is a
clear expression of the biocultural imagination that European settlers had to name
this lichen.
As mentioned above biocultural relationships involve both immaterial and mate-
rial culture. Regarding the latter, some uses of the lichen by different cultures are
illustrated in Fig. 3.3 (images and text below modified from Rozzi 2012). First, the
indigenous Mapuche people use kalcha-aliwen lichens to dye wool. The tincture is
extracted by boiling the lichen in water. Additionally, an infusion is prepared to
purify the blood, heal ulcers and stop diarrhea. For this reason, the lichen is also
called kalcha-lawen. Mapuche people call medicinal plants lawen. Second, Yahgan
people use chirlej as fuel to light the stove, and they smoke this lichen. Third and
fourth, contemporary science and traditional Arabic cultures have used this lichen
for medicinal purposes. Like in the Mapuche region, in the Islamic region as well as
in China, Europe, and North America, this lichen has been utilized in traditional
medicine for over a thousand years. In the nineteenth century, modern science
discovered that it possesses a strong antibiotic that is effective in the treatment of
several bacterial diseases, and it also exhibits antiviral, antiprotozoal, antimitotic,
anti-inflammatory, and analgesic activity: usnic acid. Today, this acid is included as
an ingredient in medicines, toothpastes, hair shampoos, and many other products that
express multifaceted biocultural, material, interrelationships between humans and
34 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

Fig. 3.2 Representation of the diversity of languages to name a species of lichen that grows in the
Magellanic forests in southwestern South America. The figure illustrates the persons from whom we
learned each of the names for this species of lichen. Clockwise these are Mapuche poet Lorenzo
Aillapan, Yahgan handcrafter Julia González, Argentinean lichenologist Susana Calvelo, Middle
Age Arabic doctor Ebubekir Muhammed bin Zekeriya Razi, British naturalist Charles Darwin, and
Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana. Figure modified from Rozzi et al. (2012a, p. 139), and
redrawn by Mauricio Álvarez

lichens in modern society. Fifth and sixth, English and Spanish biologists have used
this lichen as a study object to investigate evolution. Naturalist Charles Darwin who
extensively traveled in southern South America included examples of lichen—tree
interactions to develop his theory of evolution based on natural selection. Comple-
mentarily, Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana proposed an alternative theory of
evolution based on the mechanism of natural drift. These alternative theories illus-
trate how the same biophysical reality can inspire different scientific theories, which
in turn are linked to contrasting cultural backgrounds and values (Rozzi et al. 1998;
Rozzi 1999).
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 35

Fig. 3.3 Representation of the uses of the Old Man’s beard lichens. The figure illustrates the
persons from whom we learned each of the uses for this type of lichen. Clockwise these are
Mapuche poet Lorenzo Aillapan, Yahgan handcrafter Julia González, Argentinean lichenologist
Susana Calvelo, Middle Age Arabic doctor Ebubekir Muhammed bin Zekeriya Razi, British
naturalist Charles Darwin, and Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana. Figure modified from
Rozzi (2012, pp. 64–67), and redrawn by Mauricio Álvarez

3.3.1.1 A Didactic Practice of the Biocultural Lens

Biocultural relationships emerge from observations and practices that include both
discovery and creation (Rozzi et al. 2010). For this reason, in the practice of
ecotourism with a magnifying glass, students are invited to observe and also invent.
Following the naturalist tradition, students or even tourists and other participants are
invited to look for different types of lichens or small plants and draw them (Fig. 3.4).
For this, they are provided with field notebooks and are asked to pay special attention
to the habit of life, the habitat and microhabitat where they grow, and the
co-inhabitants that they can identify and draw. This activity can be carried out in
an urban habitat, such as a plaza or garden, in a rural habitat such as an orchard, or in
a wild habitat such as an ancient forest.
A more structured exercise that has been particularly useful to understand the 3Hs
model of the biocultural ethic, and to practice field observation, drawing and
36 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

