Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235798800
The Rarity and Overexploitation Paradox: Stag Beetle Collections in Japan
Article in Biodiversity and Conservation · June 2012
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-012-0253-y
CITATIONS
28READS
1,404
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Pesticides and bees View project
Analyse de l’évolution du réseau bocager des trois départements traversés par la LGV Bretagne - Pays-de-la-Loire View project
Pierline Tournant
Parc Naturel Régional Golfe du Morbihan
32 PUBLICATIONS 211 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Liana Nicole Joseph
Australian Wildlife Conservancy
43 PUBLICATIONS 3,442 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Koichi Goka
National Institute for Environmental Studies
135 PUBLICATIONS 4,065 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Franck Courchamp
French National Centre for Scientific Research
268 PUBLICATIONS 21,115 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Pierline Tournant on 02 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
ORI GIN AL PA PER
The rarity and overexploitation paradox: stag beetlecollections in Japan
Pierline Tournant • Liana Joseph • Koichi Goka • Franck Courchamp
Received: 18 October 2011 / Accepted: 27 January 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract For some wildlife commodities, rare species are especially sought after. The
tendency for rare commodities to be of higher value can fuel their exploitation and as
numbers dwindle, the demand can increase. Consequently, this can precipitate these rare
species into an overexploitation vortex where they become increasingly rare, valued and
exploited until eventual extinction. We focus here on the hobby of collecting stag beetles,
to ascertain if the market value of these items is driven by rarity and if, consequently, these
species are vulnerable to this overexploitation vortex. Stag beetle collections fuel a large
and lucrative market in Japan, involving more than 700 species from all over the world,
with over 15 million specimens imported a year. Some particularly valued species fetch
more than US$5,000 a piece. We assessed the importance of species rarity as an acquisition
criterion in this market using two methods: an Internet online questionnaire responded to
by 509 participants and through examining the quantities imported in Japan and prices paid
by collectors. We discovered that species rarity is one of the main choice criteria for
acquisition by collectors: rare stag beetles are valued more than the common species and,
consequently, stag beetles are vulnerable to the anthropogenic Allee effect in this market.
Because of the sheer size of the market and the pervasive nature of this rarity paradox, the
P. Tournant � L. Joseph � F. Courchamp (&)Ecologie, Systematique & Evolution, UMR CNRS 8079, Universite Paris Sud,91405 Orsay Cedex, Francee-mail: [email protected]
P. TournantTHEMA (UMR CNRS 6049) and Chrono-environnement (UMR CNRS 6249),Universite Franche-Comte, 25030 Besancon Cedex, France
L. JosephWildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, The Bronx, NY 10460, USA
K. GokaNational Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0053, Japan
123
Biodivers ConservDOI 10.1007/s10531-012-0253-y
Author's personal copy
attraction to rarity equates to a potential extinction threat for many rare stag beetles
species.
Keywords Anthropogenic Allee effect � Market price � Questionnaire �Extinction risk � Wildlife trade � Collector
Introduction
The overexploitation of species is among the chief factors responsible for the current
decline of biodiversity, affecting more than one-third of the animals that are threatened
with extinction (Rhodin 1999 cited in Gibbons et al. (2000); Rosser and Mainka 2002). In
many cases, the threat of overexploitation can be amplified and accelerated when species
become rare through a process known as the Anthropogenic Allee Effect (Angulo et al.
2009; Brook and Sodhi 2006; Courchamp et al. 2006). This paradox is analogous with the
Allee effect where the state of being in a small population is correlated with high extinction
risk. The anthropogenic Allee effect occurs because of the tendency for consumers to value
rare commodities over common varieties; this can fuel their disproportionate exploitation
and as numbers dwindle, the demand further increases. Consequently, this can precipitate
these rare species into an overexploitation vortex where they become increasingly rare,
valued and exploited until eventual extinction (Courchamp et al. 2006; Hall et al. 2008).
