Using photo editing to understand the impact of species aesthetics on support for conservation
Many threatened species suffer from a lack of conservation attention compared to others. Prioritisation of funding, research and conservation efforts seem to be driven by reasons beyond conservation need. This could be due to a ‘beauty bias’, whereby aesthetically pleasing species receive more atten...
Saved in:
Published in | People and nature (Hoboken, N.J.) Vol. 6; no. 2; pp. 660 - 675 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
01.04.2024
Wiley |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Many threatened species suffer from a lack of conservation attention compared to others. Prioritisation of funding, research and conservation efforts seem to be driven by reasons beyond conservation need. This could be due to a ‘beauty bias’, whereby aesthetically pleasing species receive more attention.
We examined how editing an image to increase a species' aesthetic appeal may impact donation choices and public attitude towards that species. We posed two research questions; first, ‘do people make different donation choices when they see original images of a species compared to when they see images of the same species that have been edited to match aesthetic preferences?’ Using hypothetical donation experiments, we asked respondents to allocate funds to the conservation of three pictured species, one ‘aesthetically appealing’, one ‘aesthetically unappealing’, and one whose image was either edited to reflect common aesthetic preferences or left unedited. Our findings suggest that images edited to make an animal more visually appealing tend to receive higher hypothetical donation amounts than original images.
We also posed a second research question; ‘How do people of varying conservation expertise respond to original versus edited images of wildlife?’ To investigate this, we ran three focus groups with individuals unfamiliar with our test species, those familiar with two or more of our test species, and with conservation professionals, which showed mixed reactions both within and between groups. Focus group participants with less conservation expertise noted that edited images often seemed ‘cuter’ than unedited images, and were more likely to compare them to cartoon characters. Participants with more conservation expertise and species familiarity reported greater empathy towards unedited images, and noted that the edited images prompted an ‘uncanny valley’ response, highlighting the need for further scrutiny in how photo editing might be used in conservation messaging.
Our findings support the beauty bias hypothesis and highlight that decisions on conservation support should acknowledge that less aesthetically pleasing species are disadvantaged in public attention and funding. In addition, the findings highlight the role of conservation expertise in impacting viewer reactions, as well as the ethical implications of editing images of wildlife.
Read the free
Plain Language Summary
for this article on the Journal blog.
Read the free
Plain Language Summary
for this article on the Journal blog. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Many threatened species suffer from a lack of conservation attention compared to others. Prioritisation of funding, research and conservation efforts seem to be driven by reasons beyond conservation need. This could be due to a ‘beauty bias’, whereby aesthetically pleasing species receive more attention.
We examined how editing an image to increase a species' aesthetic appeal may impact donation choices and public attitude towards that species. We posed two research questions; first, ‘do people make different donation choices when they see original images of a species compared to when they see images of the same species that have been edited to match aesthetic preferences?’ Using hypothetical donation experiments, we asked respondents to allocate funds to the conservation of three pictured species, one ‘aesthetically appealing’, one ‘aesthetically unappealing’, and one whose image was either edited to reflect common aesthetic preferences or left unedited. Our findings suggest that images edited to make an animal more visually appealing tend to receive higher hypothetical donation amounts than original images.
We also posed a second research question; ‘How do people of varying conservation expertise respond to original versus edited images of wildlife?’ To investigate this, we ran three focus groups with individuals unfamiliar with our test species, those familiar with two or more of our test species, and with conservation professionals, which showed mixed reactions both within and between groups. Focus group participants with less conservation expertise noted that edited images often seemed ‘cuter’ than unedited images, and were more likely to compare them to cartoon characters. Participants with more conservation expertise and species familiarity reported greater empathy towards unedited images, and noted that the edited images prompted an ‘uncanny valley’ response, highlighting the need for further scrutiny in how photo editing might be used in conservation messaging.
Our findings support the beauty bias hypothesis and highlight that decisions on conservation support should acknowledge that less aesthetically pleasing species are disadvantaged in public attention and funding. In addition, the findings highlight the role of conservation expertise in impacting viewer reactions, as well as the ethical implications of editing images of wildlife.
Read the free
Plain Language Summary
for this article on the Journal blog.