Fig. 3.4 Representation of an ecotourism with hand lens practice to experientially understand the
concept of the biocultural lens. In the field, students search for micro-habitats to observe lichens or
other small organisms such as mosses or invertebrates. For example, in a city, they can find a park
bushes or trees coinhabiting with snails. Students use the magnifying glass to observe them and the
conceptual biocultural lens to draw them identifying life habits, co-inhabitants, and the habitat they
share. Participants in this Field Environmental Philosophy experience are also invited to invent a
name for each of the observed co-inhabitant. Later they are asked to compare their invented names
with scientific names and vernacular names given to the co-inhabitants they depicted and named

participatory creativity has been the use of predefined tables that need to be com-
pleted by participants in ecotourism with a hand lens experiences. One of these
exercises is based on the different types of non-vascular plants (mosses and liver-
worts) and lichens that coinhabit on the surface of rocks, trunks, or soil. Students are
asked to find, observe, draw, and create a name for each type of co-inhabitant with a
characteristic life habit on each of the main types of micro-habitats (Fig. 3.5). After
completing their tables, participants show to the partners of this experience the
co-inhabitants they found, pointing out their life habit and microhabitat. Then they
show their drawings and name for each co-inhabitant. In the field, they compare their
drawing and names among themselves and reflect on the similarities and differences
in the attributes that caught their attention.
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 37

Fig. 3.5 Model of a table completed by a student, tourist, or participant in the experience of
ecotourism with hand lens. To complete this table with drawings and names, participants have to
first identify three main types of co-inhabitants of “miniature forests”: mosses, liverworts, and
lichens. For each of them, they have to search for species that have one of the main life habits:
38 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

3.3.1.2 A Reflection on the Biocultural Lens

The biocultural lens complements other scientific and technological lenses. These
lenses are complementary, not exclusive. Together they allow us to appreciate that
there is a great diversity not only among mosses, lichens, and other organisms but
also among the perceptions and attitudes that humans have about and toward them.
The interrelationships between biological diversity and cultural diversity generate
biocultural diversity: we co-inhabit at the cognitive and ethical intersections that
emerge between the diverse living beings and the different languages and forms of
ecological knowledge through which we interact with them. Biocultural conserva-
tion aims for the conservation of both diversities and their interrelationships, which
have coevolved for centuries in many places of the planet, and today offer sustain-
able forms of biocultural co-inhabitation. In this way, the biocultural lens also
sensitizes the participants regarding the need for a socio-environmental justice that
defends well-being, diverse expressions of human and other-than-human life, and a
more bio-culturally diverse global society.

3.3.2 The Aesthetic Lens in Ecotourism with a Hand Lens

In the twentieth century, philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein called attention to lan-

guage and the ways of seeing the world. In this FEP practice, we highlight the
relevance of the diversity of languages and disciplines to observe the world. Sci-
ences, humanities, and arts play complementary roles in the appreciation of biodi-
versity. When we began teaching FEP, it was clear that students gained not only by
being exposed to field experiences and scientific research, but also to artistic
practices such as composing metaphors, writing poems, keeping a personal journal,
or drawing. For twenty-first-century science education, it is necessary to counter-
balance specialization and recover practices that were common among nineteenth-
century naturalists such as Alexander von Humboldt or Ernst Haeckel.
In ecotourism with hand lens practices, we ask participants to focus on drawing as
a way to understand fundamental aesthetic dimensions involved in the observations
of biodiversity. We ask them to focus on ordering principles on several levels, such
as the interrelationships between the type of organisms and microhabitat (e.g.,
drawing of organisms on contrast faces of trunks exposed to sunlight or rain versus
faces protected from direct radiation or rainfall) or morphological architecture of
organisms with distinct patterns of symmetry in their bodies. For example, students

Fig. 3.5 (continued) pleurocarp or acrocarp for mosses; leafy or thallous for liverworts, crustose,
fruticose, or leafy for lichens. Finally, they have to find each of the identified co-inhabitants and
their life habits growing on the three main types of substrates or micro-habitat: rock, soil, or trunk.
This model table is based on real exercises that have been conducted at Omora Park since the year
2000. Drawings by Mauricio Álvarez
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 39

