On the overlap between scientific and societal taxonomic attentions - Insights for conservation.

Attention directed at different species by society and science is particularly relevant within the field of conservation, as societal preferences will strongly impact support for conservation initiatives and their success. Here, we assess the association between societal and research interests in four charismatic and threatened species groups, derived from a range of different online sources and social media platforms as well as scientific publications. We found a high level of concordance between scientific and societal taxonomic attention, which was consistent among assessed species groups and media sources. Results indicate that research is apparently not as disconnected from the interests of society as it is often reproached, and that societal support for current research objectives should be adequate. While the high degree of similarity between scientific and societal interest is both striking and satisfying, the dissimilarities are also interesting, as new scientific findings may constitute a constant source of novel interest for the society. In that respect, additional efforts will be necessary to draw scientific and societal focus towards less charismatic species that are in urgent need of research and conservation attention.

[1]  Erez Lieberman Aiden,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books , 2010, Science.

[2]  Henrikki Tenkanen,et al.  Prospects and challenges for social media data in conservation science , 2015, Front. Environ. Sci..

[3]  D. Roberts,et al.  Data mining in conservation research using Latin and vernacular species names , 2016, PeerJ.

[4]  J. Muñoz.  Biodiversity conservation including uncharismatic species , 2007, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[5]  Luis Roman Carrasco,et al.  Quantifying the role of online news in linking conservation research to Facebook and Twitter , 2015, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[6]  Patricia A. Zaradic,et al.  Conservation science: a 20‐year report card , 2006 .

[7]  Richard Grenyer,et al.  Understanding the Role of Representations of Human–Leopard Conflict in Mumbai through Media‐Content Analysis , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[8]  D. Fisher.  Cost, effort and outcome of mammal rediscovery: Neglect of small species , 2011 .

[9]  Ricardo A Correia,et al.  Geographic trends and information deficits in Amazonian conservation research , 2015, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[10]  A. Cottam,et al.  Using Social Media to Measure the Contribution of Red List Species to the Nature-Based Tourism Potential of African Protected Areas , 2015, PloS one.

[11]  J. Parkins,et al.  Digital archives, big data and image-based culturomics for social impact assessment: Opportunities and challenges , 2017 .

[12]  N. Isaac,et al.  What are we saving? Developing a standardized approach for conservation action , 2009 .

[13]  V. Liordos,et al.  The two faces of Janus, or the dual mode of public attitudes towards snakes. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[14]  M. Caley,et al.  Global mismatch between research effort and conservation needs of tropical coral reefs , 2011 .

[15]  D. L. Stokes,et al.  Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation , 2007 .

[16]  Jamie Lorimer,et al.  Nonhuman Charisma , 2007 .

[17]  Searching for backyard birds in virtual worlds: Internet queries mirror real species distributions , 2015, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[18]  B. Martín‐López,et al.  Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in Southern Patagonia , 2016, Landscape Ecology.

[19]  Ricardo A Correia,et al.  Familiarity breeds content: assessing bird species popularity with culturomics , 2016, PeerJ.

[20]  Céline Bellard,et al.  Invasion Biology: Specific Problems and Possible Solutions. , 2017, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[21]  Gea-Jae Joo,et al.  Use of large web-based data to identify public interest and trends related to endangered species , 2014, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[22]  Jean-Michel Roberge,et al.  Using data from online social networks in conservation science: which species engage people the most on Twitter? , 2014, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[23]  J. Parkins,et al.  Conservation culturomics should include images and a wider range of scholars , 2017 .

[24]  R. van Aarde,et al.  Species Inequality in Scientific Study , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[26]  Jules Pretty,et al.  A 2018 Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation and Biological Diversity. , 2018, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  T. Sparks,et al.  Ecological correlates of the popularity of birds and butterflies in Internet information resources , 2013 .

[28]  Richard Shine,et al.  Taxonomic chauvinism , 2022 .

[29]  Ricardo A Correia,et al.  Conservation culturomics CONCEPTS AND QUESTIONS , 2016 .

[30]  Oded Berger-Tal,et al.  Using machine learning to disentangle homonyms in large text corpora , 2018, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[31]  Hila Becker,et al.  Hip and trendy: Characterizing emerging trends on Twitter , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[32]  N. Auerbach,et al.  Conservation Research Is Not Happening Where It Is Most Needed , 2016, PLoS biology.

