When it comes to wildlife and plant conservation, “pretty privilege” is pervasive.
Data shows that people put the bulk of their donation dollars toward supporting the animal kingdom’s most charismatic species, like elephants and tigers. While protecting these animals is crucial, less visually appealing critters like dull-colored rodents or drab lizards often get just a tiny fraction of the already limited funding for global conservation—even if they are among the most threatened.
It turns out this type of bias can also permeate the research world: A new study finds that avian researchers are devoting the bulk of their time and resources to aesthetically pleasing and conveniently located birds.
Humanity’s affinity for conventionally beautiful species can hinder conservation efforts for some of the most endangered forms of life. With this in mind, a movement has emerged in recent years to help give the uncharismatic and under-resourced plants and animals of the world a chance to shine.
Bird Bias: With more than 11,000 different species, birds are some of the most diverse groups of vertebrates on Earth. Many avian species exhibit a range of ostentatious characteristics, from the flashy feathers of a peacock to the iridescent colors of a ruby-throated hummingbird. These eye-catching features are part of the reason that recreational birding has skyrocketed in recent years, generating a multibillion-dollar industry in the U.S., which I wrote about in December.
Avian species have also long captivated researchers, including Charles Darwin, who conceptualized the theory of evolution while watching finches on the Galapagos Islands. But are all birds getting equal interest from the research community, which pledges to provide unbiased information for the public? A study published in April says the answer is no, finding that pretty privilege prevails even for birds and scientists.
To test this, a team of researchers analyzed the focal species of more than 27,000 North American songbird research publications published from 1965 to 2020. Beauty is a difficult metric to assess scientifically (as the saying goes, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”), so the study’s authors created a ranking system that zeroed in on several characteristics, such as color, lightness, iridescence and body mass.
Their analysis revealed birds that scored in the top 10 percent of aesthetic appeal were studied three times as much as those in the bottom 10 percent. Convenience was also a factor in research, as most of the species studies focused on were close to universities.
In a nutshell: “It’s birds that are fancy, familiar and accessible” that get most of the attention in research, co-author Annie Lindsay, a researcher at the Powdermill Nature Reserve in Pennsylvania, told me.
The highest-scoring birds were the Bohemian waxwing, adorned with a tuft of angular feathers on its head, and the tree swallow. The lowest on the list were the chimney swift and black swift, both dark and somewhat nondescript. Even if a proclivity toward flashy and conveniently located birds is subconscious, these biases can have harmful impacts on a less charismatic species’ long-term survival, Lindsay said.
“If we aren’t studying them, we don’t really know what their status might be, so we don’t understand their natural history or ecology,” she said. “We can’t really conserve something if we don’t know anything about it.”
Zooming Out: Beauty bias is ubiquitous in the conservation world, extending far beyond research preferences. A study published in February found that of the roughly $1.9 billion allocated to conservation projects that researchers assessed over 25 years, more than 80 percent was applied to vertebrates.
The vast majority of that money went to birds and mammals, leaving amphibians with less than 3 percent of funding, despite being the most endangered class of animals. Fungi and algae received even less financial support. Narrowing it down even further, the analysis revealed that the vast majority of conservation projects’ focus was on large-bodied mammals like elephants and rhinos.
“Our first conclusion is that funding for species conservation research remains extremely limited,” study author Benoit Guénard, a researcher at the University of Hong Kong, said in a press release. For perspective, the 25 years of conservation funding from 37 governments and non-governmental organizations was less than 1 percent of the annual budget of the U.S. military.
A slew of other studies have documented similar trends in charismatic species funding. One study put this bias trend to the test experimentally by giving subjects a hypothetical pot of $6,400 to donate to conservation causes for particular species. But in some of the scenarios, the researchers intentionally manipulated photos to make less charismatic animals look more visually appealing—think fluffier, bigger eyes and no sharp teeth. They found that the median donation amount given to unedited images was about $640 less than for edited images.
Some conservation groups have successfully used this “cuteness factor” by highlighting charismatic animals in their communications as a way to raise money for all sorts of work. However, in the nonprofit world, donations are often restricted, meaning that they are set aside for a specific purpose—or in this case, a particular species.
In recent years, people have launched efforts to help raise more money for uncharismatic or overlooked species. In the United Kingdom, comedian and science communicator Simon Watt launched the Ugly Animal Preservation Society over a decade ago as a way to bring attention to species that may not be deemed beautiful, such as the proboscis monkey or the blobfish.
Some organizations or businesses have worked to redefine “cuteness.” For example, the Oregon Zoo launched a campaign dubbed “the cuteness is coming” in 2019, which featured a toothy Pacific lamprey alongside traditionally appealing animals like red pandas. But it won’t be easy to shift the narrative around what the public perceives as drab or unappealing species, experts say.
“Our traditional view of what is threatened often does not align with species genuinely at threat, leaving many smaller, or ‘less charismatic’ species neglected,” Alice Hughes, a researcher at the University of Hong Kong and co-author on the February study, said in a release. “We urgently need to reframe this perspective and better allocate funding across taxa if we want any hope of redressing widespread population declines and the continued loss of biodiversity.”
More Top Climate News
The Trump administration is moving to eliminate certain regulations for “forever chemicals,” as my colleague Georgina Gustin reports for Inside Climate News. In April, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin committed to combating PFAS contamination, but the agency said on Wednesday that it would roll back limits on four such chemicals and delay implementation for two. During the Biden administration, the EPA required water utilities to begin lowering levels of these six types of toxic PFAS chemicals to near zero.
California’s insurance regulator approved on Tuesday a request from provider State Farm to raise premiums by 17 percent for all of its customers in the state, Trân Nguyễn reports for The Associated Press. The company said it needed to increase premiums to recoup some of its losses from the catastrophic fires that tore through Los Angeles County earlier this year, some of the most expensive in the state’s history. Insurance providers have been leaving California—and some other hard-hit states—as weather disasters worsen in the face of climate change.
A decapitated bottlenose dolphin recently was discovered on the shores of Lea-Hutaff Island in North Carolina. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries’ Office of Law Enforcement is investigating this death, and officials believe the animal was intentionally decapitated, a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The agency is offering up to $20,000 for information about the case that could help apprehend the person who did it.
A new preprint study suggests that men in France are responsible for upwards of 26 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than women when it comes to their diet and transportation habits. The researchers say that most of the difference comes from the fact that men eat more red meat and travel longer distances on average in the country. The study has not yet been peer-reviewed.
“Our results suggest that traditional gender norms, particularly those linking masculinity with red meat consumption and car use, play a significant role in shaping individual carbon footprints,” Ondine Berland, an economist at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a co-author of the study, told The Guardian.
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
Kiley Price
Reporter
Kiley Price is a reporter at Inside Climate News, with a particular interest in wildlife, ocean health, food systems and climate change. She writes ICN’s “Today’s Climate” newsletter, which covers the most pressing environmental news each week.
She earned her master’s degree in science journalism at New York University, and her bachelor’s degree in biology at Wake Forest University. Her work has appeared in National Geographic, Time, Scientific American and more. She is a former Pulitzer Reporting Fellow, during which she spent a month in Thailand covering the intersection between Buddhism and the country’s environmental movement.
