Just beautiful?! What determines butterfly species for nature conservation

Abstract

Prioritization is crucial in nature conservation, as land and financial resources are limited. Selection procedures must follow objective criteria, and not primarily subjective aspects, such as charisma. In this study, we assessed the level of charisma for all European butterflies. Based on these data, we analysed the charisma values of the species listed on the annexes of the EU Habitats Directive and of the species being of conservation priority according to criteria derived by three objective criteria: Species ecological specialisation, distribution, and threat. The mean level of charisma was higher for species of the EU Habitats Directive than for species of conservation priority and for not-listed species. Five of the twenty most charismatic species were also listed on the EU Habitats Directive, but none occurred on the list of species being of conservation priority. A trait space analysis revealed remarkable differences between the different species assortments: The species listed on the EU Habitats Directive covered a large trait space and included many species with high charismatic value, but low ecological and biogeographical relevance, while species of high conservation priority covered a restricted trait space and did not overlap with charismatic species. According to our findings, the selection of species for nature conservation still follows a mix of being aesthetic combined with some ecological criteria.

Assessing the aesthetic attractivity of European butterflies: a web-based survey protocol

“…A choice of which species to protect influenced by their aesthetic value may not be an optimal strategy to maintain ecosystem functionality. Indeed, charismatic species selected on aesthetic grounds belong to a few phylogenetic clades, thus encompassing a disproportionately low fraction of evolutionary and functional diversity [14,17]. Being such an aesthetic attractivity driven protection undesirable, we need to determine and quantify the aesthetic attractivity of target species in order to evaluate the occurrence of such bias in conservation policies and activities (red lists, funds for establishment of conservation actions).…”

“…; see [3][4][5]). With specific reference to conservation biology, it has been argued that processes such as the choice of the subjects of interest by conservationists, the choice of representative animal species for raisingawareness projects by NGOs, and even the allocation of public funds for research initiatives are influenced by aesthetic values [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. As a result, in the last few years the study of aesthetics has started to emerge as a key topic in conservation, as witnessed by a growing amount of research over very wide branches of the tree of life [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25].…”

“…The same scenario applies to butterflies which constitute a marked exception within insects. Indeed, while insects are generally not considered as popular and charismatic animals [29,30], an extraordinary aesthetic merit is attributed to butterflies [14,31,32]. This is likely due to their striking and charming colours and forms, to their "friendly" appearance (butterflies are generally perceived as harmless) and to their increasingly recognized role as pollinators.…”

Conservation in conversation: People's perspectives on a woodland with high conservation value—A qualitative study

“…The ES framework and ‘nature's benefits to people’ can thus provide challenges where limited resources are prioritised to support ES of direct human relevance, deprioritising processes that do not have specific benefits to people (Ingram et al, 2012), and where spending decisions are influenced by values such as beauty or charisma (Albert et al, 2018; Habel et al, 2021).…”

“…It can thus remain difficult to argue for the conservation of species and habitats where they are not directly connected to focal ES, because they are inconspicuous, ‘non‐charismatic’ or widely unappreciated (Habel et al, 2021). Our study takes this consideration of ‘non‐charismatic’ habitats and species further, and examines ideas of nature and conservation in a context where biodiversity arguments underpin multiple designations of a site, but where this biodiversity is non‐spectacular in common terms, and difficult to access and experience (Byg et al, 2020).…”