Conservation of biodiversity in private lands: are Chilean landowners willing to keep threatened species in their lands?

Table 3 Behavioural intentions versus LEK, awareness about LQNR, and forest ownership, among peasants (n = 37) from Central Chile

Behavioural intentions towards	Model	Explanatory variables
		LEK^	Awareness about LQNR^	Ln of forest ownership
Pudu (Pudu puda)	[a]	0.01 (0.12)		2.32 (0.92)*
Chilean pigeon (Columba araucana)	[b]	0.21 (0.10)*	0.99 (0.66)	0.05 (0.12)
Wild animals	[c]	-0.15 (0.14)	1.02 (0.51)*	0.40 (0.21)**
Culpeo fox (Lycalopex culpaeus)	[d]	0.12 (0.10)	0.08 (0.46)	0.01 (0.16)
Grey fox (Lycalopex griseus)	[e]	0.13 (0.11)	0.21 (0.46)	0.00 (0.16)
Maulino forest	[f]	0.09 (0.09)	0.64 (0.50)	0.29 (0.17)**
Queule (Gomortega keule)	[g]	0.14 (0.08)**	-0.35 (0.44)	0.16 (0.16)
Pitao (Pitavia punctata)	[h]	0.22 (0.08)***	-0.24 (0.40)	-0.06 (0.09)
Kodkod (Leopardus guigna)	[i]	0.10 (0.11)	0.02 (0.48)	0.09 (0.16)
Hualo (Nothofagus glauca)	[j]	0.17 (0.09)**	-0.20 (0.53)	0.29 (0.17)**
Roble (Nothofagus obliqua)	[k]	0.11 (0.09)	0.14 (0.49)	0.18 (0.12)

^LEK: Local Ecological Knowledge, LQNR: Los Queules National Reserve. Models, in rows, are ordered probit regressions. Cells show the coefficients of the associations and, in parenthesis, standard errors. Empty cell under ‘Awareness about LQNR’ refers to the omitted variable from the model because it completely explains the distribution of behavioural intentions frequency. Level of significance at *p <0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01.