Human Dimensions of Wildlife

An International Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

Social preferences for vertebrates, invertebrates

and plants: a multistakeholder approach for
conservation management

Iñigo Bidegain, Claudia Cerda, Eduardo A. Silva-Rodríguez, César López-

Santiago, Cristóbal Briceño, Álvaro Promis, Jorge Razeto, Carmen Luz de la
Maza & Antonio Tironi

To cite this article: Iñigo Bidegain, Claudia Cerda, Eduardo A. Silva-Rodríguez, César
López-Santiago, Cristóbal Briceño, Álvaro Promis, Jorge Razeto, Carmen Luz de la Maza &
Antonio Tironi (29 Sep 2023): Social preferences for vertebrates, invertebrates and plants: a
multistakeholder approach for conservation management, Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2023.2263774

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2023.2263774

View supplementary material

Published online: 29 Sep 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhdw20
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE
https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2023.2263774

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Social preferences for vertebrates, invertebrates and plants:

a multistakeholder approach for conservation management
Iñigo Bidegaina,b,c, Claudia Cerdaa, Eduardo A. Silva-Rodríguezd,e, César López-Santiagob,
Cristóbal Briceñof, Álvaro Promisg, Jorge Razetoh, Carmen Luz de la Mazaa,
and Antonio Tironii
a
Department of Forest Sciences and its Environment. Faculty of Forest Sciences and Nature Conservation,
Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile; bDepartment of Ecology, Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Faculty of
Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; cNatural Science Institute, Universidad de las
Américas, Santiago, Chile; dInstituto de Conservación, Biodiversidad y Territorio, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales
y Recursos Naturales, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile; ePrograma Austral Patagonia, Universidad
Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile; fPreventive Medicine Department, Faculty of Animal and Veterinary Sciences,
Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile; gDepartment of Silviculture and Nature Conservation, Faculty of Forest
Sciences and Nature Conservation, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile; hDepartment of Anthropology. Faculty
of Social Sciences, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile; iCienciambiental Consultores, Santiago, Chile

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
We assessed social preferences toward vertebrates, invertebrates, and Biodiversity hotspot; Chile;
plants in a biodiversity hotspot in Chile. We asked respondents (n = 662) preferences; social valuation;
to rank species based on their preferences and to select one subset to species
protect and another subset to remove. We identified four species
clusters based on preferences: charismatic animals, plants, less popular
animals, and animals that cause phobia/rejection. Preferences to protect
were higher in the charismatic animal cluster, whereas preferences to
remove were concentrated in the phobic cluster. Stakeholders with
environmental occupations selected species to protect from the “less
popular animals” and “animals causing phobia” clusters more often than
other stakeholders, whereas society in general tended to select species
from the “charismatic animals” cluster. Our results suggest that factors
different from conservation priorities – like charisma – guide social
preferences for biodiversity, and this needs to be considered when
planning management actions.

Introduction and Literature Review

Decision makers must assess social preferences for species and the underlying factors that
drive these preferences (Dayer et al., 2020; Liordos et al., 2017) because they provide critical
information on the public acceptability – and therefore, social feasibility – of wildlife
management strategies (e.g. eradication, or control of alien species). Indeed, technically
sound conservation strategies may fail without public support (e.g., Bennett et al., 2019;
Crowley et al., 2016, 2017; Silva-Rodríguez et al., 2019).
The acceptability of wildlife management varies according to the stakes, as well as the
type of intervention and species involved (e.g., Díaz et al., 2020; Glas et al., 2019; Whittaker
et al., 2006). Certain species may be perceived as aesthetically appealing, whereas others can

CONTACT Claudia Cerda clcerdaj@uchile.cl Department of Forest Science and its Environment, Faculty of Forest
Sciences and Nature Conservation, Universidad de Chile, La Pintana, Santiago, Santa Rosa 11315, Chile
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2023.2263774
© 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 I. BIDEGAIN ET AL.

cause fear or phobia, and these perceptions may influence the acceptability of management
decisions (De Pinho et al., 2014), regardless of species’ ecological role or conservation status
(Martín-López et al., 2007). Information on these biases is important because strategies may
need to include additional steps to prevent the emergence of conflict ensuing from the
implementation of management strategies, especially when they involve the control of
appealing species (e.g., feral horses and squirrels, Crowley et al., 2016, 2017) or the
conservation of unappealing species (e.g., snakes, spiders, and bats; Knight, 2008).
Several factors may affect social preferences for species and conservation management
strategies, including stakeholders’ sociodemographic characteristics such as gender,
urban versus rural setting, level of education, occupation, and income (e.g., Ericsson &
Heberlein, 2003; Liordos et al., 2017; Naughton-Treves & Treves, 2005; Teel & Manfredo,
2010). Social support may be greater for better known and common species (Wilson &
Tisdell, 2005) as well as for species that are phylogenetically closer to humans (Miralles
et al., 2019; Tisdell et al., 2006). Consequently, mammals – or some of them – may be
favored over reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants (Knight, 2008; Martín-López
et al., 2007; Miralles et al., 2019). Aesthetic appreciation (Keller & Berry, 1980) may also
be a determining factor that explains public support for species conservation (Belaire
et al., 2015; De Pinho et al., 2014; Gunnthorsdottir, 2001; Marešová & Frynta, 2008). The
potential effect of species’ origin on social preferences has also been discussed visualizing
the potential diversity of public views on alien species (Fischer et al., 2014). Most studies
on human preferences for wildlife have focused on vertebrates (Glas et al., 2019), despite
the ecological significance of less popular, but threatened, biodiversity (Reimer et al.,
2014). Additionally, research on social preferences for wildlife is scarce in South America
(Serenari et al., 2015).
We assessed public preferences for a subset of vertebrates, invertebrates and plants
present in a South American biodiversity hotspot. To accomplish this goal, we a) identified
the most and the least preferred species of vertebrates, invertebrates and plants and explored
the species groups that emerge from diverging preferences toward species; b) determined
preferences to conserve or remove species; and c) determined the association between
respondents’ preferences to protect species and their sociodemographic characteristics.