[33]  M. Brambilla,et al.  Species appeal predicts conservation status , 2013 .

[34]  B. Martín‐López,et al.  Anthropomorphic Factors Influencing Spanish Conservation Policies of Vertebrates , 2013 .

[35]  Douglas C. MacMillan,et al.  Has Climate Change Taken Prominence over Biodiversity Conservation , 2014 .

[36]  Juliana Loureiro Almeida Campos,et al.  How can local representations of changes of the availability in natural resources assist in targeting conservation? , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[37]  Liba Pejchar,et al.  Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference , 2016, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[38]  Richard M Cowling,et al.  Let the locals lead , 2009, Nature.

[39]  L. L. Kaid,et al.  Content Analysis of Newspaper Coverage of the Florida Panther , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[40]  Ricardo A Correia,et al.  Nomenclature instability in species culturomic assessments: Why synonyms matter , 2018, Ecological Indicators.

[41]  Vijay Barve,et al.  Discovering and developing primary biodiversity data from social networking sites: A novel approach , 2014, Ecol. Informatics.

[42]  R. May,et al.  Taxonomic Bias in Conservation Research , 2002, Science.

[43]  S. Funk,et al.  The importance of cultural knowledge and scale for analysing internet search data as a proxy for public interest toward the environment , 2014, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[44]  Pedro Cardoso,et al.  The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them , 2011 .

[45]  P. Jepson,et al.  A Theory of Flagship Species Action , 2015 .

[46]  T. Brooks,et al.  The science of bird conservation , 2008, Bird Conservation International.

[47]  V. Liordos,et al.  Effects of attitudes and demography on public support for endangered species conservation. , 2017, The Science of the total environment.

[48]  P. Bateman,et al.  The good, the bad, and the ugly: which Australian terrestrial mammal species attract most research? , 2016 .

[49]  Richard Grenyer,et al.  Using Wikipedia page views to explore the cultural importance of global reptiles , 2016 .

[50]  Steven J. Cooke,et al.  Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research , 2017 .

[51]  B. Martín‐López,et al.  The pitfall-trap of species conservation priority setting , 2010, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[52]  G. Miller.  Sociology. Social scientists wade into the tweet stream. , 2011, Science.

[53]  Erle C. Ellis,et al.  Mapping where ecologists work: biases in the global distribution of terrestrial ecological observations , 2012, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

[54]  Ricardo A Correia,et al.  Internet scientific name frequency as an indicator of cultural salience of biodiversity , 2017 .

[55]  David M. Richardson,et al.  The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society , 2007 .

[56]  W. Ripple,et al.  The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals , 2018, PLoS biology.

[57]  Tatsuya Amano,et al.  Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security , 2013, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[58]  I. Jarić,et al.  Global effort allocation in marine mammal research indicates geographical, taxonomic and extinction risk-related biases , 2014 .

[59]  B. Martín‐López,et al.  What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? , 2009 .

[60]  P. Grandcolas,et al.  Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[61]  Chiara Bragagnolo,et al.  The scientific value of Amazonian protected areas , 2016, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[62]  Jeremy P. Bird,et al.  Research effort allocation and the conservation of restricted-range island bird species , 2011 .

[63]  R. Slotow,et al.  Social Media Data Can Be Used to Understand Tourists’ Preferences for Nature‐Based Experiences in Protected Areas , 2018 .

[64]  W. Sutherland,et al.  Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science , 2016, PLoS biology.

[65]  Robert J. Smith,et al.  Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species , 2017 .

[66]  A. Moustakas,et al.  How Diverse is Aquatic Biodiversity Research? , 2005, Aquatic Ecology.

[67]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Bringing values and deliberation to science communication , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[68]  H. Pereira,et al.  Organismal complexity is an indicator of species existence value , 2008 .

[69]  E. Angulo,et al.  Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect , 2006, PLoS biology.

[70]  David R. Williams,et al.  Is research effort associated with the conservation status of European bird species , 2015 .

[71]  W. F. V. van Dongen,et al.  Variation in public perceptions and attitudes towards terrestrial ecosystems. , 2017, The Science of the total environment.