Fig. 3.6 Representation of an exercise applying the aesthetic lens of ecotourism with hand lens.
With a hand lens in his hand, the student observes small non-vascular plants that are often
overlooked. While observing them he is able to distinguish patterns of radial symmetry that
characterize mosses and patterns of bilateral symmetry that characterize liverworts. These patterns
of symmetries are located both in the plants that are being observed and in the mental categories of
the observer that study them. The latter is a conceptual lens that we call the “aesthetic lens.”
Photographs by Adam Wilson. Figure drawn by Mauricio Álvarez

have to draw mosses characterized by radial symmetry and leafy liverworts charac-
terized by bilateral symmetry (Fig. 3.6).
This exercise helps to focus their observations and provides the basis for discus-
sions on a basic biocultural question. Are the radial and bilateral symmetries
attributes of mosses and liverworts or are they attributes of mental classificatory
schemes of the observer? This question opens a reflection on biocultural dialectical
relationships between the discovery of geometrical forms linked to patterns of
symmetry in nature and the invention of geometrical categories linked to patterns
of symmetry that are projected by observers onto nature to classify different types of
organisms. With a magnifying glass, small organisms can be observed and examined
in the field, with the mental biocultural lens these organisms can be classified.
40 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

3.3.2.1 A Didactic Practice of the Aesthetic Lens

Drawing practices enable students to experientially understand the interrelationships

between mental representations of the observer and the biophysical attributes of the
observed organisms. They understand that this type of biocultural interfaces is an
essential part of scientific work as much as of nature art work. Both scientists and
artists invent concepts and observe patterns in nature. To put this understanding into
other practices we also ask students to create small sculptures in clay (Fig. 3.7).
During the twentieth century, this unity between art and science was lost due to
disciplinary specialization in academia.

3.3.2.2 A Reflection on the Aesthetic Lens

With the FEP activity of ecotourism with a hand lens we aim to bring the artistic and
scientific practices back together. Students work at Omora Park in teams with artists
and scientists to discover and invent “lenses,” which later are used to enhance the
experience of tourists and other visitors who are better equipped to discover and

Fig. 3.7 Illustration of two ecotourism with hand lens practices to experientially understand the
concept of the aesthetic lens. In the field, students use a magnifying glass (or hand lens) to observe
small organisms such as lichens of the genus Cladonia. They pay attention to the habitats (where
they grow) and habits (how they grow) and then represent their observations and understanding by
drawing using colors and/or creating small sculptures in clay. Participants in this Field Environ-
mental Philosophy experience are invited to reflect on the distinction between the present actual
living beings and their representations. In particular, they are asked to reflect on the attributes that
are lost (and those that are added) in the representation as compared to the actual organisms that are
present in the habitat that is being explored in the practice of ecotourism with a hand lens. Drawings
by Mauricio Álvarez
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 41

enjoy “the invisible world” of small organisms. The physical magnifying glass
amplifies their observed organisms; the aesthetic hand lens helps visitors to learn
new mental schemes and concepts through which to observe and appreciate
biodiversity.

3.3.3 The Ethical Lens in Ecotourism with a Hand Lens

Nature observations and scientific discoveries may have implications for the ways
we coinhabit the biosphere. Physical and conceptual hand lenses help us to perceive,
understand, and value biodiversity. The smallest beings (such as mosses, insects,
bacteria, and viruses) often remain invisible in our daily lives. Making visible the
invisible will help us to understand our position in the world. One of the most
striking results of the ecotourism with a hand lens activity FEP practices is that
students and other participants are able to gain awareness about the “lenses” through
which we perceive and value biodiversity.
Having a magnifying glass in the hand has multiple effects. First, it enables
participants to observe small living beings. This requires participants to slow
down to observe these overlooked organisms. This change of rhythm, from an
accelerated life at school or cities to a slow education and slow tourism experiences,
enables FEP participants to pay more attention on the one hand to small biodiversity
and on the other to their own senses and breathing. FEP is a multi-sensorial
experience that is guided by analogical thinking as well as by scientific and philo-
sophical concepts. In the field, the combination of senses and concepts orients the
realization of sharing habitats with plants, other animals and members of local
communities. At moments like this, with the realization that we share habitats,
biocultural diversity ceases to be merely a concept and begins to be an experience
and awareness of co-inhabitation with diverse living beings and life histories, which
regularly remain outside the experiential domain of formal education (Fig. 3.8).
By practicing FEP, students and other participants are invited to cultivate the
ethical practice of undertaking responsibility for caring for other-than-human
co-inhabitants and the habitats we share with them. Our connections to biodiversity
are profound, and through the ethical lens, FEP participants can appreciate the
intrinsic value of other-than-human living beings. To explore these concepts and
values linked to the paradigm of the cellular, biochemical, and genetic unity of life
we combine field experiences with a practice in the laboratory linked to the notion
that humans share with all eukaryotes some basic cellular structures.

