• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

LETTER Evaluating Conservation Flagships and Flagship Fleets Diogo Ver´ıssimo1 , Iain Fraser2,3, Weber Girao˜ 4, Alberto A. Campos4,RobertJ.Smith1, & Douglas C. MacMillan1 1 Durrell Institute Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK 2 School of Economics, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NP, UK 3 School of Economics, La Trobe University, Melbourne Vic 3083, Australia 4 AQUASIS-–Associac¸ao˜ de Pesquisa e Preservac¸ao˜ de Ecossistemas Aquaticos,´ SESC Iparana, Praia de Iparana s/n, Caucaia 61600–000, CE, Brazil Keywords Abstract Araripe manakin; awareness; behavior change; bird; brazil; cariri; ceara;´ flagship species; Flagship species are widely used in conservation but this single species ap- flagship fleet; marketing. proach has attracted criticism. One response is the “flagship fleet,” which uses several flagship species in one conservation marketing campaign. However, Correspondence marketing theory suggests multibrand campaigns can be counter-productive. Diogo Verıssimo´ and Robert J Smith, Durrell Institute Conservation and Ecology, University Here, we develop an evaluation strategy for conservation flagships, and use of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom. it to: measure the effectiveness of an existing bird flagship species; detect Tel: +44 (0)1227 764000; whether additional species are needed; and, if appropriate, identify which fax: +44 (0)1227 827289. species should be added to create a flagship fleet. We show the bird species E-mails: [email protected], [email protected] has high levels of visibility and recognition, but has traits that appeal to only Received half the target audience. We also show that this shortcoming could be over- 6 June 2013 come by forming a flagship fleet based on adding an endemic mammal or fish Accepted species but there are additional strategic considerations that must be taken into 25 September 2013 account, namely in terms of costs and potential future conflicts. Editor Javier Simonetti doi: 10.1111/conl.12070 Introduction cost-effective campaigns and overly complex campaign Reducing the current rate of biodiversity loss depends messages. on raising awareness about the value of biodiversity, as Moreover, it is rare for conservationists to measure is reflected in the Convention on Biological Diversity’s the effectiveness of existing flagship species and so Aichi Target 1. Flagship species could play a major potentially premature to consider adding to them to role in such awareness raising and behavior change produce a fleet without appropriate evaluation. This (Bowen-Jones & Entwistle 2002; Ver´ıssimo et al. 2011) is another reason why it is essential to evaluate the but this single-species approach has been criticized for effectiveness of conservation flagships. Thus, assessments skewing priorities, so that the focal species receives the should focus on their two main roles, which are: (1) majority of funding and attention (Smith et al. 2012). improving the visibility and recognition of conservation This is why several articles have recently discussed the issues and the associated people and organizations and use of “flagship fleets,” which use several flagships in a (2) ensuring that flagships resonate with the target single campaign so as to: (1) benefit a wider range of bio- audience, based on their possession of appealing traits. diversity; (2) increase campaign impact by highlighting The importance of visibility, recognition and appeal has the plight of more species; and (3) increase the likelihood long been recognized in marketing (Abbey 2010; Wilcove the target audience will find at least one of the species 2010; Nicholls 2011) and many companies already use appealing (Yezerinac & Moola 2006; Barua et al. 2011; biodiversity as part of their branding strategy (Brown Root-Bernstein & Armesto 2013). However, marketing 2010). This importance provides another example where theory suggests using many flagships simultaneously conservationists can adopt techniques pioneered in could be counter-productive, as each species might target another field, so here we use marketing approaches to small subgroups within the target audience leading to less measure awareness and appeal of an existing flagship and Conservation Letters, May/June 2014, 7(3), 263–270 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 263 Evaluating conservation flagships D. Verıssimo´ et al. determine the appropriateness of developing a flagship region, northeast Brazil (Regoˆ et al. 2010). Described only fleet. in 1998 (Coelho & Silva 1998) this critically endangered Brand awareness, the extent to which a brand is rec- species (IUCN 2011) has since been used as a regional ognized by potential customers, and associated with a flagship for sustainable forest and water management product, consists