Cute enough for conservation? Unpacking conservation bias

Human population growth and urban development have caused a shocking decline in biodiversity, leading to the devastating sixth mass extinction. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) reports that 40% of land globally has been converted for agriculture, drastically altering the habitats of numerous species. At the recent Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was agreed, including a target to halt the extinction of ‘known threatened species’. However, research and conservation efforts do not treat all species with equal concern or scientific interest. A small number of species, particularly mammals, are often focused on, while other species at a higher risk of extinction are neglected.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies species based on their level of threat, from least concern to extinct. As of 2022, 37,480 species have been identified as being at risk of extinction. The groups with the highest number of threatened species include fish, amphibians, insects, and molluscs. However, there is a significant bias in public attention, research, and conservation efforts towards a small percentage (0.2%) of animal species - mammals - despite the greater number of threatened species in other groups.

Our tendency to attribute human-like intentions, beliefs, and emotions to certain nonhuman species that resemble humans in appearance and behaviour, known as “interpretative anthropomorphism,” also plays a role in our concern for these species. Species that are thought to be aware and capable of experiencing emotions, especially the ability to feel pleasure and pain, are more likely to be given moral rights. As a result, the worthiness of a species’ concern and protection is often based on their resemblance to humans.

Aesthetics and the perceived “cuteness” of an animal can also influence our bias towards certain vertebrate species. Physical characteristics such as big eyes and soft features can trigger human parental instincts, making us more inclined to support conservation efforts for these species. Charismatic vertebrates like elephants, lions, giant pandas, penguins, and polar bears are often used as “flagship” species and act as conservation tools to promote the protection of their ecosystems. However, this preference for certain species can result in the neglect of others that may not be as appealing to the public, even if they are more endangered.

Our concern for the safety and welfare of differ ent species is not always based on their ecological importance or level of endangerment, but rather on how we perceive them. Human preference for animals that are more similar to us is likely one of the main reasons for the disconnect between evidence and action in conservation efforts.

Studies have shown that people tend to give more money to conservation efforts for species that are more closely related to humans, possibly because we believe that these animals have the cognitive complexity and awareness that merit higher moral consideration.

In a study on the perception of invertebrates, it was found that people often express negative emotions, such as fear and disgust, towards these animals. However, attitudes towards invertebrates may be more positive if they are perceived as attractive or useful, such as butterflies and shrimp. Despite making up approximately 98% of all animals on the planet, there are few regulations regarding the welfare and treatment of invertebrates, with the exception of those that have been proven to be sentient, such as octopuses. The sentience of other invertebrates has yet to be established. While there are approximately 60,000 known vertebrate species on the planet, there are over 1.2 million known invertebrates, with many more still undiscovered and yet to be formally described. It is clear that the scientific community also has a bias towards certain species, often prioritizing those that are large, attractive, or economically significant. This can lead to an emphasis on certain groups of animals, such as mammals and birds, while others, such as insects and invertebrates, are overlooked.

The IUCN has made significant progress in evaluating the threat status of known species, but there is still a long way to go when it comes to invertebrates. While 91% of mammal species and 100% of bird species have been evaluated, the same cannot be said for insects and molluscs, with just 1.1% and 11% coverage, respectively. In fact, for most invertebrate groups, there isn’t even enough data to estimate the percentage of threatened species. This lack of focus on invertebrates is reflected in the research published in leading conservation journals. From 1987 to 2001, 69% of articles in Conservation Biology and Biological Conservation focused on vertebrates, with only 11% dedicated to invertebrates. Even within the vertebrate category, there was a clear taxonomic bias, with more papers on mammals than on fish, reptiles, and amphibians combined.

One major contributor to this bias within the scientific community is the availability of funding. Researchers are often more likely to receive funding for studying well-known or economically important species. This can lead to a lack of research on lesser-known or less economically valuable species, even if they are just as deserving of study. Another factor is the desire to study and work on species that are considered appealing or interesting to the general public. It’s no secret that scientific research can be a tough field to break into, and media attention can be a valuable asset for researchers looking to advance their careers. Studying species that capture the public’s imagination can lead to more media coverage and, in turn, more funding opportunities.

The bias towards certain animals, particularly those with cute or humanlike features, has led to a disproportionate focus on a small percentage of species, particularly mammals, in conservation efforts. This is often driven by our perception of these animals, including their cognitive complexity, perceived emotions, and aesthetic appeal. This bias can lead to the neglect of other species, particularly invertebrates, which make up a vast majority of known animal species but often receive little attention in terms of conservation. We must recognize the value of all species and work to protect them in a fair and evidence-based manner, rather than being swayed by emotional or personal attachments.

By addressing conservation bias and conserving a diverse range of species, we can promote the health and stability of ecosystems and ensure the longterm. survival of all species, whether they are cute or not.