3.3.3.1 A Didactic Practice of the Ethical Lens

A first activity begins in the field where students collect a few leaves of mosses or
liverworts. Then they bring the plant samples to a laboratory equipped with micro-
scopes. In the laboratory students rub a cotton ball on their buccal mucosa, extracting
42 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

Fig. 3.8 Representation of slow observation applying the ethical lens of ecotourism with hand lens.
With a hand lens in his hand, the student slows down and is able to smell the fragrances of plants,
feel his breathing and encounter small plants “face to face” in a shared habitat. This moment enables
the realization of being co-inhabitants with a plethora of other-than-human living beings. This
realization can inspire an ethics of co-inhabitation that demands caring relationships with the shared
habitats and the community of diverse co-inhabitants. Photographs by Adam Wilson. Figure drawn
by Mauricio Álvarez

some cells. They then prepare slides with samples of plant leaves and other slides
with the cells of their oral epithelium. Under the microscope, they observe the
remarkable similarities, particularly the presence of the nucleus and mitochondria
in both types of cells (Fig. 3.9). They also observe notable differences, the presence
of cell wall and chloroplasts only in plant cells.
A second activity follows by returning to the field where students perform a
“mindful breathing” exercise (Fig. 3.10). They exercise slow movements of air
inhalation and exhalation. Integrating their senses, their biology knowledge, and
their observation under the microscopes they reflect on the processes of cellular
respiration that take place in the mitochondria of humans and plants. They also
reflect on the photosynthesis processes that take place in the chloroplasts of plants,
and generate oxygen, an essential element for human respiration.
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 43

Fig. 3.9 Illustration of an ecotourism with hand lens practice in the laboratory to experientially
understand the concept of the ethical lens. In the field, students collect leaves of non-vascular or
vascular plants. In the laboratory, they cut thin slices of plant tissue from leaves, and they also rub
cotton on their buccal mucosa, extracting some cells. Then they prepared slides with plant tissue and
other with their buccal tissue. Under the microscope, they carefully observe structural similarities
and differences between both types of cells. Figure drawn by Mauricio Álvarez

Fig. 3.10 Illustration of an ecotourism with hand lens practice in the field to experientially
understand the concept of the ethical lens. Students mindfully breathe, with slow inhalations and
exhalations focusing on plant fragrances, and reflecting on the cycle of air nourished by the oxygen
(O2) generated in the chloroplasts of plants by the process of photosynthesis and the carbon dioxide
(CO2) generated in their mitochondria (as well as the mitochondria in plant cells) by the process of
cellular respiration. This mindful breathing experience integrates biological processes and senses as
well as cultural understanding of the biogeochemical cycles that link human and plant
co-inhabitants in particular habitat as well as in the biosphere as a whole. Moreover, this cycle
links both humans and plants with the energy of the sun that is the ultimate source to produce the
molecules of Adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which provide the energy required by humans and
other living beings to move, grow, and reproduce. Figure drawn by Mauricio Álvarez
44 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

3.3.3.2 A Reflection on the Ethical Lens

Ecotourism with a hand lens not only amplifies the vision to see mosses, and other
organisms of the miniature forests of the Cape Horn; it also gives participants an
ethical lens that broadens our mental, perceptual and affective images about nature
and our relationship with nature. Science teaches us that mosses, humans, and all
living beings share the common vital pulse of cellular respiration. Through the
discovery of the miniature forests of small organisms, FEP participants learn that
mosses and other living beings also breathe, grow, and reproduce in a similar way to
us humans. When participants return to their homes, gardens, fields, streets, or
plazas, they will then be able to discover the little mosses, liverworts, and lichens
living in their own everyday habitats, and they will know that they are not mere
“natural resources” but, like ourselves, they are living, diverse and beautiful
co-inhabitants. Through observation of the diversity and unity of life, the experience
of ecotourism with a hand lens helps students, tourists, and other citizens to
understand multiple and complementary ecological, aesthetic, ethical as well as
economic values of biodiversity.