of two main aspects, visibility and recog- (e.g., Girao˜ 2009). nition, and is known to strongly influence consumer de- To assess the Araripe manakin’s role as a conservation cisions (Jones 2005; Konecnik & Gartner 2007) in some flagship, we first needed to identify the target audience cases overriding considerations of quality or cost (Hoyer (Ver´ıssimo et al. 2011; Ver´ıssimo et al. 2013). We selected & Brown 1990; Macdonald & Sharp 2000). Thus, flagship the rural communities living adjacent to the species habi- awareness can be an indicator of potential for improv- tat, as the main threat to the species is habitat degradation ing campaign visibility and recognition. In addition, if the due to subsistence-level resource use by local villagers. species is an existing flagship, this metric can help un- We focused on four localities spread across the three mu- derstand the impact of ongoing conservation campaigns nicipalities that contain the distribution of the Araripe in combination with precampaign information on aware- manakin. These villages were selected based on their pop- ness and attitudes. ulation size and proximity to the larger habitat fragments. However, high awareness is not enough as it could be A team of five enumerators conducted the surveys face- accompanied by negative attitudes toward the flagship to-face, and respondents were asked to choose the species species. Thus, it is also vital to understand the flagship they felt it was important to conserve, assuming that flag- appeal of a species by investigating whether its character- ship campaigns are most successful when focusing on istics match the target audiences’ preferences and if there species of high target audience concern. In the first part of are distinct preference groups within the target audience. the survey we adapted surveys used for measuring brand This information, which can be obtained via nonmarket awareness to investigate the visibility and recognizabil- valuation techniques such as choice experiments, mim- ity of the Araripe manakin. In the second part we used a ics research on commercial brand positioning and can choice experiment to understand how species attributes inform the selection of additional flagships for use in a influence the preferences of the target audience and if “flagship fleet.” In this way, we could ensure that all rele- there is the need to select additional flagships (see Sup- vant audience groups are covered. This approach parallels plementary Material for further details). the multibrand strategy used in the commercial sector, where companies market the same product under differ- Measuring flagship visibility and recognition ent brands (Kotler & Armstrong 2010). For example, as- pirin is sold under different names to different people by To evaluate the visibility of the Araripe manakin we mea- emphasizing different medical benefits (Kotler & Arm- sured both unaided awareness, where no prompts about strong 2010). Thus, although there are clear differences the species are offered to respondents, and aided aware- between commercial brands and conservation flagships, ness where the name of the species is given (Aaker 1996). there is also scope for using marketing methodologies to The first survey question, aimed at measuring unaided improve conservation practice. awareness, asked respondents to name any bird species In this manuscript we use the analogy between com- they could recall, with the researcher noting down the mercial brands and flagship species to develop meth- first three species mentioned. This method combines ods, based on marketing and economic theory, for better traditional unaided-awareness questions, where all an- understanding the effectiveness of single and multi- swers given are recorded, with the “top-of-mind” method species conservation marketing campaigns. We apply where only the first answer is recorded (Aaker 1996). these methods to a conservation project in Brazil to: (1) The second and third questions evaluated aided aware- measure the impact of an ongoing conservation outreach ness of the image and common name of the Araripe project to raise the profile of a flagship species and (2) de- manakin, as is often done with brand names and logos termine whether this flagship matches the preferences of (Aaker 1996; Keller 1998). This required the use of other the target audience and if it should be supplemented with species as benchmarks. These species were selected based other species to form a flagship fleet. on their different expected levels of awareness. The se- lected benchmark species were the Red-cowled Cardinal Methods (Paroaria dominicana), a popular cage bird, the Great Kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus), a common bird around Our analysis focused on a conservation project involving human settlements, the Blue Dacnis

Load more

  8

Copy Link