Shifting the focus of people-wildlife relationships: self representation amongst conservationists/researchers and its significance for human-wildlife interactions

Most research on human-wildlife relationships within conservation science focuses on physical interactions between people and animals. Few studies that examine perceptions of wildlife explore ‘virtual’ interactions using... [ view full abstract ]

Most research on human-wildlife relationships within conservation science focuses on physical interactions between people and animals. Few studies that examine perceptions of wildlife explore ‘virtual’ interactions using online resources, e.g. images, despite their current prevalence and potential conservation significance. For example, several studies have demonstrated that the public are less likely to consider a primate as threatened and more likely to consider them desirable as a pet if the image includes a human (Leighty et al., 2015, Ross et al., 2011). This is significant as primatologists have been criticised for presenting themselves online in direct contact or close proximity to their study subjects (Muehlenbein & Wallis, 2014). These images very likely influence public perceptions of primates and may encourage people to engage in direct contact with them, to the detriment of the animals’ wellbeing, as well as being a significant disease risk to both parties.

This research analyses the images of 100 researchers working with different mammalian orders, including primates. Individuals were randomly selected from expert databases, e.g., International Directory of Primatologists and Society of Conservation Biology Expert Database and their images online collated and coded by proximity (in contact, in close proximity but not touching, present but not in close proximity, human or animal absent). A mean score was then assigned to each researcher.

I describe how primatologists and researchers working on other mammalian taxa present themselves online and how proximity to their study subjects is influenced by the conservation status, disease risk and/ or physical characteristics of the animal. This contributes to our understanding of the impact of researchers’ online presence upon public perceptions of wildlife and its likely significance for conservation science.