The Cuteness Factor in Conservation Campaigns

By Selina Haefeli

Although they don't conjure up the same emotional reactions as say the fluffy panda bear or beautiful Siberian tiger, it has been found that one in every five plants is at risk of extinction.

Endangered snails and the other less visually exciting invertebrates (such as the plain burying beetle or the pretty average looking Malachite Damselfly) don't achieve much of a buzz in conservation campaigns either. Yet in Hawaii, 900 of the 1,263 land snail species (71 per cent) have gone extinct, basically unnoticed, since humans first colonised the islands.

Appealing to human psychology plays a major part in the success of conservation efforts. Playing on emotions with images of cute turtles or impressive gorillas looking vulnerable in their habitat is a sure way of attracting donations and support. Not that these conservation strategies are inherently bad, in fact they have helped many species on the brink of extinction, such as the Bald Eagle and the Green Sea Turtle.

But the problem is that by only portraying the attractive and charming threatened species, it makes it very hard for the less striking endangered species to even get noticed let alone saved.

This really is the perfect example of how it pays to be attractive. In the same way that a good looking human is more likely to get a free drink and attention at a bar, an endangered species that is more attractive than the others is much more likely to receive the attention of conservationists.

The vital drawback of this attractiveness discrimination is that when any species plummets into extinction, it has a domino effect on the whole ecosystem it was a part of. It's not just the cute and cuddly creatures that support other networks of life.

For example, the acacia drepanolobium tree produces hollow, swollen thorns, which house three different types of ant species. The ants also enjoy feasting on the sweet nectar produced by the tree. The little critters repay the plants hospitality by swarming on large predators faces, such as elephants, if they try to have a nibble on its branches. If just this one plant becomes extinct (which it very well might, due to habitat loss), many other species would feel the negative flow on effects. Now consider how scientists have estimated at least 20 per cent of plants around the world are listed as endangered. We could be facing a global catastrophe.

As thousands of plant and invertebrate species die out with less than an "Oh dear" from us, millions and millions of dollars are spent trying to save just one utterly adorable animal; the panda bear. As much as I love pandas and would like more than anything to see them thriving, the fact is that there is only so much intervention (and resources) humans can provide.

If half the money spent on pandas was put into the regeneration of rainforests and biodiversity hotspots, we could help many species regardless of whether they are attractive, ugly, weird, intriguing or just really, really, really, plain looking. They all have their important place in nature and just because we don't find them gorgeous doesn't mean they're less entitled to a second chance of survival.

We have to look at extinction in terms of ecosystems, and not on a single-species level, if we want our efforts to be fruitful and not just ridiculously expensive attempts.