Read the free
Plain Language Summary
for this article on the Journal blog. Many threatened species suffer from a lack of conservation attention compared to others. Prioritisation of funding, research and conservation efforts seem to be driven by reasons beyond conservation need. This could be due to a ‘beauty bias’, whereby aesthetically pleasing species receive more attention.We examined how editing an image to increase a species' aesthetic appeal may impact donation choices and public attitude towards that species. We posed two research questions; first, ‘do people make different donation choices when they see original images of a species compared to when they see images of the same species that have been edited to match aesthetic preferences?’ Using hypothetical donation experiments, we asked respondents to allocate funds to the conservation of three pictured species, one ‘aesthetically appealing’, one ‘aesthetically unappealing’, and one whose image was either edited to reflect common aesthetic preferences or left unedited. Our findings suggest that images edited to make an animal more visually appealing tend to receive higher hypothetical donation amounts than original images.We also posed a second research question; ‘How do people of varying conservation expertise respond to original versus edited images of wildlife?’ To investigate this, we ran three focus groups with individuals unfamiliar with our test species, those familiar with two or more of our test species, and with conservation professionals, which showed mixed reactions both within and between groups. Focus group participants with less conservation expertise noted that edited images often seemed ‘cuter’ than unedited images, and were more likely to compare them to cartoon characters. Participants with more conservation expertise and species familiarity reported greater empathy towards unedited images, and noted that the edited images prompted an ‘uncanny valley’ response, highlighting the need for further scrutiny in how photo editing might be used in conservation messaging.Our findings support the beauty bias hypothesis and highlight that decisions on conservation support should acknowledge that less aesthetically pleasing species are disadvantaged in public attention and funding. In addition, the findings highlight the role of conservation expertise in impacting viewer reactions, as well as the ethical implications of editing images of wildlife.Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Abstract Many threatened species suffer from a lack of conservation attention compared to others. Prioritisation of funding, research and conservation efforts seem to be driven by reasons beyond conservation need. This could be due to a ‘beauty bias’, whereby aesthetically pleasing species receive more attention. We examined how editing an image to increase a species' aesthetic appeal may impact donation choices and public attitude towards that species. We posed two research questions; first, ‘do people make different donation choices when they see original images of a species compared to when they see images of the same species that have been edited to match aesthetic preferences?’ Using hypothetical donation experiments, we asked respondents to allocate funds to the conservation of three pictured species, one ‘aesthetically appealing’, one ‘aesthetically unappealing’, and one whose image was either edited to reflect common aesthetic preferences or left unedited. Our findings suggest that images edited to make an animal more visually appealing tend to receive higher hypothetical donation amounts than original images. We also posed a second research question; ‘How do people of varying conservation expertise respond to original versus edited images of wildlife?’ To investigate this, we ran three focus groups with individuals unfamiliar with our test species, those familiar with two or more of our test species, and with conservation professionals, which showed mixed reactions both within and between groups. Focus group participants with less conservation expertise noted that edited images often seemed ‘cuter’ than unedited images, and were more likely to compare them to cartoon characters. Participants with more conservation expertise and species familiarity reported greater empathy towards unedited images, and noted that the edited images prompted an ‘uncanny valley’ response, highlighting the need for further scrutiny in how photo editing might be used in conservation messaging. Our findings support the beauty bias hypothesis and highlight that decisions on conservation support should acknowledge that less aesthetically pleasing species are disadvantaged in public attention and funding. In addition, the findings highlight the role of conservation expertise in impacting viewer reactions, as well as the ethical implications of editing images of wildlife. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. |
Author | Veríssimo, Diogo Shaw, Meghan Owen, Nisha Crowley, Sarah Dunn, Matilda |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Meghan orcidid: 0000-0002-9344-8407 surname: Shaw fullname: Shaw, Meghan organization: Centre for Integrative Ecology Deakin University Burwood Victoria Australia – sequence: 2 givenname: Matilda orcidid: 0000-0002-3075-0625 surname: Dunn fullname: Dunn, Matilda organization: Centre for Environmental Policy Imperial College London London UK – sequence: 3 givenname: Sarah orcidid: 0000-0002-4854-0925 surname: Crowley fullname: Crowley, Sarah organization: Centre for Geography and Environmental Science University of Exeter Penryn UK – sequence: 4 givenname: Nisha surname: Owen fullname: Owen, Nisha organization: Department of Biology Oxford University Oxford UK – sequence: 5 givenname: Diogo orcidid: 0000-0002-3519-6782 surname: Veríssimo fullname: Veríssimo, Diogo organization: Department of Biology Oxford University Oxford UK |
BookMark | eNpNUU1LAzEQDVLBWnvxFwS8CavJZpPNHqX4BQUv9mrI5qNNaZM1yQr-e9NWxNO8mXm8N8O7BBMfvAHgGqM7jFB9P0hPCmKoPgPTmra04gQ3k3_4AsxT2qJCRpiwhkzBxyo5v4bDJuQAjXb50BU4em1iytJrmDcGuv0gVYbBwjQY5UyC0qSyyE4lGDxM4zCEmKENEargk4lfMrvgr8C5lbtk5r91BlZPj--Ll2r59vy6eFhWitAuV1L3vWaMc90joynvO8kRJzXWuAwlVhxrpYhiZUWatrVWaaaYNdQgRApzBl5PujrIrRii28v4LYJ04jgIcS1kLMfujODWdJY1dSPbvsGUFquGkdpa2yHSW1u0bk5aQwyfY3lTbMMYfTlfkGLWEYZrWli3J5aKIaVo7J8rRuIQhzjEIY5xkB9hXH_W |
Cites_doi | 10.1126/science.297.5579.191b 10.2752/089279301786999355 10.1007/s10531‐012‐0257‐7 10.1080/15551393.2017.1417047 10.1093/biohorizons/hzp021 10.4324/9781849770415 10.5406/janimalethics.2.1.0006 10.1007/s10640-007-9151-2 10.1080/08927936.2021.1926718 10.1080/08941920.2011.622734 10.1509/jmkr.44.1.114 10.1111/acv.12586 10.1038/s41467‐020‐14554‐z 10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00059-X 10.12973/eurasia.2017.01000a 10.1080/17470919.2021.1873178 10.22381/JRGS12120227 10.1139/facets-2016-0011 10.1111/conl.12723 10.1037/13620-004 10.1080/10871209.2019.1587649 