Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T20:14:35.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information about conservation status is more important than species appearance in the species preferences of potential conservation donors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2022

Sarah Papworth Open the ORCID record for Sarah Papworth [Opens in a new window]  and
Polly Curtin
Sarah Papworth*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, TW20 0EX, UK
Polly Curtin
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, TW20 0EX, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Sarah Papworth, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

There are huge differences in the conservation support and attention received by different species, perhaps because of human preferences for specific aesthetic traits, such as body size and colouring. If there are such inherent human preferences, then new flagship species should be aesthetically similar to existing successful flagship species and conservation campaigns should not feature less attractive species. However, cultural preconceptions about species and the covariance of traits make it difficult to determine the role of aesthetic traits. Both of these problems can be overcome with imaginary animals. If preferences for certain species traits are inherent in the human psyche, then the same preferences should be found in both real and imaginary animals. Using an online survey with US participants, we find that aesthetic traits are associated with preferences for real but not imaginary animals. For both real and imaginary animals, small and declining populations are preferred. We therefore suggest that organizations should not reject potential flagship species based on appearance. Consistent preferences for poor conservation status and the ability to use our results to predict donations to real animal species suggest that conservation support for specific species could be encouraged if organizations communicate information regarding population sizes and trends.

Keywords

conservation marketingenvironmental philanthropyflagship speciesimaginary animalsonline survey
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 2022 , pp. 146 - 154
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamo, M, Chialva, M, Calevo, J, Bertoni, F, Dixon, K, Mammola, S (2021) Plant scientists’ research attention is skewed towards colourful, conspicuous and broadly distributed flowers. Nature Plants 7: 574–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aizaki, H (2012) Basic functions for supporting an implementation of choice experiments in R . Journal of Statistical Software 50: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, MF, Caruso, V, Peterson, E (2019) An updated orientation to marine conservation funding flows. Marine Policy 107: 103497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottrill, MC, Joseph, LN, Carwardine, J, Bode, M, Cook, C, Game, ET et al. (2008) Is conservation triage just smart decision making? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 649–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breuer, GB, Schlegel, J, Kauf, P, Rupf, R (2015) The importance of being colorful and able to fly: interpretation and implications of children’s statements on selected insects and other invertebrates. International Journal of Science Education 37: 2664–2687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cambridge Online Dictionary (2022) ‘Popular’ [www document]. URL https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/popular Google Scholar
Chichorro, F, Juslén, A, Cardoso, P (2019) A review of the relation between species traits and extinction risk. Biological Conservation 237: 220–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chmielewski, M, Kucker, SC (2020) An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science 11: 464–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colléony, A, Clayton, S, Couvet, D, Saint Jalme, M, Prévot, AC (2017) Human preferences for species conservation: animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biological Conservation 206: 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correia, RA, Jepson, PR, Malhado, ACM, Ladle, RJ (2016) Familiarity breeds content: assessing bird species popularity with culturomics. PeerJ 4: e1728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtin, P, Papworth, S (2018) Increased information and marketing to specific individuals could shift conservation support to less popular species. Marine Policy 88: 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtin, P, Papworth, S (2020) Coloring and size influence preferences for imaginary animals, and can predict actual donations to species-specific conservation charities. Conservation Letters 13: e12723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, T, Cowley, A, Bennie, J, Leyshon, C, Inger, R, Carter, H et al. (2018) Popular interest in vertebrates does not reflect extinction risk and is associated with bias in conservation investment. PLoS ONE 13: e0203694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
dos Santos JW, Correia, RA, Malhado, ACM, Campos-Silva, JV, Teles, D, Jepson, P, Ladle, RJ (2020) Drivers of taxonomic bias in conservation research: a global analysis of terrestrial mammals. Animal Conservation 23: 679–688.Google Scholar
