Entomol Fenn 21:90–96 Wolda H (1981) Similarity, sample size and diversity. Oecologia 50:296–302CrossRef Żmihorski M, Durska E (2011) The effect of contrasting management types on two distinct taxonomic groups in a large scaled windthrow. Eur J For Res 130:589–600CrossRef”
“Introduction PS341 anthropomorphism is common in traditional and popular cultures, and is regarded as an important way in which people make sense of interactions with the non-human world (Guthrie 1997; Mitchell 1997; Lorimer 2007; Taylor 2011). Recently, the role of anthropomorphism as a useful tool for conservation outreach and environmental education has been

gaining attention (Chan 2012; Tam et al. 2013). However, we believe that most conservationists still underestimate the breadth of applicability of anthropomorphism to conservation, and are likely to be unaware of research from the social www.selleckchem.com/products/dibutyryl-camp-bucladesine.html sciences making clear anthropomorphism’s potential as a powerful but double-edged sword. One way in which anthropomorphism has been positioned

as a scientifically respectable tool is through the recommendation that it be used only for animals that are similar to humans in ways validated by biological science. According to Chan (2012), to date the strongest argument can be made LY2874455 mouse for the use of the following traits as the basis for empathetic anthropomorphism: being (1) prosocial, (2) intelligent, and (3) able to to suffer. We agree that the perception of shared features can lead to the development

of empathy (Mitchell 1997; Milton 2005; Lorimer 2007). However, social science research shows that engagements with a much broader set of features can form the bases of empathetic anthropomorphism and the impetus for conservation actions. We are also concerned that limiting the use of anthropomorphism in conservation to prosocial, intelligent, suffering animals risks suggesting that most species are not worthy of conservation because they are not like humans in the “right” ways. This would produce an anthropocentric, two-tiered conservation agenda favoring a very small percentage of biodiversity (excluding, for example, all plants). It would also mean overlooking the application of a powerful tool to the promotion of low-profile species with high biological conservation value, such as invertebrates. We argue that anthropomorphism should not be seen as a criterion that prioritizes species that more closely resemble humans in predefined ways, but as a strategic tool within conservation’s toolkit that can be used to improve the way human groups engage with efforts to conserve threatened biodiversity. Here we review the various forms of anthropomorphism and their uses, as well as the processes by which animals are anthropomorphized.