10.2752/175303713X13534238631399 10.1111/acv.12014 10.1177/0141076818766730 10.1177/147470491501300203 10.1111/j.1755‐263X.2012.00229.x 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.03.011 10.1017/S0030605302000261 10.1068/p7463 10.1080/08927936.2015.11435399 10.1371/journal.pone.0191888 10.1371/journal.pone.0203694 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.018 10.1080/1051144X.2020.1737907 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00387 10.3354/esr00656 10.1111/aec.13288 10.1163/15685306‐BJA10021 10.1177/0033294187060003-240.1 10.21832/9781845415051-007 10.1098/rstb.2011.0039 10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02150 10.3390/ani12141787 10.1016/j.gecco.2015.04.006 10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125829 10.1111/icad.12499 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.035 10.1111/j.1755‐263X.2010.00151.x 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.241 10.2752/089279315X14129350721939 10.1007/s10745‐006‐9056‐7 10.1007/s13280‐019‐01271‐1 10.1145/3319502.3374788 10.21832/9781873150436-010 10.1002/fee.2195 10.1111/acv.12477 10.1007/s10531‐012‐0274‐6 10.1017/S1367943004001799 10.3390/ani1010161 10.1509/jppm.16.188 10.7882/FS.2004.081 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.11.003 10.4324/9781315564777-5 10.1163/156853003321618864 10.1002/mar.21430 10.1007/s11692-009-9069-4 10.1080/13218719.2018.1485522 10.53841/bpsrep.2021.inf180 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.006 10.1007/s10531‐013‐0494‐4 10.1111/mam.12066 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108738 10.1177/002224377701400311 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 10.11114/smc.v3i1.841 10.1080/10463280500229882 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00102-1 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
Copyright_xml | – notice: 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION ABUWG AFKRA ATCPS AZQEC BENPR BHPHI CCPQU DWQXO GNUQQ HCIFZ PATMY PIMPY PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PYCSY DOA |
DOI | 10.1002/pan3.10602 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central Natural Science Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central Korea ProQuest Central Student SciTech Premium Collection Environmental Science Database Publicly Available Content (ProQuest) ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition Environmental Science Collection Directory of Open Access Journals |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Central Student ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central Environmental Science Collection ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition Natural Science Collection ProQuest Central Korea Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection Environmental Science Database ProQuest One Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | CrossRef Publicly Available Content Database |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: BENPR name: ProQuest Central url: https://www.proquest.com/central sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Anthropology |
EISSN | 2575-8314 |
EndPage | 675 |
ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_8fe9f6424a7b41559a84632fff903bff 10_1002_pan3_10602 |
GeographicLocations | United Kingdom--UK |
GeographicLocations_xml | – name: United Kingdom--UK |