3.3.4 The Economic Lens in Ecotourism with a Hand Lens

The economic lens of ecotourism with a hand lens can be introduced in relation to a
unique attribute of the region of Cape Horn: the world’s cleanest rainwaters have
been recorded at Omora Park (Rozzi et al. 2012b). Non-vascular plants play a critical
ecological role in the regulation of hydrologic flow; they contribute to the avoidance
of floods when high precipitation events occur, and prevent the drastic diminution of
water volumes during periods of drought (Fig. 3.11). The bryophytes, lichens, and
other types of vegetation also contribute to maintaining the quality of the water. On
the one hand, they prevent erosion; on the other, they act as a filter that retains
sediments suspended in the water, especially in peat bog habitats. The quality of the
water is critical not only for drinking but also for the operation of fishery canneries
established in Cape Horn. For this industry, water use with a high degree of purity is
crucial to avoid chemical processes, such as the rusting of cans that are used to pack
commercially valuable shellfish species, such as king crab and queen crab (Rozzi
et al. 2010).

3.3.4.1 A Didactic Practice of the Economic Lens

FEP participants learn that little plants play important ecological and economic roles,
acting like “natural sponges” that filter and regulate the flow and quality of water. On
trees that grow in a university campus, urban park, or in old growth forests, FEP
students and/or other participants (importantly, environmental policy and decision
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 45

Fig. 3.11 Representation of the water cycle regulated by mosses to appreciate the economic lens of
ecotourism with hand lens. With a magnifying glass in his hand, the student can observe how
carpets of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) regulate the stem flow of rain waters. Bryophytes act
like sponges that filter and regulate the flow of water (detail of a magnified moss through which
water runs off). Water in the form of mist or rain runs through the treetops and down their trunks. In
the sub-Antarctic Magellanic forests of the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, bryophytes form thick
covers on the surface of trunks and capture the rainwater that flows slowly toward the ground. This
enhances the quality of drinking water (exemplified in a glass of water) and prevents floods when
high precipitation events occur. These “miniature forests” provide an essential ecosystem service
that has high economic value for humans as well as high ecological value for ecosystem function-
ing. Photographs by Paola Vezzani and Adam Wilson. Figure composed by Mauricio Álvarez

makers) mount an experiment to demonstrate the ecosystem service provided by

mosses that grow on trunks and regulate rainwaters’ flows and quality (Fig. 3.12).

3.3.4.2 A Reflection on the Economic Lens

The economic lens is linked to the concept of ecosystem services that connects
natural systems and social and economic systems (Costanza et al. 1997). During the
twenty-first century, worldwide studies on the status and relevance of ecological
systems for society have been carried out under the umbrella of the United Nations
46 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

Fig. 3.12 Illustration of an ecotourism with hand lens practice in the field to experimentally
understand the concept of the economic lens. FEP participants select four trees (treatments)
whose trunks have different degrees of inclination and have contrasting covers of mosses. The
ideal setting is: Tree 1 = trunk has no inclination.no moss cover; Tree 2 = trunk with no inclination
and high moss cover; Tree 3 = high inclination (> 45o) and no moss cover; Tree 4 = high
inclination (> 45o) and dense moss cover. To measure stem flow volume in the field, students
install a bisecting hose around the circumference of the trunk near the base of each of the selected
trees. They connect this hose to a graduated rain gauge for water collection. In each trunk, students
pour muddy water over the trunk and the water that runs off is captured in a rain gauge connected to
the base of the trunk. The time it takes for the water to drain and the amount of water captured is
measured. With school children and university students, this setting can be installed with five
replicates for each treatment; twenty trees in total. Figure drawn by Mauricio Álvarez

Environment Program (UNEP) and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Braat

and de Groot 2012). In ecotourism with a hand lens, participants conduct simple
experiments in the field to learn about the economic lens and concept of ecosystem
services.
The prevailing mental image is the dominant economic model the “Mickey
Mouse Model” in which the environment, society, and economy represent separate
spheres (Lucena et al. 2010). In addition, economy is disproportionally more
important than society and the environment (Fig. 3.13). The activities in ecotourism
with a hand lens help participants to understand a novel model of sustainability in
which economy is central, but it is inserted within the broader context of society and
the life support systems (Fig. 3.13). The concepts and experiences with economic
lens help participants to critically compare the “Mickey Mouse” and the “Bull’s
Eye” economic models. Under the latter, economy represents one component of
society that, in turn, is immersed within the broader system that sustains life on
Earth. In this way, the economic lens contributes to an understanding of the
instrumental value of biodiversity, and the updated definition by the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2013 of sustainable development as
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 47