Entwistle, AC, Stephenson, PJ (2000) Small mammals and the conservation agenda. In Entwistle, A, Dunstone, N (eds), Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity: Has the Panda Had Its Day? (pp. 119–139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garnett, ST, Ainsworth, GB, Zander, KK (2018) Are we choosing the right flagships? The bird species and traits Australians find most attractive. PLoS ONE 13: e0199253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heesy, CP (2004) On the relationship between orbit orientation and binocular visual field overlap in mammals. Anatomical Record – Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology 281: 1104–1110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaac, NJB, Turvey, ST, Collen, B, Waterman, C, Bailie, JEM (2007) Mammals on the EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE 2: e296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarić, I, Correia, RA, Roberts, DL, Gessner, J, Meinard, Y, Courchamp, F (2019) On the overlap between scientific and societal taxonomic attentions – insights for conservation. Science of the Total Environment 648: 772–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jepson, P, Barua, M (2015) A theory of flagship species action. Conservation and Society 13: 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kees, J, Berry, C, Burton, S, Sheehan, K (2017) An Analysis of data quality: professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising 46: 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellert, SR (1985) American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: an update. Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1984 1: 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüdecke, D, Ben-Shachar, M, Patil, I, Waggoner, P, Makowski, D (2021) performance: an R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software 6: 3139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, P, Veríssimo, D, Vainio, A, Arponen, A (2020) Preferences for different flagship types in fundraising for nature conservation. Biological Conservation 250: 108738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, DW, Jacobsen, KS, Burnham, D, Johnson, PJ, Loveridge, AJ (2016) Cecil: a moment or a movement? Analysis of media coverage of the death of a lion, Panthera leo. Animals 6: 26.Google ScholarPubMed
Macdonald, EA, Burnham, D, Hinks, AE, Dickman, AJ, Malhi, Y, Macdonald, DW (2015) Conservation inequality and the charismatic cat: Felis felicis . Global Ecology and Conservation 3: 851–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marino, L (2017) Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Animal Cognition 20: 127–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martín-López, B, Montes, C, Ramírez, L, Benayas, J (2009) What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biological Conservation 142: 1370–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinstry, MC, Anderson, SH (1999) Attitudes of private- and public-land managers in Wyoming, USA, toward beaver. Environmental Management 23: 95–101.Google ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, CA (2002) Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration of relative values. Journal of Environmental Management 64: 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing [www document]. URL https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rádlová, S, Landová, E, Frynta, D (2018) Judging others by your own standards: attractiveness of primate faces as seen by human respondents. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, JM, Bliemer, MCJ (2009) Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transport Reviews 29: 587–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlegel, J, Rupf, R (2010) Attitudes towards potential animal flagship species in nature conservation: a survey among students of different educational institutions. Journal for Nature Conservation 18: 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RJ, Veríssimo, D, Isaac, NJB, Jones, KE (2012) Identifying Cinderella species: uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal. Conservation Letters 5: 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas-Walters, L, Raihani, NJ (2017) Supporting conservation: the roles of flagship species and identifiable victims. Conservation Letters 10: 581–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisdell, C (2006) Knowledge about a species’ conservation status and funding for its preservation: analysis. Ecological Modelling 198: 515–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisdell, C, Nantha, HS, Wilson, C (2007) Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: how important are they for payments proposed for conservation? Ecological Economics 60: 627–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troudet, J, Grandcolas, P, Blin, A, Vignes-Lebbe, R, Legendre, F (2017) Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Scientific Reports 7: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venables, WM, Ripley, BD (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th edition. New York, NY, USA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veríssimo, D, Campbell, HA, Tollington, S, MacMillan, DC, Smith, RJ (2018) Why do people donate to conservation? Insights from a ‘real world’ campaign. PLoS ONE 13: e0191888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veríssimo, D, MacMillan, DC, Smith, RJ (2011) Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conservation Letters 4: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veríssimo, D, Pongiluppi, T, Santos, MCM, Develey, PF, Fraser, I, Smith, RJ, Macmilan, DC (2014) Using a systematic approach to select flagship species for bird conservation. Conservation Biology 28: 269–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veríssimo, D, Vaughan, G, Ridout, M, Waterman, C, MacMillan, D, Smith, RJ (2017) Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species. Biological Conservation 211: 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z, Zeng, J, Meng, W, Lohman, DJ, Pierce, NE (2021) Out of sight, out of mind: public and research interest in insects is negatively correlated with their conservation status. Insect Conservation and Diversity 14: 700–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J (2016) Bring climate change back from the future. Nature 534: 437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, C, Tisdell, C (2005) What role does knowledge of wildlife play in providing support for species conservation? Journal of Social Sciences 1: 47–51.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Papworth and Curtin supplementary material

Papworth and Curtin supplementary material

Download Papworth and Curtin supplementary material(File)
File 24.3 KB