The anthropogenic Allee effect is proposed to exist in a number of economic markets
including collections, trophy hunting, traditional medicine, exotic pets, luxury goods and
even ecotourism (Courchamp et al. 2006). The clearest example is probably hobby col-
lection of wild plants and animals. Hobby collectors target a wide variety of wildlife;
familiar collections include orchids, butterflies, seashells and bird eggs. Like all types of
collections, the objective is often to acquire a large diversity or a full set of specimens and
the rarest types are the most valued. For example, the price of butterflies harvested for
hobby collections has been shown to be highly correlated to species rarity (Slone et al.
1997). The collecting value of birds eggs is also associated with their rarity: the Taylor’sStandard American Egg Catalogue listed all North American bird eggs together with their
price, giving the Condor egg at $350; the Bald Eagle at $8; the Horned Lark at $1; and the
Blue Jay at 10 cents (Taylor 1904). The hobby collections market is known to trade in both
legal and illegal commodities and is implicated in overexploitation of wildlife throughout
the world (Brook and Sodhi 2006; Kameoka and Kiyono 2004). Collections for other
purposes, for example with scientific objectives, can also trigger an extinction, as exem-
plified by the case of three rare freshwater fish endemic to Mexico, and all collected to
extinction within a few years of their discovery (Rodriguez-Estrella et al. 2006).
One example of this hobby is the hugely popular collection of stag beetles, for display
or as pets, in Japan (Kameoka and Kiyono 2004). Stag beetles are a group consisting of
four subfamilies of the Lucanidae family characterized primarily by large sized mandibles
of males resembling the antlers of stags. Among the 1,200 species described so far, only 35
are found in Japan. The stag beetle mania originated with a an arcade game called Mushi
(insect) King, in which players collect cards of virtual stag beetles as fighters in tourna-
ments. From card and virtual beetles, the passion has led to collection of real insects. Their
immense morphological variety, and the highly visual combats performed by males makes
them both interesting collecting items and valued pets.
Over one million specimens of more than 700 species are imported annually into Japan
from all over the world (see origin map in Goka et al. 2004), some of them illegally
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
(New 2005). Trade in stag beetles is hugely lucrative—some individuals selling for more
than US$5000 (Goka et al. 2004). Prices approaching US$100,000 for a single individual
have been recorded (New 2005). This trade is responsible for a destructive illegal trade in
many countries, especially in Asia (Kameoka and Kiyono 2004; New 2005). It is believed
that collecting pressures may be leading to increasing scarcity, and contributing to the
listing of several species or subspecies as ‘Rare’ in the local Red Data Books (New 2005).
Although some species are protected, and their importation illegal, many such species are
found are customs controls or during shop surveys (Goka et al. 2004; New 2005, 2007). In
addition, probably due to the enormous economic market this trade represents (over a
hundred million US$ each year), an increasing number of species are becoming legally
imported to Japan (over 500 species in 2004, Goka et al. 2004).
Despite a blatant lack of protection of this group in such an international trade, the
importance of stag beetles in conservation is real, as illustrated both by their status as
charismatic species, and by their major ecological functional roles in ecosystem. Because
of the enormous scale of the stag beetle trade (both live and dead) and the potential for rare
species to be disproportionately collected, stag beetles may be vulnerable to the anthro-
pogenic Allee effect and be more threatened with extinction than is currently anticipated.
In this context, we aimed to test the hypothesis of such a process occurring in stag beetle
hobby collections in Japan. We used two approaches to assess whether rarity was a
characteristic of interest to collectors, and thereby a threat to the concerned species. First,
we used a market survey to assess if stag beetle collectors have a preference for rarity, by
examining the volumes and the prices paid for rare and common species that are imported
into Japan. Second, we used a web-questionnaire to examine the Japanese stag beetle
collectors’ acquisition criteria and, specifically, their potential preference for rarity.