Fig. 3.13 Diagram illustrating how the economic lens aims to foster the vision of interactions
between the environment, society, and the economy. A. On the left, the old Mickey Mouse Model
shows economy as most important with society and the environment as separate, minor, side
issues. B. On the right, the new Bullseye Model illustrates an understanding that our society is
dependent on the environment and that our economy is dependent on our society. Figure modified
from Lucena et al. (2010, p. 34), and drawn by Mauricio Álvarez

“one that satisfies the needs of present generations, while safeguarding the system
that sustains the life of the Earth” (Griggs et al. 2013; Brandi 2015).

3.4 Implications of the Four Lenses for Biocultural

Conservation: A Real Story from Cape Horn

Today a vast diversity of living beings and human values are invisible, because they
do not have a place in the narrow worldview that governs global society. The
limitations of a worldview—the lenses through which we view the world—become
evident when confronting otherness. As an example, global standard biodiversity
assessments based on vascular plants had considered floristic diversity of southwest-
ern South America to be poor. However, long-term botanical fieldwork in the region
disclosed its floristic otherness; non-vascular plants had a greater diversity than
vascular plant species. Moreover, the sub—Antarctic Magellanic ecoregion hosts
>5% of the world’s species of non-vascular plants. This stimulated the research
team at Omora Park to “change the lenses to assess biodiversity richness” and focus
on non-vascular plants for defining conservation priorities in high-latitude
ecoregions (Rozzi et al. 2008). This change made visible an idiosyncratic biodiver-
sity and provided an argument to create the UNESCO Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve
in 2005.
48 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

For the first time in the world, a biosphere reserve was designated based on the
diversity of mosses. These tiny organisms had rarely been perceived and valued in
the international conservation community. This led to a change in the language
referring to mosses, and to an awareness of inter-species co-inhabitation. Thus, the
“miniature forests of Cape Horn” metaphor was composed to communicate that little
organisms are co-inhabitants rather than mere “natural resources.”
The field environmental philosophy activity of ecotourism with a hand lens
helped citizens and decision-makers discover the beauty, diversity, and ecological
importance of a flora that regularly goes unnoticed (Goffinet et al. 2012). Through
the ethical lens, visitors are able to observe floristic otherness in a way that they
recover the awareness of cellular processes that are common to mosses, humans, and
all living beings. In this type of “forest bathing” (sensu Guan et al. 2017; Hansen
et al. 2017), the direct encounter with mosses and other plants in field and the
orientation provided by the four lenses of ecotourism with a hand lens help visitors to
experience the vital pulse of life. Ecotourism with a hand lens summons ethical,
aesthetical, and ecological values that broaden the perspectives that prevail in the
relationship of global society with nature, and reconnect citizens with the wonders of
biocultural diversity.

3.5 Concluding Remarks

The Portuguese philosopher Magda Costa-Carvalho (2023) affirms that philosophy

contributes to deconstructing and reconstructing ideas in education with provocative
concepts such as small, silent, and (in)significant. Ecotourism with a hand lens uses
physical or technological tools, such as the optical lenses of a magnifying glass, or a
microscope. Ecotourism with a hand lens also uses conceptual or symbolic lenses,
such as languages, values, and concepts, that guide us in the observation of the
cosmos. These conceptual lenses allow us to reflect on how we view the biodiversity
that we research and use. These lenses allow us to access the microcosm of
biodiversity and discover that what is small is beautiful, essential, and diverse.
Biocultural tourism, as proposed by Breakey and Breakey (2015, 2023), provides
education within natural and/or cultural heritage experiences through the broadening
of ethical consideration and care to new ecological and/or cultural phenomena. The
practices of ecotourism with a hand lens have a transformative effect on students,
tourists, and other members of the global urban and digital society who are offered
new ways to experience co-inhabiting with biological and cultural diversity. For
example, through face-to-face encounters with members of other cultures and with
small living beings. These encounters revitalize the understanding of the sense of
belonging to biocultural communities. This sense of co-inhabitation in biocultural
communities compensates for the disconnection exacerbated by the rationalistic
individualism that dominates the urbanized and digitized global society.
In summary, with the four lenses of ecotourism with a hand lens, we propose:
(1) to recover the connection with biocultural diversity through direct and
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 49

multisensory experiences, (2) to generate creative educational activities based on the

singularities of the places, (3) to inspire invention of new activities as diverse as
educational and problematic situations exist. For education, these practices present a
balance and integration between the biophysical dimensions and the cultural dimen-
sions (material and symbolic) of biodiversity. These last dimensions are expressed in
the diversity of languages and recover multiple ways of “understanding and
expressing the world” through analogical thinking and poetic craftsmanship. These
practices seek to guide forms of intercultural co-inhabitation and inter-species
relationships.

