What's in a Name? Do Species' Names Impact Student Support for Conservation?

Karaffa, Paul T.; Draheim, Megan M.; Parsons, E. C. M.

doi:10.1080/10871209.2012.676708

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study found that species with fictitious common names with patriotic terms were selected as being of highest conservation concern, such as "American eagle", "patriot falcon", "great American wolf". In contrast, negative-sounding species names, such as "razor eagle", "killer falcon", "sheep-eating eagle", evoked least concern (Karaffa et al, 2012). Similar results were also found in a more recent study by Scott and Parsons (2014).…”

Section: Branding and Flagship Speciessupporting

confidence: 68%

“…In one study in the USA, Karaffa et al (2012) offered members of the public a selection of real and fictitious species names and asked them which species were most important to conserve. The study found that species with fictitious common names with patriotic terms were selected as being of highest conservation concern, such as "American eagle", "patriot falcon", "great American wolf".…”

Section: Branding and Flagship Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Competitive outreach in the 21st century: Why we need conservation marketing

Wright

Veríssimo

Pilfold³

et al. 2015

Ocean & Coastal Management

147

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tAddressing impacts from human activities requires the change of current practices. However, reaching a target audience about conservation issues and influencing their behaviour is not easy in a world where people are continually bombarded with information, and distractions are permanently available. Although not typically considered to be part of the conservation science toolbox, marketing techniques were designed in the commercial sector to identify and influence human preferences and behaviour by placing target audiences at the core of the marketing process. It thus seems reasonable that the same marketing principles and tools could and should be used to address pressing conservation issues. In this manuscript, we provide an introduction to the main objectives of marketing and illustrate how these can be applied to conservation and animal welfare issues. To that end we offer two examples: Project Ocean, where a major UK retailer joined forces with the Zoological Society of London to influence consumer behaviour around seafood; and Blackfish, which coupled social media with an award-winning documentary to create a discussion around the welfare of large cetaceans in captivity. Without the ability to influence human behaviour, a conservationists' role will likely be limited to that of describing the loss of biodiversity and the decline of the environment. We thus hope that conservation practitioners can embrace marketing as a fundamental component of the conservation toolbox.

show abstract

Section: Branding and Flagship Speciessupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Branding and Flagship Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive outreach in the 21st century: Why we need conservation marketing

Wright

Veríssimo

Pilfold³

et al. 2015

Ocean & Coastal Management

147

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the three "fake" species, more participants thought the Majestic spotted dolphin was more important to conserve than the Lump-headed dolphin and the Pygmy shortfinned whale (7.0, 6.17, and 4.2%, respectively). These results might be expected as a study by Karaffa et al (2012) found that on average species names with negative connotations gathered less support for conservation (51%) whereas charismatic/positive sounding names prompted greater support for conservation (65%). Respondents were twice as likely to not conserve a negative sounding species (14%) than a positive sounding species (7%) (Karaffa et al, 2012).…”

Section: Conservationmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…These results might be expected as a study by Karaffa et al (2012) found that on average species names with negative connotations gathered less support for conservation (51%) whereas charismatic/positive sounding names prompted greater support for conservation (65%). Respondents were twice as likely to not conserve a negative sounding species (14%) than a positive sounding species (7%) (Karaffa et al, 2012). Scott and Parsons (2005) investigated levels of public awareness of cetacean protection finding that 45.6% of participants felt cetaceans in Scotland were not sufficiently protected.…”

Section: Conservationmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Furthermore, perceptions of a particular species can be influenced by demographic characteristics, fear of, and empathy toward an animal (Kellert, 1985). Karaffa et al (2012) asked whether the name used for an animal influenced respondents' opinions regarding its conservation and found that on average species names with negative connotations prompted less support for conservation compared to charismatic sounding names which roused greater support for conservation. They suggest alternative names might make social marketing campaigns more effective and that renaming a species could be a more cost effective way to enhance conservation support (Karaffa et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Online Survey of Public Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions Toward Whales and Dolphins, and Their Conservation

Naylor

Parsons

2018

Front. Mar. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2015, an online survey was conducted to investigate public attitudes and perceptions toward key cetacean (whale, dolphin, and porpoise) conservation and "hot topic" issues such as legislative protection and whaling (n = 858). The vast majority of the participants in this study indicated their permanent residence was the United States (n = 577) or India (n = 251). Perceptions of participants on the conservation priority of cetacean species did not match with the factual IUCN status, where most participants assumed that the larger and more charismatic whales (blue whale, 24.01%; humpback whale, 22.14%; and killer whale, 23.43%) were more endangered or more important to conserve than the small cetacean species such as the Vaquita or Hector's dolphin. Additionally, 39.74% of participants indicated that they thought bottlenose dolphin was the most important to conserve. More members of the public highlighted non-existent (fake) species (e.g., pygmy short-fined whale, lump-headed dolphin, and majestic spotted dolphin) as being of conservation concern than certain species of actual, genuine concern. The majority of participants considered dolphins and whales to be "under protected" or only "slightly protected" (29.95%; 41.96%, respectively) and expressed that marine mammal conservation laws and policies were "very important" or "important" (47.43 and 37.88%, respectively). In addition, 86.83% of participants expressed opposition to the hunting of dolphins and whales (57.93% "strongly opposed" and 28.90% "opposed"); however, only 47.44% of participants were aware that several countries are still involved in whaling. A lack of awareness of the conservation status of whales and dolphins and continued whaling activities suggests that greater outreach to the public about the conservation status of whale and dolphin species is needed.

show abstract

From Linderiella baetica to gambilusa: Involving children in conservation by giving a new species a common name

García‐de‐Lomas

Clavero

García

et al. 2021

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The knowledge and awareness that the general public has about aquatic invertebrates is often poor, even when they are highly threatened. The frequent lack of popular names and the unattractiveness of the scientific ones may be among the factors hindering the knowledge of these organisms and, consequently, the awareness of their conservation status and the willingness to conserve them. Linderiella baetica (Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Anostraca) was discovered in 2007 in southern Spain and is considered a critically endangered species. However, being a small invertebrate inhabiting generally unappreciated temporary ponds, this species was completely unknown by the general public, even in the area in which it occurs. To increase the knowledge and awareness of L. baetica, 1,347 children from five schools within its distribution area participated in a contest to select a common name for this newly described taxon. The winning name, gambilusa (Andalusian shrimp), will be used in the future by the Spanish Ministry of Environment and hopefully by the general public to identify the species. The contest was found to have increased the knowledge about the target species in a sustained manner, as 1 year later, 93% of the children recognized gambilusa as a crustacean, 75% remembered its typical habitat, and 89% broadly identified its geographical distribution. This kind of name‐choosing contest is applicable for different regions and taxa to raise awareness on the conservation of threatened but poorly known biota.

show abstract

What's in a Name? Do Species' Names Impact Student Support for Conservation?

Cited by 19 publications

References 6 publications

Competitive outreach in the 21st century: Why we need conservation marketing

Competitive outreach in the 21st century: Why we need conservation marketing

An Online Survey of Public Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions Toward Whales and Dolphins, and Their Conservation

From Linderiella baetica to gambilusa: Involving children in conservation by giving a new species a common name

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About