Methods
Study Area
Our study was conducted in La Campana-Peñuelas Biosphere Reserve (CPBR) in central
Chile (Supplementary material 1). CPBR was created in 1984 and expanded in 2009
(238,000 ha) (Moreira-Muñoz & Salazar, 2014) and includes La Campana National Park
and Peñuelas National Reserve as core areas. Most of the CPBR is located in the Valparaiso
region, a region that recently included the preservation, conservation and promotion of
biodiversity as key goals of its Regional Development Strategy (Gobierno Regional de
Valparaíso, 2020). The CPBR is inhabited by around 124,083 people (Moreira-Muñoz &
Salazar, 2014). Agriculture is one of the main economic activities in the CPBR (Bidegain
et al., 2019). Diverse types of tourism also take place in the area (Cerda et al., 2019). The
Mediterranean sclerophyllous forests and scrublands are the main ecosystems in the area
and are underrepresented in the Chilean System of Protected Areas (Pliscoff & Fuentes-
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 3

Castillo, 2011). The biological diversity is threatened by wildfires, domestic livestock and
free-ranging dogs, the illegal extraction of palm seeds, and the presence of nonnative species
such as rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and Rubus spp., among others (Conaf, 2017).

Study Design
Species Selection
We developed a survey where we asked participants to rank a set of 34 species from most to
least preferred. The selection of the species involved two stages. In the first stage, we
conducted a pilot study that included 29 species that aimed to represent the diversity of
vertebrates (excluding fishes) and invertebrates present in the area, and, in the case of
plants, the main life forms. The inclusion criteria for the pilot study are summarized below
(details can be found in Cerda et al., 2019). In the case of animals, we selected terrestrial
vertebrates (classes: Mammalia, Aves, Amphibia and Reptilia) and arthropods (classes:
Insecta and Arachnida). For each class we selected the three orders with the largest number
of species in the area (if less than three orders were present, we chose the maximum
available, e.g., one in the case of amphibians), and chose within the order a species frequent
to be found in the CPBR. Plants were selected to adequately represent different forms of life,
limiting the selection to vascular plants. We included the most common terrestrial plants
found inside the study area (tree, shrub or subshrub, vine, epiphyte, grass, liana, parasite
and tree palm). The native plants selected were associated with the sclerophyllous scrub of
central Chile (Luebert & Pliscoff, 2006), and the selected exotic plants are naturalized
(Teillier et al., 2010). We also included the Chilean thorny scrub by adding the genus
Puya and a succulent shrub (Trichocereus chiloensis). Some of the species selected may be
popular for people because they are emblematic, they are easy to see or have some local use
(Cerda et al., 2019; Martín-López et al., 2007). Other species may cause rejection because
they generate phobia, or negatively impact people (Knight, 2008).
In the second stage, we assessed if people were able to correctly identify the silhouettes
and collected information on the social importance of vertebrates, invertebrates and plants
(see results in Cerda et al., 2019). In addition, the pilot study allowed us to identify – based
on participant feedback – species to include (e.g., rabbit, owl, tarantula, wasp, willow,
blackberry, eucalypt) or remove (e.g., duck, copihue) which changed the originally selected
29 species to 34 in the final instrument. After reviewing the results of the pilot study, the
final list of species included in the final instrument considered 11 vertebrates, 11 inverte­
brates, and 12 plants (Figure 1).
Two graphic designers created black silhouettes for each species. By using silhouettes, we
sought to standardize the images of the species, avoiding the effects of colors and the
landscape around the species. For vertebrates, this technique avoided the bias effects of
facial expressions on the perception of species (Cerda et al., 2019). We acknowledge that the
use of silhouettes could have some disadvantages if a respondent was not familiar with
a given species. To address this problem, in most cases, we did not assess individual species
but rather focused on the order or group of species (e.g., butterflies, foxes, frogs, etc.). The
effectiveness of this approach was tested during the pilot study and showed a high percen­
tage (94%) of success in recognizing the silhouettes (Cerda et al., 2019).
The silhouettes of the species were first presented together on a poster (Figure 1 but
without the names). Next, participants received 34 magnets, each with a different
4 I. BIDEGAIN ET AL.

