Lancaster University research finds that ‘Hollywood effect’ helps wildlife

A clownfish as seen in Finding Nemo.
A clownfish as seen in Finding Nemo.
Share this article
0
Have your say

How did Finding Nemo affect clownfish? Was Jaws bad for sharks? Did the remake of the Jungle Book help pangolins?

Researchers from Lancaster University and the University of Exeter say conservation scientists could work with filmmakers to harness the “Hollywood effect” to boost conservation.

Scientific advisors and product placement are already commonplace in films, and the researchers say similar methods could be used to raise awareness of endangered species and other environmental issues.

The research also warns of unintended dangers such as mass tourism to the Thai island made famous by The Beach (2000), and the so-called “Nemo effect” which has reportedly led to a boom in clownfish captivity.

“Movies could be used by conservationists to highlight issues of concern, much as product placement is currently used for advertising,” said Dr Matthew Silk, of the Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter.

“Scientific advisors are also common and – given the effect films can have on public perceptions – conservation advisors could be used. Films might inspire people to learn more about conservation and take action, but they might also misinform people and portray a simplified, romantic version of nature.”

Anna Woodhead of Lancaster University said: “The 2016 remake of the Jungle Book includes a joke about how endangered one of the characters is. This is what really inspired our research project – it got us thinking about how films can influence people’s views on nature, for better or for worse.”

No detailed study has been done on Hollywood’s impact on conservation, but the researchers believe the picture so far is mixed:

Rio (2011) features the endangered Spix’s macaw. Several plot points involve conservation, including the illegal trade in exotic birds and captive breeding of threatened species.

Jon Favreau, director of the 2016 remake of the Jungle Book, has said Los Angeles Zoo staff suggested the inclusion of a pangolin – a critically endangered species which subsequently received widespread media coverage.

Disney added a pangolin to its merchandise selection as a “commitment to raise awareness”.

Happy Feet (2006) carries strong messages about overfishing and plastic pollution. In one scene, a rockhopper penguin gets entangled in the plastic rings of a six-pack.

Bambi (1942) is said to have made the public more concerned about hunting.

Finding Nemo (2003) is widely believed to have led to increased demand for clownfish ownership – despite the film’s story of Nemo being taken by a human and wanting to escape.

However, the researchers say that documented evidence of this effect, though often quoted, is “virtually non-existent”. Still, Disney Pixar took advice from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums on mitigating such effects for the sequel, Finding Dory (2016).

Jaws (1975) increased awareness of sharks but gave many people an “exaggerated” idea of the risks they pose – with “likely consequences for shark conservation”, the researchers say.

Orca (1977), Free Willy (1993) and documentary Blackfish (2013) demonstrate the “complex and contradictory” way cinema can influence attitudes – with killer whales depicted as both vicious and gentle, possibly making them popular attractions at aquariums but also raising concerns about both their captivity and conservation.

The research was carried out by Matthew Silk, Sarah Crowley and Ana Nuno, all from the University of Exeter, and Anna Woodhead from Lancaster University. The paper, published in the journal Conservation Biology, is entitled: “Considering connections between Hollywood and biodiversity conservation.”