Acknowledgments Authors thank Kelli Moses for valuable comments and acknowledge the
support from the Cape Horn International Center (CHIC) - ANID PIA/BASAL (PFB210018).

References

Ahl V, Allen TFH (1996) Hierarchy theory: a vision, vocabulary and epistemology. University of
Columbia Press, New York
Bilbeny N (1997) La revolución en la ética: Hábitos y Creencias en la Sociedad Digital. Anagrama,
Barcelona
Bormann H, Kellert S (1991) Ecology, economics, ethics: the broken circle. Yale University Press,
New Haven
Braat LC, De Groot R (2012) The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science
and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst Serv
1(1):4–15
Brandi C (2015) Safeguarding the earth system as a priority for sustainable development and global
ethics: the need for an earth system SDG. J Glob Ethics 11(1):32–36
Breakey N, Breakey H (2015) Tourism and Aldo Leopold’s ‘Cultural Harvest’: creating virtuous
tourists as agents of sustainability. J Sustain Tour 23(1):85–103
Breakey H, Breakey N (2023) Leopold’s cultural harvest, biocultural tourism, and field environ-
mental philosophy. In: Rozzi R, Tauro A, Wright T, Avriel-Avni N, May RH Jr (eds) Field
environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and ethics, vol
5. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 281–294
Costa-Carvalho C (2023) Small, silent and (in)significant: childhood as a minoritarian experience of
education. In: Rozzi R, Tauro A, Wright T, Avriel-Avni N, May RH Jr (eds) Field environ-
mental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and ethics, vol 5. Springer,
Dordrecht, pp 339–358
Costanza R, d'Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B et al (1997) The value of the
world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260
Dodson SI, Allen TFH, Carpenter SR, Ives AR, Jeanne RL, Kitchell JF, Langston NE, Turner MG
(1998) Ecology. Oxford University Press, New York
Franklin JF (1981) Ecological characteristics of old-growth Douglas-fir forests, vol. 118. US
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station
Goffinet B, Rozzi R, Lewis L et al (2012) The Miniature Forests of Cape Horn: Eco-Tourism with a
Hand-lens (“Los Bosques en Miniatura del Cabo de Hornos: Ecoturismo con Lupa”), Bilingual
English-Spanish edition. UNT Press–Ediciones Universidad de Magallanes, Denton/Punta
Arenas
50 R. Rozzi and A. Tauro

Griggs D, Stafford-Smith M, Gaffney O, Rockström J, Öhman MC, Shyamsundar P, Steffen W,