GroupedDBID | 0R~ 1OC 24P AAHHS AAYXX ACCFJ ACXQS ADBBV ADKYN ADZMN AEEZP AEQDE AFKRA AIWBW AJBDE ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ATCPS AVUZU BCNDV BENPR BHPHI CCPQU CITATION EBS EDH EJD GROUPED_DOAJ HCIFZ IAO IGS ITC M~E OK1 PATMY PIMPY PYCSY WIN ABUWG AZQEC DWQXO GNUQQ PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-adbbd6688db0ed58b9a808321d1688a1c81dcc3c658b3477ffcd6c6fe5e003083 |
IEDL.DBID | DOA |
ISSN | 2575-8314 |
IngestDate | Tue Oct 22 15:05:08 EDT 2024 Thu Dec 05 14:34:02 EST 2024 Fri Dec 06 05:25:21 EST 2024 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 2 |
Language | English |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c359t-adbbd6688db0ed58b9a808321d1688a1c81dcc3c658b3477ffcd6c6fe5e003083 |
ORCID | 0000-0002-3519-6782 0000-0002-9344-8407 0000-0002-3075-0625 0000-0002-4854-0925 |
OpenAccessLink | https://doaj.org/article/8fe9f6424a7b41559a84632fff903bff |
PQID | 3030936125 |
PQPubID | 4570187 |
PageCount | 16 |
ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_8fe9f6424a7b41559a84632fff903bff proquest_journals_3030936125 crossref_primary_10_1002_pan3_10602 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2024-04-00 20240401 2024-04-01 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2024-04-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2024 text: 2024-04-00 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationPlace | London |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London |
PublicationTitle | People and nature (Hoboken, N.J.) |
PublicationYear | 2024 |
Publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc Wiley |
Publisher_xml | – sequence: 0 name: John Wiley & Sons, Inc – name: Wiley |
References | e_1_2_9_75_1 e_1_2_9_31_1 e_1_2_9_52_1 e_1_2_9_50_1 e_1_2_9_73_1 e_1_2_9_79_1 e_1_2_9_10_1 e_1_2_9_35_1 e_1_2_9_56_1 e_1_2_9_77_1 e_1_2_9_12_1 e_1_2_9_33_1 e_1_2_9_54_1 e_1_2_9_90_1 Collard R.‐C. (e_1_2_9_18_1) 2020 e_1_2_9_71_1 Mitchell D. (e_1_2_9_58_1) 2019 e_1_2_9_14_1 e_1_2_9_39_1 e_1_2_9_16_1 e_1_2_9_37_1 e_1_2_9_41_1 e_1_2_9_64_1 e_1_2_9_87_1 e_1_2_9_20_1 e_1_2_9_89_1 e_1_2_9_22_1 e_1_2_9_45_1 e_1_2_9_68_1 e_1_2_9_83_1 e_1_2_9_24_1 e_1_2_9_43_1 e_1_2_9_66_1 Rhode D. L. (e_1_2_9_69_1) 2010 e_1_2_9_85_1 e_1_2_9_8_1 e_1_2_9_6_1 e_1_2_9_81_1 e_1_2_9_60_1 e_1_2_9_2_1 e_1_2_9_26_1 e_1_2_9_49_1 Lorenz K. (e_1_2_9_51_1) 1971 e_1_2_9_28_1 e_1_2_9_47_1 e_1_2_9_30_1 e_1_2_9_53_1 e_1_2_9_74_1 e_1_2_9_72_1 e_1_2_9_11_1 e_1_2_9_34_1 e_1_2_9_57_1 e_1_2_9_78_1 e_1_2_9_13_1 e_1_2_9_55_1 e_1_2_9_76_1 American Psychological Association (e_1_2_9_4_1) 2016 e_1_2_9_70_1 Coleman S. E. (e_1_2_9_17_1) 2007 e_1_2_9_15_1 e_1_2_9_38_1 e_1_2_9_36_1 e_1_2_9_59_1 e_1_2_9_19_1 Myers O. E. (e_1_2_9_62_1) 2009 Association of Anthropologists & of the UK and the Commonwealth (e_1_2_9_5_1) 2021 e_1_2_9_42_1 e_1_2_9_63_1 e_1_2_9_88_1 e_1_2_9_40_1 e_1_2_9_61_1 e_1_2_9_21_1 e_1_2_9_46_1 e_1_2_9_67_1 e_1_2_9_84_1 e_1_2_9_23_1 e_1_2_9_44_1 e_1_2_9_65_1 e_1_2_9_86_1 e_1_2_9_7_1 e_1_2_9_80_1 e_1_2_9_82_1 e_1_2_9_3_1 e_1_2_9_9_1 e_1_2_9_25_1 e_1_2_9_27_1 Garlick S. (e_1_2_9_32_1) 2009 e_1_2_9_48_1 e_1_2_9_29_1 |