Figure 1. Silhouettes of the vertebrates, invertebrates and plants used in this study. The native tree
silhouette is representative of the two main species in the sclerophyll forest of central Chile.
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 5

silhouette and were asked to order the magnets from the most to the least preferred
species. Each subject could ask the name of the species represented to ensure that they
correctly identified the species. Sometimes, information about morphological charac­
teristics, habitat and behavior was given to respondents to specific questions about
a species. However, information was not provided regarding the origin of the species
(native or not), subjective values, or its ecological benefits and damages to avoid
influencing respondent perceptions. The questionnaire also included a section that
assessed how much the respondents liked each of the 34 species using a Likert scale
from 1 (I don’t like it at all) to 5 (I like it a lot). Later, we asked participants if they
believed the regional government should work to protect any of the species. In the
affirmative case, the participant was asked to list a maximum of five species to protect.
Similarly, participants were asked if they thought that the regional government should
work to remove any of the species from the area. When respondents answered yes,
they were asked to list up to five species that should be removed. Information about
desires of protection or removal of particular species is relevant for conservation
practitioners in the area.
We also collected respondents’ sociodemographic information including age, residence
time, gender, occupation, educational level, and rural-urban identification. Age was classi­
fied to young adults (18–24), adults (25–59) and elderly (60 or more). Reported occupation
was classified in three categories that were relevant to our study: environmental (e.g., people
with jobs or education related to environmental topics, conservationists, environmental
policy makers, etc.), agricultural sector (e.g., farmers, floriculturists, agriculture technicians
and students of veterinary sciences, forestry and agronomics, etc.) and others (all categories
not included in the other categories).

Sampling Design
The surveys took place in different parts of the study areas including towns, rural areas, and
areas located near the biosphere reserve. The main objective of the sampling design was to
try to achieve the largest diversity of local stakeholders. We only interviewed participants
18 years or older who consented to participate in the study. We administered 668 face-to-
face questionnaires between October 2016 and January 2017. The response rate was 78%.
Prior to administration, the project and the informed consent of the questionnaire were
analyzed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences
of the University of Chile.

Data Analysis
To identify the most and least preferred vertebrates, invertebrates and plants, we used the
rankings generated by participants. To facilitate interpretation, the rankings were reor­
dered, assigning the highest values to the most preferred species and the lowest values to the
least preferred species. We calculated the means for each species based on its position in the
ranking question. We excluded from data analysis any interviews with missing data (n = 6)
(i.e., when some species were not ranked), therefore the final dataset was composed of the
answers provided by 662 respondents (53% female, 47% male; 12% young adult, 67% adult,
21% elderly).
We explored the species groups that emerged from diverging preferences toward
species, conducting a hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) using squared cosine
6 I. BIDEGAIN ET AL.

Figure 2. Dendrogram showing the results of hierarchical cluster analysis of similarity in social prefer­
ences for 34 different taxa. Cluster names are based on information gathered in the pilot study (Cerda
et al., 2019) and other studies (Knight, 2008; Liordos et al., 2017; Martín-López et al., 2007).

distances and Ward’s linkage method. HCA allowed us to identify clusters of species
based on species rankings. HCA was conducted using package “stats” in R 4.2.1 (R
Core Team, 2022). To identify the characteristics of the species grouped in each
cluster, we considered taxonomic differences and used information provided by
respondents during the pilot study (Cerda et al., 2019), as well as the scientific
literature (i.e., Knight, 2008; Liordos et al., 2017; Martín-López et al., 2007). Then
we used a Kruskal-Wallis test – implemented in package “stats” in R – to determine
if the species included in each of the clusters differed in terms of four variables: (1)
mean ranking, (2) mean Likert scores, and percentage of respondents who would
choose each species for (3) protection and (4) removal.
Finally, we determined for each of the clusters the association of respondents’
preferences for species protection with their sociodemographic characteristics. For
this purpose, we used generalized linear mixed models using binomial error and
logit link (Zuur et al., 2009). We determined the association between the selection
(1) or not (0) of any given species for protection (response variable), and gender,
age category, rural-urban, occupation (environmental, agricultural, or others), and
species involved. The code of the interview was treated as a random effect to
account for the lack of independence of the multiple responses provided by
a single respondent. This analysis was conducted for each of the clusters. Note
that for the purpose of this analysis the snail was reassigned to a different cluster
than the one identified in the HCA, and the recluse spider was excluded due to the
absence of variability in the dataset (i.e., no one chose it for protection). The
analyses were conducted in package “lme4” using the bobyqa optimizer (Bates
et al., 2015) and the figures were produced using package “coefplot2” (Bolker &
Su, 2011).
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 7

Figure 3. Boxplot of species cluster scores (Median, interquartile range, minimum, and maximum values
shown). These plots show the (a) mean ranking scores, (b) mean Likert scores, and proportion of
participants that chose species for (c) protection and (d) removal as a function of the clusters identified
through hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA). Note that snails are grouped with plants in the HCA (Figure 2).

Results
Most and Least Preferred Species and Species Groups
The highest ranked species were butterflies, followed by Chilean palm and willow trees,
whereas the lowest species ranked was the recluse spider (Supplementary material 2).
Based on the rankings, we identified four clusters of species preferences (Figure 2). The
first cluster included charismatic animals – mostly vertebrates and the butterfly – and
obtained the highest mean ranking (�x = 24.4). The second cluster included all the plants
analyzed in this study as well as the snail (�x = 21.6). The third cluster included the less
charismatics animals that were generally located near the center of the preference
rankings (�x = 15.3). The fourth cluster included some vertebrates (rats, snakes, and
bats) and most invertebrates analyzed. This cluster included species that were generally
at the bottom of the preference rankings (�x = 9.2), and are often considered to elicit
phobias and rejection.
The species included in the clusters differed significantly in terms of rankings (Kruskal-
Wallis chi-squared = 27.9, df = 3, p < .001; Figure 3a) and Likert scores (Kruskal-Wallis chi-
squared = 26.3, df = 3, p < .001). The highest scores were observed for species included in
the charismatic fauna and plants clusters, whereas the cluster of fauna that cause phobias/
8 I. BIDEGAIN ET AL.

