Using data
taken from Wikipedia, the research team – comprising zoologists,
geographers and computer scientists – found that fearsome species such
as the Komodo dragon, saltwater crocodile and king cobra were of
greatest interest to website users.
The results are published in the journal Biological Conservation.
Co-lead
author John C Mittermeier, a PhD candidate in the School of Geography
and the Environment at Oxford University, said: 'There is a debate in
conservation as to whether the fact that we as humans like a particular
species justifies conserving it, regardless of its importance from an
ecological point of view.
'But although this idea of some species
being "culturally valuable" has been around for some time, it has been
difficult to measure and define. Whether or not we want to take these
cultural variables into account when shaping conservation policy, we
need data to support those decisions.'
The researchers looked at
55.5 million page views in the year 2014 for all of the 10,002 species
of reptile accessed in Wikipedia.
They found that venomous or
endangered species, as well as those with higher body mass or posing a
threat to humans, tended to be more interesting overall. There was also a
bias towards species found in Wikipedia users' own regions – for
example, the Japanese pit viper was top of the Japanese-language
rankings, while the green iguana was the most-accessed species among
Spanish speakers.
Top 10 reptiles accessed on the English-language version of Wikipedia in 2014:
1. Komodo dragon
2. Black mamba
3. Saltwater crocodile
4. King cobra
5. Gila monster
6. Cottonmouth (viper)
7. American alligator
8. Leatherback sea turtle
9. Nile crocodile
10. Boa constrictor
Taking
all languages into account, the Komodo dragon was the most popular
species overall, with 2,014,932 page views in 2014 (3.6% of total page
views), followed by the common European adder and the saltwater
crocodile.
Co-lead author Dr Uri Roll, from the Department of
Zoology and the School of Geography and the Environment at Oxford
University, said: 'In the past we could have carried out basic surveys
of a few hundred or a few thousand individuals to find out where their
interest lay, whereas now we can do it with millions of people for an
entire class of organisms on a global scale. Obviously there are
limitations to using an online tool such as Wikipedia, but there are
lots of benefits too.
'One of the key questions in conservation is
where to divert the limited resources we have available. Do we
prioritise rare or endangered species, ecologically important species,
or species that attract the most public interest? The field is
definitely split, but we're putting numbers behind some of these ideas,
and that’s really important.'
Perhaps surprisingly, the study
found that 'culturally interesting' reptile species in Wikipedia were
widely distributed across the reptilian tree of life. If we only saved
the top 5% of the most popular species in Wikipedia, we would cover 67%
of the 88 reptile families.
John C Mittermeier added: 'Among more
traditional conservationists there may be the view that we shouldn't
incorporate cultural values into decisions about policy or funding.
However, the fact is that whether we like it or not, we already do – how
much funding do lions get compared with, for example, a species of
small snail that doesn't even have an English name, even if the snail is
more at risk of going extinct? The biases are already there.
'There's
also an argument that the traditional thinking around conservation
hasn't quite worked, so we need to reframe our approach.
'Regardless of the point of view you take, having this sort of quantitative data is critical.'
Although
the study was aimed solely at gathering data, the researchers speculate
at the reasons behind the huge variations in public interest between
species. John C Mittermeier said: 'With notable exceptions such as the
sea turtle or Galapagos giant tortoise, species that are venomous or
otherwise dangerous to humans seem to capture people's imaginations more
than others. The Komodo dragon is found in a geographical area probably
the size of a small English county, yet it consistently attracts the
most attention – possibly because the idea of the dragon is so universal
in myth and folklore.'
Gonzalo Diaz, a computer science PhD
candidate at Oxford and co-lead author of the study, added: 'The network
of online and cross-referenced information repositories known as Linked
Data has allowed us to gather information about most known reptile
species. We see potential in using data-driven approaches to study the
cultural impact of global species through their online footprint.
Wikipedia page-view counts are just one of many metrics that can be
explored.'
The researchers plan to widen their study to include
the entire animal and plant kingdoms. There may also be scope to look at
mentions of species in other big data repositories, including newspaper
archives or social media.
How did birds get their wings? Bacteria may provide a clue, say scientists
Oxford study finds virtual reality can help treat severe paranoia
A female perspective from generations of immigrant workers in Britain
Oxfordshire Green Paper outlines vision for region as 'innovation engine'
Researchers reveal top 10 most popular reptiles (and why it matters)