References_xml | – ident: e_1_2_9_16_1 doi: 10.1126/science.297.5579.191b – ident: e_1_2_9_35_1 doi: 10.2752/089279301786999355 – ident: e_1_2_9_7_1 doi: 10.1007/s10531‐012‐0257‐7 – volume-title: Animal traffic: Lively capital in the global exotic pet trade year: 2020 ident: e_1_2_9_18_1 contributor: fullname: Collard R.‐C. – ident: e_1_2_9_45_1 doi: 10.1080/15551393.2017.1417047 – ident: e_1_2_9_8_1 doi: 10.1093/biohorizons/hzp021 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_1 doi: 10.4324/9781849770415 – ident: e_1_2_9_29_1 doi: 10.5406/janimalethics.2.1.0006 – ident: e_1_2_9_43_1 doi: 10.1007/s10640-007-9151-2 – volume-title: Association of anthropologists of the UK and the commonwealth code of ethics year: 2021 ident: e_1_2_9_5_1 contributor: fullname: Association of Anthropologists & of the UK and the Commonwealth – ident: e_1_2_9_28_1 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2021.1926718 – ident: e_1_2_9_40_1 doi: 10.1080/08941920.2011.622734 – ident: e_1_2_9_21_1 doi: 10.1509/jmkr.44.1.114 – ident: e_1_2_9_27_1 doi: 10.1111/acv.12586 – ident: e_1_2_9_56_1 doi: 10.1038/s41467‐020‐14554‐z – ident: e_1_2_9_23_1 doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00059-X – ident: e_1_2_9_68_1 doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.01000a – ident: e_1_2_9_66_1 doi: 10.1080/17470919.2021.1873178 – ident: e_1_2_9_71_1 doi: 10.22381/JRGS12120227 – ident: e_1_2_9_26_1 doi: 10.1139/facets-2016-0011 – ident: e_1_2_9_47_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_20_1 doi: 10.1111/conl.12723 – ident: e_1_2_9_12_1 doi: 10.1037/13620-004 – ident: e_1_2_9_65_1 doi: 10.1080/10871209.2019.1587649 – ident: e_1_2_9_48_1 doi: 10.2752/175303713X13534238631399 – ident: e_1_2_9_63_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_67_1 doi: 10.1111/acv.12014 – volume-title: Digital photo manipulation: A descriptive analysis of codes of ethics and ethical decisions of photo editors year: 2007 ident: e_1_2_9_17_1 contributor: fullname: Coleman S. E. – ident: e_1_2_9_41_1 doi: 10.1177/0141076818766730 – ident: e_1_2_9_49_1 doi: 10.1177/147470491501300203 – ident: e_1_2_9_80_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1755‐263X.2012.00229.x – ident: e_1_2_9_83_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.03.011 – ident: e_1_2_9_10_1 doi: 10.1017/S0030605302000261 – start-page: 39 volume-title: Free‐choice learning and the environment year: 2009 ident: e_1_2_9_62_1 contributor: fullname: Myers O. E. – ident: e_1_2_9_25_1 doi: 10.1068/p7463 – ident: e_1_2_9_73_1 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2015.11435399 – ident: e_1_2_9_85_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191888 – ident: e_1_2_9_24_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203694 – ident: e_1_2_9_87_1 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.018 – ident: e_1_2_9_44_1 doi: 10.1080/1051144X.2020.1737907 – volume-title: The beauty bias: The injustice of appearance in life and law year: 2010 ident: e_1_2_9_69_1 contributor: fullname: Rhode D. L. – ident: e_1_2_9_81_1 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00387 – ident: e_1_2_9_61_1 doi: 10.3354/esr00656 – ident: e_1_2_9_31_1 doi: 10.1111/aec.13288 – ident: e_1_2_9_34_1 doi: 10.1163/15685306‐BJA10021 – start-page: 115 volume-title: Studies in animal and human behavior year: 1971 ident: e_1_2_9_51_1 contributor: fullname: Lorenz K. – ident: e_1_2_9_57_1 doi: 10.1177/0033294187060003-240.1 – ident: e_1_2_9_13_1 doi: 10.21832/9781845415051-007 – ident: e_1_2_9_22_1 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0039 – ident: e_1_2_9_54_1 doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02150 – ident: e_1_2_9_77_1 doi: 10.3390/ani12141787 – ident: e_1_2_9_55_1 doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2015.04.006 – ident: e_1_2_9_79_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125829 – ident: e_1_2_9_89_1 doi: 