Figure 4. Coefficients and confidence intervals of generalized linear mixed models used to determine the
association between the choice for protection and the species involved and sociodemographic variables
of the respondent. Reference categories for species are the following alien species: rabbit (charismatic
fauna), eucalypt (plants), snail (less popular fauna) and wasp (fauna linked to phobia). In addition, urban
is being compared to rural, female to male, young adult and adult to elderly and environmental and
agricultural to other stakeholders.

rejection had the lowest scores (Figure 3b). Species in the charismatic cluster were selected
more often for conservation, followed by plants and less popular species (Figure 3c,
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 18.7, df = 3, p < .001; Figure 3d). In contrast, the choice for
removal was concentrated in the cluster with species causing phobias (Kruskal-Wallis chi-
squared = 17.4, df = 3, p < .001; Figure 3d).

Association Between respondents’ Preferences to Protect Species and Their

Sociodemographic Characteristics
The species included in the charismatic fauna cluster were frequently chosen to be
protected (Figure 3a). The odds of selecting species within this cluster was mostly
explained by differences between species and were lower for occupation linked to the
environment and agricultural sectors (Figure 4a). In the case of plants, there was high
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 9

variation between species (Figure 3b). Species such as the endangered Chilean palm,
native trees and the non-native willow were selected frequently for protection, while
others such as the invasive gorse and thistle, and native lianas, were chosen infrequently.
In addition, there was a tendency for stakeholders linked to agricultural occupations to
select species within this group more frequently than other stakeholders, and for
younger stakeholders to select species from this cluster less often than other age classes
(Figure 4b).
The clusters that included less popular species and those species that cause phobia,
were infrequently selected for protection (Figure 3c,d). As in the previous clusters, there
was variation in preference for conservation between species. The frog, degu, and
bumblebee were selected more often in the less popular cluster (Figure 4c), while the
snake and the bat were selected more often in the phobic species cluster (Figure 4d).
However, these preferences were infrequent in all cases, with fewer than 15% of
respondents selecting them (Supplementary material 2). As in the previous clusters,
the type of stakeholder appears to be important in the selection of species from these
clusters. Specifically, species from both clusters were chosen more frequently by respon­
dents with environmental occupations than by other stakeholders (Figure 4c,d). In
addition, species in the “fauna linked to phobias” cluster were selected for protection
more often among young adults (Figure 4d).

Discussion
Previous research suggests that society prefers animals over plants (Martín-López et al.,
2007), and that similarity to humans partially predicts public empathy for species (Batt,
2009, but see; Colléony et al., 2017; Miralles et al., 2019; Prguda & Neumann, 2014; Tisdell
et al., 2006; Westbury & Neumann, 2008). However, our data show otherwise. We identified
four clusters of preferences. The two clusters that included the most preferred species
contained plants and some animals, whereas the least-preferred cluster included only
animals. Furthermore, mammals were included both among the most (foxes, rabbits) and
least (bats, rats) preferred species. The apparent inconsistency between our findings and
those of previous works is probably linked to the fact that other studies have included
assessment of feelings such as empathy and compassion (Miralles et al., 2019; Prguda &
Neumann, 2014; Westbury & Neumann, 2008) or have considered only animals
(e.g., Tisdell et al., 2006).
A second fundamental point that emerges from our study is that conservation priorities
do not match social preferences. A clear example is the fact that both the Chilean palm – an
endangered species – and the rabbit – an alien one – were among the most preferred species
and were frequently selected to conserve. The case of rabbits is not surprising if one
considers that although the public may recognize that this species damages the environment
and agriculture, they are also perceived as “cute” (Wilkinson & Fitzgerald, 1997) and/or as
a species of hunting interest (Cerda et al., 2019). On the other hand, bats – which provide
important ecosystem services (Rodríguez-San Pedro et al., 2020) – were grouped with rats
and wasps, which are highly damaging invasive species (Araos et al., 2020). Furthermore,
species of high conservation priority, such as frogs and endangered bumblebees (e.g.,
Correa et al., 2016; Morales et al., 2016), ranked relatively low in terms of preferences,
and few respondents selected them as conservation priorities, even though they face higher
10 I. BIDEGAIN ET AL.