Glaser G, Kanie N, Noble I (2013) Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature
495:305–307
Guan H, Wei H, He X, Ren Z, An B (2017) The tree-species-specific effect of forest bathing on
perceived anxiety alleviation of young-adults in urban forests. Annals Forest Res 60(2):327–341
Hansen MM, Jones R, Tocchini K (2017) Shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) and nature therapy: a state-
of-the-art review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14(8):851
Isbell F, Balvanera P, Mori AS, He JS, Bullock JM, Regmi GR et al (2022) Expert perspectives on
global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people. Front Ecol Environ. https://doi.
org/10.1002/fee.2536
Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Latour B (1999) Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge
Lovejoy TE (1980) In: Barney GO (ed) The Global 2000 Report to the President The Technical
Report, vol. 2. Penguin, pp 327–332
Lucena J, Schneider J, Leydens JA (2010) Engineering and sustainable community development.
Synthesis Lect Eng Technol Soc 5(1):1–230
McNeill JR, Engelke P (2016) The great acceleration: an environmental history of the
Anthropocene since 1945. Harvard University Press
Neri J (2011) The Insect and the image: visualizing nature in early modern Europe, 1500-1700.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:
355–364
Pickett STA, Kolasa J, Jones CG (1994) Ecological understanding: the nature of theory and the
theory of nature. Academic Press, Orlando, xiii + 206 pp
Primack R, Rozzi R, Feinsinger P, Dirzo R, Massardo F (2001) Elementos de conservación
biológica: perspectivas Latinoamericanas. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Ciudad de México,
México
Rozzi R (1999) The reciprocal links between evolutionary-ecological sciences and environmental
ethics. Bioscience 49(11):911–921
Rozzi R (2001) Ética ambiental: raíces y ramas latinoamericanas. In: Primack R, Rozzi R,
Feinsinger P, Dirzo R, Massardo F (eds) Fundamentos de conservación biológica: Perspectivas
latinoamericanas. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, pp 311–362
Rozzi R (2004) Implicaciones éticas de narrativas yaganes y mapuches sobre las aves de los
bosques templados de Sudamérica austral. Ornitología Neotropical 15(suppl.):435–444
Rozzi R (2012) Introduction to ecotourism with a hand lens. In: Goffinet B, Rozzi R, Lewis L,
Buck W, Massardo F (eds) The miniature forests of Cape Horn: eco-tourism with a hand-lens,
Bilingual English-Spanish edn. University of North Texas Press, Denton, pp 28–79
Rozzi R (2013) Biocultural ethics: from biocultural homogenization toward biocultural
conservation. In: Rozzi R, Pickett STA, Palmer C, Armesto JJ, Callicott JB (eds) Linking
ecology and ethics for a changing world: values, philosophy, and action. Ecology and Ethics
book series, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 9–32
Rozzi R (2018) Biocultural homogenization: a wicked problem in the Anthropocene. In: From
biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 21–48
Rozzi R (2023a) Introduction Part I. Field environmental philosophy: concepts and case studies. In:
Rozzi R, Tauro A, Wright T, Avriel-Avni N, May RH Jr (eds) Field environmental philosophy:
education for biocultural conservation. Ecology and ethics, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 17–26
Rozzi R (2023b) Inter-species and inter-cultural encounters: the education and biocultural ethics
program of the Omora Ethnobotanical Park. In: Rozzi R, Tauro A, Wright T, Avriel-Avni N,
May RH Jr (eds) Field environmental philosophy: education for biocultural conservation.
Ecology and ethics, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 153–174
Rozzi R, Hargrove E, Armesto JJ, Pickett STA, Silander J Jr (1998) “Natural drift” as a post-modern
metaphor. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 71:9–21
3 The Multiple Lenses of Ecotourism with a Hand Lens: Fundamental. . . 51

Rozzi R, Armesto J, Goffinet B et al (2008) Changing lenses to assess biodiversity: patterns of

species richness in sub-Antarctic plants and implications for global conservation. Front Ecol
Environ 6:131–137
Rozzi R, Anderson CB, Pizarro JC, Massardo F, Medina Y, Mansilla A et al (2010) Field
environmental philosophy and biocultural conservation at the Omora Ethnobotanical Park:
methodological approaches to broaden the ways of integrating the social component (“S”) in
long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) sites. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 83(1):
27–68
Rozzi R, Lewis L, Massardo F, Medina Y, Moses K, Méndez M, Sancho L, Vezzani P, Russell S,
Goffinet B (2012a) Ecotourism with a Hand-Lens at Omora Park. Ediciones Universidad de
Magallanes, Punta Arenas, Chile
Rozzi R, Armesto JJ, Gutiérrez J, Massardo F, Likens G, Anderson CB, Poole A, Moses K,
Hargrove G, Mansilla A, Kennedy JH, Willson M, Jax K, Jones C, Callicott JB, Kalin MT
(2012b) Integrating ecology and environmental ethics: Earth stewardship in the southern end of
the Americas. BioScience 62(3):226–236
Sarkar S (2021) Origin of the term biodiversity. BioScience 71(9):893–893
Swingland IR (2001) Biodiversity, definition of. Encycl Biodivers 1:377–391
Worster D (1994) Nature’s economy: a history of ecological ideas. Cambridge University Press,
Nueva York
Young HS, McCauley DJ, Galetti M, Dirzo R (2016) Patterns, causes, and consequences of
Anthropocene defaunation. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 47(1):333–358