10.1111/icad.12499 – ident: e_1_2_9_19_1 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.035 – ident: e_1_2_9_86_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1755‐263X.2010.00151.x – ident: e_1_2_9_46_1 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.241 – ident: e_1_2_9_9_1 doi: 10.2752/089279315X14129350721939 – ident: e_1_2_9_82_1 doi: 10.1007/s10745‐006‐9056‐7 – ident: e_1_2_9_84_1 doi: 10.1007/s13280‐019‐01271‐1 – volume-title: Dishonesty is the second‐best policy: And other rules to live by year: 2019 ident: e_1_2_9_58_1 contributor: fullname: Mitchell D. – volume-title: Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct year: 2016 ident: e_1_2_9_4_1 contributor: fullname: American Psychological Association – ident: e_1_2_9_50_1 doi: 10.1145/3319502.3374788 – ident: e_1_2_9_36_1 doi: 10.21832/9781873150436-010 – ident: e_1_2_9_39_1 doi: 10.1002/fee.2195 – ident: e_1_2_9_52_1 doi: 10.1111/acv.12477 – ident: e_1_2_9_15_1 doi: 10.1007/s10531‐012‐0274‐6 – ident: e_1_2_9_75_1 doi: 10.1017/S1367943004001799 – ident: e_1_2_9_33_1 doi: 10.3390/ani1010161 – ident: e_1_2_9_72_1 doi: 10.1509/jppm.16.188 – ident: e_1_2_9_38_1 doi: 10.7882/FS.2004.081 – ident: e_1_2_9_74_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.11.003 – ident: e_1_2_9_37_1 doi: 10.4324/9781315564777-5 – ident: e_1_2_9_76_1 doi: 10.1163/156853003321618864 – ident: e_1_2_9_6_1 doi: 10.1002/mar.21430 – ident: e_1_2_9_90_1 doi: 10.1007/s11692-009-9069-4 – ident: e_1_2_9_3_1 doi: 10.1080/13218719.2018.1485522 – ident: e_1_2_9_64_1 doi: 10.53841/bpsrep.2021.inf180 – ident: e_1_2_9_42_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001 – ident: e_1_2_9_11_1 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.006 – ident: e_1_2_9_70_1 doi: 10.1007/s10531‐013‐0494‐4 – ident: e_1_2_9_30_1 doi: 10.1111/mam.12066 – volume-title: Wildlife cruelty, and relational ethics: Conservation, welfare and the ecoversity year: 2009 ident: e_1_2_9_32_1 contributor: fullname: Garlick S. – ident: e_1_2_9_53_1 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108738 – ident: e_1_2_9_14_1 doi: 10.1177/002224377701400311 – ident: e_1_2_9_60_1 doi: 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 – ident: e_1_2_9_88_1 doi: 10.11114/smc.v3i1.841 – ident: e_1_2_9_59_1 doi: 10.1080/10463280500229882 – ident: e_1_2_9_78_1 doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00102-1 |
SSID | ssj0002013643 |
Score | 2.309969 |
Snippet | Many threatened species suffer from a lack of conservation attention compared to others. Prioritisation of funding, research and conservation efforts seem to... Abstract Many threatened species suffer from a lack of conservation attention compared to others. Prioritisation of funding, research and conservation efforts... |
SourceID | doaj proquest crossref |
SourceType | Open Website Aggregation Database |
StartPage | 660 |
SubjectTerms | aesthetic bias Aesthetics Bias Birds Conservation conservation marketing Editing Endangered & extinct species Familiarity flagship species Funding photo editing Questions species preferences Threatened species Wildlife Wildlife conservation |
SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: ProQuest Central dbid: BENPR link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3fS8MwEA66vYgg_sTplIC-lnVJljZP4sQxBIeIgz1ZkjRxT-tcuwf_e-_abAqCbyEttFySu-8ud98Rcss0i50QOrIGo1U-cZFyoAzBVoHPooziMRYnP0_keCqeZoNZCLiVIa1yoxNrRZ0XFmPkPV7f2aE9vlt-Rtg1Cm9XQwuNXdJmfZ6mLdIePk5eXrdRFoaUZIJveUlZD84Yh5EMcZSNJaoJ-__o49rIjA7JQUCH9L5ZziOy4xbHZP9XM4OvE_Je3_LT5byoCgqmB_OWKQzX2zIVCqCONuWPtPAUiynBH6YaPjjHmsWSFgtarpcIvSmAVmoxpToEZ0_JdPT49jCOQpeEyPKBqiKdG5NLmaa5iV0-SI3SaYz9h_I-TOq-BURqLbcANQwXSeK9zaWV3g1cTVbDz0hrUSzcOaHgzMQuQRY4bYVmIvXgv8iEK8usU7ntkJuNxLJlQ4aRNbTHLEO5ZrVcO2SIwty-gQTW9USx-sjCechS75QH30foxCCmgZ8WkjPvvYq58b5DupulyMKpKrOfPXDx_-NLsscAfDQZNl3SqlZrdwXgoTLXYYd8A73CxsM priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
Title | Using photo editing to understand the impact of species aesthetics on support for conservation |
URI | https://www.proquest.com/docview/3030936125 https://doaj.org/article/8fe9f6424a7b41559a84632fff903bff |
Volume | 6 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3PS8MwFA4yLyKIP3E6R0CvZV3Sps3RycYQHCIOdjIkacLw0A7XHfzvfS_txsCDF28lFFLea_J9L3nve4Q8MM1ilyQ6sgZPq3zmIulgMwSsgphFGsljLE5-mYnpPHlepIu9Vl-YE9bIAzeGG-TeSQ8kOdGZQfCTGhCTM--9jLnxPuy-MdsLpj7D9dqQA9bu9EjZANYWhyfRnp9sESgI9f_ahwO4TE7JScsK6WPzNWfkwJXn5HivicH3BfkIt_t0tazqigLkYL4yhcfNrjyFApmjTdkjrTzFIkqIg6mGCZdYq7imVUnXmxVSbgpklVpMpW4PZS_JfDJ-f5pGbXeEyPJU1pEujCmEyPPCxK5IcwOWibHvUDGEQT20wESt5RYohuFJlnlvC2GFd6kLIjX8inTKqnTXhEIQE7sM1d-0TTRLcg9xi8i4tMw6Wdguud9aTK0aEQzVyB0zhXZVwa5dMkJj7t5A4eowAO5UrTvVX-7skt7WFapdTWvFw30tcrGb_5jjlhwxoCZN_k2PdOqvjbsDalGbPjkcjWevb_3wN_0A4brPxw |
link.rule.ids | 314,780,784,864,2102,21388,27924,27925,33744,43805,74302 |
linkProvider | Directory of Open Access Journals |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1LTxsxEB7R5NCqUgV9iNAAluC6YrG9D5-qUoECJFGFgsQJy_bacMqGbHLov2dm1wmVKvVmeVfa1die-WY88w3AKTc89VKaxFmKVoXCJ8qjMkRbhT6LskqkVJw8meaje3nzkD3EgFsT0yo3OrFV1FXtKEZ-Jto7O7LHPxYvCXWNotvV2ELjHfSJOT3rQf_icvr7bhtl4URJJsWWl5Sf4RkTOMpjHGVjiVrC_n_0cWtkrnbhU0SH7Ge3nHuw4-ef4eNfzQz-fIHH9pafLZ7rVc3Q9FDeMsPhelumwhDUsa78kdWBUTEl-sPM4AefqWaxYfWcNesFQW-GoJU5SqmOwdmvcH91Ofs1SmKXhMSJTK0SU1lb5XlZVjb1VVZaZcqU-g9V5zhpzh0iUueEQ6hhhSyKEFyVuzz4zLdkNeIb9Ob13O8DQ2cm9QWxwBknDZdlQP8lL4Ry3HlVuQGcbCSmFx0Zhu5oj7kmuepWrgO4IGFu3yAC63aiXj7peB50GbwK6PtIU1jCNPjTMhc8hKBSYUMYwHCzFDqeqka_7YGD_z8-hvej2WSsx9fT2-_wgSMQ6bJthtBbLdf-EIHEyh7F3fIKKozJqw |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Li9swEB7aBEpZKH3SbNNWsL2aOJJiW6fS7Cakjw1h2UBOFZIsdU9xNo9D__3O2LJbKPQmZIPNSJr5ZjTzDcAnbnjqpTSJsxStCrlPlEdliLYKfRZllUipOPl6mS3W8ttmson5T4eYVtnqxFpRl5WjGPlI1Hd2ZI9HIaZFrK7mn3f3CXWQopvW2E7jMfTRKqa8B_3pbLm66SIunOjJpOg4SvkIz5vAURZjKq1Vqsn7_9HNtcGZP4dnESmyL83SvoBHfvsSzv5qbPD7Ffysb_zZ7q46VgzNEOUwMxyeupIVhgCPNaWQrAqMCivRN2YGP3hH9YsHVm3Z4bQjGM4QwDJH6dUxUPsa1vPZ7eUiiR0TEicm6piY0toyy4qitKkvJ4VVpkipF1E5xkkzdohOnRMOYYcVMs9DcGXmsuAnviauEW-gt622_i0wdGxSnxMjnHHScFkE9GWyXCjHnVelG8BFKzG9a4gxdEOBzDXJVddyHcCUhNm9QWTW9US1_6Xj2dBF8CqgHyRNbgnf4E_LTPAQgkqFDWEAw3YpdDxhB_1nP5z___FHeIIbRf_4uvz-Dp5yxCRN4s0Qesf9yb9HTHG0H-JmeQA9Xs3Y |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Using+photo+editing+to+understand+the+impact+of+species+aesthetics+on+support+for+conservation&rft.jtitle=People+and+nature+%28Hoboken%2C+N.J.%29&rft.au=Meghan+Shaw&rft.au=Matilda+Dunn&rft.au=Sarah+Crowley&rft.au=Nisha+Owen&rft.date=2024-04-01&rft.pub=Wiley&rft.eissn=2575-8314&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=660&rft.epage=675&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fpan3.10602&rft.externalDBID=DOA&rft.externalDocID=oai_doaj_org_article_8fe9f6424a7b41559a84632fff903bff |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2575-8314&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2575-8314&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2575-8314&client=summon |