extinction risks in the region than most animal species chosen to conserve (e.g., foxes, owls,
and alien rabbits). Therefore, our data suggest that social preferences for conservation are
not linked to conservation status (see also Colléony et al., 2017).
Public preferences can be analyzed in terms of the major taxa included in this study.
Vertebrates are not a homogeneous taxon, including species among the most and the least
preferred. All birds were included within the charismatic cluster and scored high in
rankings. On the other hand, herpetofauna was ranked at intermediate levels and were
infrequently selected for conservation. Understanding the links between aesthetics and
phobia may be complex in the case of herpetofauna. For example, in reptiles, aesthetic
beauty is negatively correlated with fear, but in the case of snakes, the association between
beauty and fear is positive (Janovcová et al., 2019). Mammals show an interesting dichot­
omy; charismatic species (foxes and rabbits) are highly preferred and included as conserva­
tion priorities, even though foxes prey on domestic animals such as hens (Silva-Rodríguez
et al., 2019), and rabbits are invasive species that cause damage to agriculture (Araos et al.,
2020). However, rodents and bats were included among the least preferred groups, which
could be linked to their appearance (Gunnthorsdottir, 2001), their role as zoonotic agents
(Cabello & Cabello, 2008) and lack of knowledge about the ecosystem services they provide
(e.g., Rodríguez-San Pedro et al., 2020). Finally, most invertebrates were ranked low in
terms of preferences, except for the charismatic butterfly, similar to previous reports
(Leandro & Jay-Robert, 2019). The results of analyzing animals in isolation resemble
those of previous studies suggesting that charisma, and not conservation status and
similarity to humans, influences social preferences for conservation (e.g., species adoption
in conservation programs, Colléony et al., 2017).
Plants tend to receive less attention than animals (Balding & Williams, 2016; Parsley,
2020), and some studies suggest that people may prefer animals over plants (Martín-López
et al., 2007). However, in our study, plants were highly valued (Figure 3) and people
preferred animals over plants only when the comparison involved charismatic animals,
usually birds and some mammals. In fact, plants were preferred over most mammals and
insects – the most diverse animal taxa (Mora et al., 2011) – and over frogs, reptiles, and most
invertebrates. This choice is also expressed in preferences for conservation action. Plants
were the second group in preferences to prioritize conservation, including threatened, but
also non-native species. A preference for conservation was observed in the case of trees of
cultural relevance, such as the endangered Chilean palm, which is endemic to Chile and the
only native palm of continental Chile (Chaparro, 2021). Over time, this species has been
exposed to several threats, such as the illegal extraction of seeds (Chaparro, 2021;
Quintanilla & Morales, 2013). However, preferences are not limited to native species. The
willow, an alien species, was chosen as a species to protect more often than most native
plants and animals, probably because it is a common species with high ornamental value in
central Chile (Amigo, 2018). The few desires for removal expressed by respondents toward
plants focused on some alien species (eucalyptus, pine, and blackberry), which may be
related to knowledge on the negative impacts caused by these species in Chile (Carmona
et al., 2012; Little et al., 2009). However, the proportion of respondents who chose them as
species to remove (≤6% respectively, Supplementary material 2) was much lower than those
who chose them as species to protect.
Species ranking needs to be analyzed with caution because a lower ranking does not
necessarily imply negative attitudes or a desire to remove a species. However, in the case
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 11

of most species in the phobic fauna cluster, those were also classified in dislike
categories. These results are unsurprising, considering that some of these species are
potentially harmful (Araos et al., 2020; Silva-Rodríguez et al., 2019). Accordingly, the
preferences to remove species from this cluster was concentrated in three damaging
and/or dangerous species (recluse spider, yellow jacket wasp and rats), with the remain­
ing species being selected less often. Nevertheless, people chose snakes and bats as
species to remove more frequently than alien species that belonged to other clusters,
such as rabbits and snails (Supplementary material 1). We do not know how often these
intentions translate into actual behaviors nor its potential impact. Further research is
needed to assess human behaviors toward species that, despite being threatened and/or
fulfilling important ecosystem roles, are negatively perceived by the public. The effects
of having information about species is also an important aspect to be assessed by future
research.
Preferences to protect species were associated with respondents’ occupation for all
clusters. Stakeholders linked to environmental occupations were more likely than other
stakeholders to select species from the less popular or phobic clusters of fauna than other
stakeholders. These differences could be explained by the fact that both clusters included
species that are protected (e.g., degu, frogs; SAG, 2015), listed as threatened in Chile (e.g.,
tarantulas and bumblebees, MMA, 2022) or provide important ecosystem services (e.g.,
bumblebees, bats; Morales et al., 2016; Rodríguez-San Pedro et al., 2020), and it is possible
that stakeholders with environmental occupations were more aware of these information.
Respondents whose occupation is not linked to the environment may be guided by a species
charisma, independent of their conservation status (e.g., owls and foxes; MMA, 2022), or
negative effects on the environment and agriculture (e.g., rabbit; Araos et al., 2020). Finally,
although we observed variations in preferences for protection among all clusters, these
differences do not appear to be consistently linked to whether a species is native or alien.
A key take-home message that emerges from these patterns is that while environmental
stakeholders may recognize conservation priorities as such, other sectors of society may not
share the same recognition.
Based on our findings, we envision four scenarios for wildlife management, which
depends on whether the target species is charismatic or not and needs protection or
control. First, we expect public support for initiatives that aim at recovering or protect­
ing charismatic species (see also Colléony et al., 2017; Espinosa-Molina et al., 2021).
Public support may be in the form of social acceptability of conservation actions (e.g.,
Liordos et al., 2017), but could also imply actual commitment and resource investment
(e.g., Colléony et al., 2017). Second, we expect that control initiatives targeting charis­
matic species will result in conflict over management decisions. Social disagreements
over management actions are a well-known challenge in conservation (Bennett et al.,
2019; Crowley et al., 2017; Redpath et al., 2013). Frequent scenarios emerge when some
stakeholders perceive that charismatic species damage their interest and thus take action
to control damage, leading to conflict with stakeholders that aim at protecting these
species (Redpath et al., 2013). Human-wildlife conflict often fits this scenario and is
a major problem involving the management of taxa such as carnivora (Treves &
Karanth, 2003). Nevertheless, conflict is also likely to emerge from management deci­
sions involving invasive species (Crowley et al., 2017), especially when charismatic
species are involved (Jarić et al., 2020). In Chile, conflicts have already become an
12 I. BIDEGAIN ET AL.

