Work

Beauty bias in butterfly research and conservation

Year: 2026

Type: article

Abstract: Conservation biases have been documented since the first emergence of the concept of biodiversity in the 1980s, 1 1. Jax, K. Conservation Concepts: Rethinking Human–Nature Relationships Routledge, 2023 Crossref Google Scholar , 2 2. Casetta, E. ∙ Marques da Silva, J. ∙ Vecchi, D. From Assessing to Conserving Biodiversity. Conceptual and Practical Challenges Springer, 2019 Crossref Google Scholar , 3 3. Wilson, E. Biodiversity National Academies Press, 1988 Google Scholar showing a systematic disproportion in the allocation of research and conservation efforts among taxa. 4 4. Clark, J.A. ∙ May, R.M. Taxonomic bias in conservation research Science. 2002; 297 :191-192 Crossref Scopus (444) PubMed Google Scholar , 5 5. Troudet, J. ∙ Grandcolas, P. ∙ Blin, A. ... Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences Sci. Rep. 2017; 7 , 9132 Crossref Scopus (721) PubMed Google Scholar , 6 6. Di Marco, M. ∙ Chapman, S. ∙ Althor, G. ... Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2017; 10 :32-42 Crossref Scopus (299) Google Scholar , 7 7. Habel, J.C. ∙ Schmitt, T. ∙ Huemer, P. ... Selective observation causes differences in citizen science butterfly data Basic Appl. Ecol. 2025; 87 :46-54 Crossref Scopus (4) Google Scholar , 8 8. Randler, C. ∙ Koch, S. Willingness to protect bird species depends on individual respondents’ demographic and species traits Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2025; 7 , e13277 Crossref Scopus (7) Google Scholar , 9 9. Moser, M. ∙ Krogmann, L. ∙ Wanke, D. Some insects are more equal than others: a comparison of popular large language model chatbots’ treatment of different insect groups Integr. Conserv. 2025; 4 :254-267 Crossref Scopus (1) Google Scholar , 10 10. Mammola, S. ∙ Riccardi, N. ∙ Prié, V. ... Towards a taxonomically unbiased European Union biodiversity strategy for 2030 Proc. Biol. Sci. 2020; 287 , 20202166 Crossref Scopus (138) PubMed Google Scholar , 11 11. Francx, A. ∙ Rousseau, S. Hidden patterns in fauna compensation values in European biodiversity legislation Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2026; 10 :1082-1090 Crossref Scopus (1) PubMed Google Scholar One factor underlying this disproportion, gaining prominence in recent literature, is species’ perceived beauty, shaped by human visual preferences. 12 12. Guénard, B. ∙ Hughes, A.C. ∙ Lainé, C. ... Limited and biased global conservation funding means most threatened species remain unsupported Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2025; 122 , e2412479122 Crossref Scopus (56) PubMed Google Scholar , 13 13. Leandro, C. ∙ Jay-Robert, P. ∙ Vergnes, A. Bias and perspectives in insect conservation: A European scale analysis Biol. Conserv. 2017; 215 :213-224 Crossref Scopus (60) Google Scholar , 14 14. Soutinho, J.G. ∙ Carvalho, J. ∙ Matos, M. ... Conserving saproxylic flagship species by complementing 150 years of natural history with citizen science data—the case of the stag beetles (Lucanidae, Coleoptera) of Portugal Biodivers. Conserv. 2025; 34 :793-822 Crossref Scopus (2) Google Scholar , 15 15. Santangeli, A. ∙ Haukka, A. ∙ Morris, W. ... What drives our aesthetic attraction to birds? NPJ Biodivers. 2023; 2 , 20 Crossref Scopus (39) PubMed Google Scholar , 16 16. Adamo, M. ∙ Chialva, M. ∙ Calevo, J. ... Plant scientists’ research attention is skewed towards colourful, conspicuous and broadly distributed flowers Nat. Plants. 2021; 7 :574-578 Crossref Scopus (79) PubMed Google Scholar , 17 17. van Tongeren, E. ∙ Sistri, G. ∙ Zingaro, V. ... Assessing the aesthetic attractivity of European butterflies: A web-based survey protocol PLOS One. 2023; 18 , e0283360 Crossref Scopus (6) Google Scholar Here, we integrate a large-scale survey of the perceived beauty of European butterflies yielding >21,000 survey completions from >100 countries into a time-explicit network linking species’ beauty, public attention, research and conservation efforts, and the EU regulatory framework. We found that species beauty is consistently associated with public attention, research, and conservation efforts in a temporally structured pattern compatible with a cumulative beauty bias. Research effort and public attention concentrate on widespread and visually attractive species, whereas species included in the legal conservation framework, particularly the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (hereafter, Bern Convention, BC, 1979) 18 18. Council of Europe Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats Council of Europe, 1979 https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention Google Scholar and the EU Habitats Directive (hereafter, HD, 1992) 19 19. Council of the European Union Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206 22.07.1992 p. 7) Sands, P. ∙ Galizzi, P. (Editors) Documents in European Community Environmental Law Cambridge University Press, 1992; 568-583 Google Scholar are disproportionately represented by visually appealing and historically protected taxa. Because these frameworks guide funding and management actions, early associations between species beauty and BC/HD inclusion have contributed to long-lasting institutional patterns in butterfly research and conservation. By contrast, European IUCN Red Lists 20 20. IUCN. (2025) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org . Last accessed on 02/03/2026. Google Scholar , 21 21. IUCN. (2010) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org . Last accessed on 02/03/2026. Google Scholar do not overrepresent beautiful species and identify more inconspicuous taxa as threatened. This mismatch reveals a tension between scientific assessments of extinction risk and historically embedded conservation priorities. Our findings suggest that recognizing beauty bias is vital for aligning conservation with actual ecological urgency.

Source: Current Biology

DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2026.07.049