important issue affecting management decisions concerning native and invasive species
(Silva-Rodríguez et al., 2019). Third, management decisions that aim at protecting non
charismatic species are unlikely to elicit social support or conflict. Garnering support for
the conservation of species perceived as harmful or that cause phobia, such as bats and
snakes, is likely to be particularly challenging and requires innovative communication
strategies (Boso et al., 2021; see also Espinosa-Molina et al., 2021). Finally, the idea of
controlling species perceived as dangerous or harmful is less likely to lead to conflict
(Liordos et al., 2017). Nevertheless, this point does not imply that all control measures
will be supported (e.g., Bremner & Park, 2007; Green & Rohan, 2012).
In synthesis, the following conclusions emerge from our study: a) charismatic animals
are preferred for conservation, whereas those that are perceived as harmful or generate
phobia are preferred for removal; b) non-popular species are valued mostly by people with
environmental training and/or with higher levels of education; c) “being alien” is
a characteristic that concerns people with environmental training but may not lead to
control intentions among the general public; and d) native or not, plants are a valued group.
In most scenarios, biodiversity management decisions will increasingly require including
the human dimensions in the decision-making process.

Acknowledgments
We thank the respondents who were willing to share their species preferences. We also thank
J. Pantoja, C. Fuenzalida, J. Aravena, Y. Gutiérrez and C. Munita for collecting the data.
R. Verdugo and P. Alcaíno drew the silhouettes used in this study.
Two anonymous reviewers provided insightful comments that helped to improve our manuscript.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The work was supported by the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico [1151063].

Data availability statement

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the authors.

References
Amigo, J. (2018). Contribuciones sobre el género Salix (Salicaceae) en Chile. Chloris Chilensis, 21, 2.
https://www.chlorischile.cl/salix%20en%20chile-amigo/Salix%20en%20Chile-Amigo.htm
Araos, A., Cerda, C., Skewes, O., Cruz, G., Tapia, P., & Baeriswyl, F. (2020). Estimated economic
impacts of seven invasive alien species in Chile. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 25(4), 1–6. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2020.1740837
Balding, M., & Williams, K. J. (2016). Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation.
Conservation Biology, 30(6), 1192–1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12738
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 13

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using
lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Batt, S. (2009). Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans:
A multivariate approach. Bioscience Horizons: The International Journal of Student Research, 2
(2), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1093/biohorizons/hzp021
Belaire, J. A., Westphal, L. M., Whelan, C. J., & Minor, E. S. (2015). Urban residents’ perceptions of
birds in the neighborhood: Biodiversity, cultural ecosystem services, and disservices. The Condor,
117(2), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1650/condor-14-128.1
Bennett, N. J., DiFranco, A., Calò, A., Nethery, E., Niccolini, F., Milazzo, M., & Guidetti, P. (2019).
Local support for conservation is associated with perceptions of good governance, social impacts,
and ecological effectiveness. Conservation Letters, 12(4), e12640. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.
12640
Bidegain, I., Cerda, C., Catalán, E., Tironi, A., López-Santiago, C., & Umapathy, G. (2019). Social
preferences for ecosystem services in a biodiversity hotspot in South America. PlosOne, 14(4),
e0215715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215715
Bolker, B., & Su, Y. (2011). coefplot2: Coefficient plots. R package version 0.1.3.2.
Boso, À., Álvarez, B., Pérez, B., Imio, J. C., Altamirano, A., & Lisón, F. (2021). Understanding human
attitudes towards bats and the role of information and aesthetics to boost a positive response as
a conservation tool. Animal Conservation, 24(6), 937–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12692
Bremner, A., & Park, K. (2007). Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in
Scotland. Biological Conservation, 139(3), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.005
Cabello, C. C., & Cabello, C. F. (2008). Zoonosis con reservorios silvestres: Amenazas a la salud
pública y a la economía. Revista Médica de Chile, 136(3), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-
98872008000300016
Carmona, A., González, M. E., Nahuelhual, L., & Silva, J. (2012). Spatio-temporal effects of human
drivers on fire danger in Mediterranean Chile. Bosque (Valdivia), 33(3), 31–32. https://doi.org/10.
4067/s0717-92002012000300016
Cerda, C., Bidegain, I., Silva-Rodríguez, E. A., Briceño, C., Promis, A., Razeto, J., Tironi-Silva, A., &
de la Maza, C. L. (2019). Valoración social de la vida silvestre: Un estudio de caso en un hotspot de
biodiversidad en Chile central. In C. Cerda, E. Silva-Rodríguez, & C. Briceño (Eds.), Naturaleza en
sociedad Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad (pp. 443–471).
Ocho Libros Editores SpA.
Chaparro, C. B. (2021). Jubaea Chilensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: E.
T38586a2880356. Retrieved November 6, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-3.RLTS.
T38586A2880356.en
Colléony, A., Clayton, S., Denis, C., Saint Jalme, M., & Prevot, A.-C. (2017). Human preferences for
species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biological Conservation, 206,
263–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.035
CONAF. (2017). Plan de Manejo Parque Nacional La Campana. Corporación Nacional Forestal
(CONAF).
Correa, C., Donoso, J. P., & Ortiz, J. C. (2016). Estado de conocimiento y conservación de los anfibios
de Chile: Una síntesis de los últimos 10 años de investigación. Gayana (Concepción), 80(1),
103–124. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-65382016000100011
Crowley, S. L., Hinchliffe, S., & McDonald, R. A. (2017). Conflict in invasive species management.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(3), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1471
Crowley, S. L., Hinchliffe, S., McDonald, R. A., & Lee, T. M. (2016). Invasive species management will
benefit from social impact assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(2), 351–357. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1365-2664.12817
Dayer, A. A., Silva-Rodríguez, E. A., Albert, S., Chapman, M., Zukowski, B., Ibarra, J. T., Gifford, G.,
Echeverri, A., Martínez-Salinas, A., & Sepúlveda-Luque, C. (2020). Applying conservation social
science to study the human dimensions of neotropical bird conservation. The Condor, 122(3),
duaa021. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/duaa021
De Pinho, J. R., Grilo, C., Boone, R. B., Galvin, K. A., Snodgrass, J. G., & Festa-Bianchet, M. (2014).
Influence of aesthetic appreciation of wildlife species on attitudes towards their conservation in
14 I. BIDEGAIN ET AL.

Kenyan agropastoralist communities. PLoS One, 9(2), e88842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pone.0088842
Díaz, M. V., Simonetti, J. A., & Zorondo-Rodríguez, F. (2020). Social acceptability of management
actions for addressing different conflict scenarios between humans and wildlife in Patagonia.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 25(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2020.1678079
Ericsson, G., & Heberlein, T. A. (2003). Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden
now that the wolves are back. Biological Conservation, 111(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0006-3207(02)00258-6
Espinosa-Molina, M., Rodriguez-Jorquera, I. A., & Beckmann, V. (2021). Effect and difference
between the threatened and endemic status on the general public support towards wildlife species
in a biodiversity hotspot. Biodiversity and Conservation, 30(11), 3219–3241. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10531-021-02245-0
Fischer, A., Selge, S., Van der Wal, R., Larson, B. M. H., & Davies, Z. G. (2014). The public and
professionals reason similarly about the management of non-native invasive species: A quantitative
investigation of the relationship between beliefs and attitudes. PLoS One, 9(8), e105495. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105495
Glas, Z. E., Getson, J. M., & Prokopy, L. S. (2019). Wildlife value orientations and their relationships
with mid-size predator management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 24(5), 418–432. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10871209.2019.1622820
Gobierno Regional de Valparaíso. 2020. Estrategia Regional de Desarrollo Región de Valparaíso 2020.
https://proactiva.subdere.gov.cl/bitstream/handle/123456789/317/ESTRATEGIA_REGIONAL_
DE_DESARROLLO_REGION_DE_VALPARAISO.PDF?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Green, W., & Rohan, M. (2012). Opposition to aerial 1080 poisoning for control of invasive mammals
in New Zealand: Risk perceptions and agency responses. Journal of the Royal Society of New
Zealand, 42(3), 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2011.556130
Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its
preservation. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279301786999355
Janovcová, M., Rádlová, S., Polák, J., Sedláčková, K., Peléšková, Š., Žampachová, B., Frynta, D., &
Landová, E. (2019). Human attitude toward reptiles: A relationship between fear, disgust, and
aesthetic preferences. Animals (Basel), 9(5), 238. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9050238
Jarić, I., Courchamp, F., Correia, R. A., Crowley, S. L., Essl, F., Fischer, A., González-Moreno, P.,
Kalinkat, G., Lambin, X., Lenzner, B., Meinard, Y., Mill, A., Musseau, C., Novoa, A., Pergl, J.,
Pyšek, P., Pyšková, K., Robertson, P. , & Jeschke, J. M. (2020). The role of species charisma in
biological invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(6), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.
1002/fee.2195
Keller, S. R., & Berry, J. K. (1980). Phase III: Knowledge, affection and basic attitudes toward animals in
American society. United States Government Printing Office.
Knight, A. J. (2008). “Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my!” how aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and
other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1),
94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001
Leandro, C., & Jay-Robert, P. (2019). Perceptions and representations of animal diversity: Where did
the insects go? Biological Conservation, 237, 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.031
Liordos, V., Kontsiotis, V. J., Anastasiadou, M., & Karavasias, E. (2017). Effects of attitudes and
demography on public support for endangered species conservation. Science of the Total
Environment, 595, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.241
Liordos, V., Kontsiotis, V. J., Georgari, M., Baltzi, K., & Baltzi, I. (2017). Public acceptance of
management methods under different human–wildlife conflict scenarios. Science of the Total
Environment, 579, 685–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.040
Little, C., Lara, A., McPhee, J., & Urrutia, R. (2009). Revealing the impact of forest exotic plantations
on water yield in large scale watersheds in South-central Chile. Journal of Hydrology, 374(1–2),
162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.011
Luebert, F., & Pliscoff, P. (2006). Sinopsis bioclimática y vegetacional de Chile. Editorial Universitaria.
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 15

Marešová, J., & Frynta, D. (2008). Noah’s Ark is full of common species attractive to humans: The
case of boid snakes in zoos. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 554–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecole
con.2007.03.012
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., & Benayas, J. (2007). The non-economic motives behind the will­
ingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 139(1–2), 67–82. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.005
Miralles, A., Raymond, M., & Lecointre, G. (2019). Empathy and compassion toward other species
decrease with evolutionary divergence time. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 19555. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-019-56006-9
MMA. (2022). Clasificación según estado de conservación. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Chile.
Retrived November 5th, 2022, from https://clasificacionespecies.mma.gob.cl/
Morales, C. L., Montalva, J., Arbetman, M., Aizen, M. A., Smith-Ramírez, C., Vieli, L., & Hatfield, R.
(2016). Bombus dahlbomii. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016. e.T21215142A100240441.
Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B., & Worm, B. (2011). How many species are there
on earth and in the ocean?. PLoS biology, 9(8), e1001127.
Moreira-Muñoz, A., & Salazar, A. (2014). Reserva de la Biosfera La Campana – Peñuelas: micro-
región modelo para la planificación del desarrollo regional sustentable. In A. Moreira-Muñoz &
A. Borsdorf (Eds.), Reservas de la Biosfera de Chile: Laboratorios para la Sustentabilidad (Vol. 17,
pp. 106–122). Academia de Ciencias Austriaca, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto
de Geografía, Santiago, serie Geolibros.
Naughton-Treves, L., & Treves, A. (2005). Socioecological factors shaping local support for wildlife in
Africa. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, & A. Rabinowitz (Eds.), People and wildlife, conflict or
coexistence? (pp. 253–277). Cambridge University Press.
Parsley, K. M. (2020). Plant awareness disparity: A case for renaming plant blindness. Plants, People,
Planet, 2(6), 598–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10153
Pliscoff, P., & Fuentes-Castillo, T. (2011). Representativeness of terrestrial ecosystems in Chile’s
protected area system. Environmental Conservation, 38(3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892911000208
Prguda, E., & Neumann, D. L. (2014). Inter-human and animal-directed empathy: A test for
evolutionary biases in empathetic responding. Behavioural Processes, 108, 80–86. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.012
Quintanilla, V., & Morales, M. (2013). Perturbaciones de los fuegos de verano en la palma más austral
del mundo (Jubaea chilensis) (Mol.) baillon en microcuenccas costeras de la Zona Mediterránea de
Chile. Cuadernos Geográficos, 52(1), 129–152.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A.,
Lambert, R. A., Linnell, J. D. C., Watt, A., & Gutiérrez, R. J. (2013). Understanding and managing
conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(2), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2012.08.021
Reimer, A., Mase, A., Mulvaney, K., Mullendore, N., Perry-Hill, R., & Prokopy, L. (2014). The impact
of information and familiarity on public attitudes toward the eastern hellbender. Animal
Conservation, 17(3), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12085
Rodríguez-San Pedro, A., Allendes, J. L., Beltrán, C. A., Chaperon, P. N., Saldarriaga-Córdoba, M. M.,
Silva, A. X., & Grez, A. A. (2020). Quantifying ecological and economic value of pest control
services provided by bats in a vineyard landscape of central Chile. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 302, 107063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107063
SAG. 2015. La Ley de Caza y su Reglamento. Subdepartamento de Vida Silvestre, División de
Protección de los Recursos Naturales Renovables. Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG),
16 I. BIDEGAIN ET AL.

Serenari, C., Peterson, M. N., Gale, T., & Fahlke, A. (2015). Relationships between value orientations
and wildlife conservation policy preferences in Chilean Patagonia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
20(3), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015.1008113
Silva-Rodríguez, E., Acosta-Jamett, G., Villatoro, F., Stowhas, P., Ohrens, O., & Naughton-Treves, L.
(2019). Interacciones entre fauna silvestre y comunidades humanas en Chile: Daños causados por
animales silvestres, conductas hacia la fauna y conflictos entre humanos. In C. Cerda, E. Silva-
Rodríguez, & C. Briceño (Eds.), Naturaleza en sociedad Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la
conservación de la biodiversidad (pp. 241–277). Ocho Libros Editores SpA.
Teel, T. L., & Manfredo, M. J. (2010). Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife
conservation. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.
01374.x
Teillier, S., Figueroa, J. A., & Castro, S. A. (2010). Especies exóticas de la vertiente occidental de la
cordillera de la Costa, Provincia de Valparaíso, Chile central. Gayana Botánica, 67(1), 27–43.
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-66432010000100004
Tisdell, C., Wilson, C., & Swarna Nantha, H. (2006). Public choice of species for the ‘Ark’:
Phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival. Journal for Nature
Conservation, 14(2), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2005.11.001
Treves, A., & Karanth, K. U. (2003). Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore
management worldwide. Conservation Biology, 17(6), 1491–1499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
1739.2003.00059.x
Westbury, H. R., & Neumann, D. L. (2008). Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli
depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biological
Psychology, 78(1), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.12.009
Whittaker, D., Vaske, J. J., & Manfredo, M. J. (2006). Specificity and the cognitive hierarchy: Value
orientations and the acceptability of urban wildlife management actions. Society & Natural
Resources, 19(6), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920600663912
Wilkinson, R., & Fitzgerald, G. (1997). Public perceptions of biological control of rabbits in New
Zealand: Some ethical and practical issues. Agriculture and Human Values, 14(3), 273–282. https://
doi.org/10.1023/a:1007473215360
Wilson, C., & Tisdell, C. (2005). What role does knowledge of wildlife play in providing support for
species’ conservation? Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2005.47.51
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M. (2009). Mixed effects models and
extensions in ecology with R (Vol. 574). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-
87458-6