Materials and methods
Market survey
We collected information about the identity, morphological characteristics, total quantity
imported, selling price, and rarity of species imported to Japan in 2008. The selling price
and the specialists’ estimate of rarity were recorded for 107 species belonging to 17
different genera, the most specious being Dorcus (44 species) and Prosopocoilus (23
species). The selling prices were recorded for a pair of stag beetles (male and female) in
Euros. The morphological measurements were collected for 102 of these species and the
volumes imported were available for 79 of them. Four morphological characteristics were
documented: one qualitative parameter representing the color (black/colored) and three
quantitative parameters comprising the body length (from the end of the abdomen to the
top of the head), thorax width (at the first leg insertion level) and mandible length (from the
end of the mandibles to the top of the head). These characteristics were measured from
the digitalization of reference photographic plates (Mizunuma and Nagai 1994).
The values for rarity were estimated by surveying expert opinions. Rarity is an elusive
concept having a variety of meanings in difference contexts; for example, a species can be
geographically restricted, have a low density or be difficult to find on the market (Gaston
1994). In this study, we used a definition of rarity that represented the consumer’s
understanding of rarity, which is influenced by the availability on the market, the number
of individuals in the wild and the species’ threat status. We asked nine scientists—spe-
cialists of stag beetle collection and trade—to allocate to each species a relative score
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
between one, for very rare, to five, for very common. Rarity scores for each species were
calculated as the mean of the nine scores.
Statistical analysis
A correlation matrix was calculated to look for possible correlations between the char-
acteristics that defined species and to identify redundant variables in the database. Cor-
relation tests (Pearson method) were performed for both databases to analyze relationships
between body length, mandibles length, thorax width, color, rarity, selling price and
volumes imported. The many correlations between all parameters allowed us to keep fewer
parameters in the subsequent analyses; we used the following uncorrelated characteristics:
‘‘mandibles length’’, ‘‘thorax width’’, ‘‘rarity’’, ‘‘import’’ and ‘‘color’’.
Following the selection of parameters provided by the correlation matrix, the selling
price variations were analyzed with generalized linear models (GLM) using a set of
explanatory variables: rarity, mandibles length and the color. GLMs were constructed
assuming normal distribution and a stepwise selection procedure allowed to select the best
fitting model (based on the Akaike Information Criterion, AIC). Analyses of variance
(ANOVA) of the GLMs were made using a type 3 ANOVA and associated P values were
calculated. In the same way, the variations of the volumes imported were analyzed with
GLM using the same parameters as explanatory variables. The statistical analysis were
performed with R� version 2.9.0 (2009-04-17).
Questionnaire
Using a specifically designed web site, we developed a questionnaire with the aim to
determine which parameters (and their relative importance) influence decisions to acquire
stag beetles. The stag beetle parameters included in this questionnaire were morphological,
behavioral and reproductive criteria, as well as rarity as perceived by the respondent. The
questionnaire was composed of six web pages and contained four different experiments.
The questionnaire (http://www.webbeetlechoice.fr.st/) was presented both in English and
in Japanese. The link to the questionnaire was published on the professional website of the
Japanese laboratory of invasive species and was sent to Japanese stag beetle collectors and
advertised on websites dedicated to stag beetle collecting.
Amongst scientists who use social surveys to examine consumer preferences, concern may
exist about the reliability of Internet based studies. However, a study specifically aimed at
comparing the potential differences in the use of stated preference surveys when conducted
either over the Internet or through face-to-face interviews showed Internet surveys did not seem
to lead to significantly different or biased results (Lindhjem and Navrud 2011). In addition,
Internet surveys can provide a much larger sampling size, especially when the focus group is
relative specialized. For this reason, we chose to conduct our study over the Internet, targeting
Japanese stag beetle collectors through advertising on specialised websites. The disadvantages
of not being able to select the participants are thought to be greatly outweighed by the advantage
of the number of respondents, thereby reducing the potential limitations of this method
(Lindhjem and Navrud 2011).
The Internet survey consisted of six pages: The first page provided a description of the
questionnaire and a brief survey to record the participant’s demographic details. In an
attempt to limit the potential bias in the responses, the description did not reveal the true
purpose of the experiments—which was to examine preference for rarity—but, instead, it
indicated that the purpose was to examine choice-considerations in stag beetle collection in
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
general. The demographic details included the participant’s sex (man or woman), age
(\13 years old, 13–25, 26–50, [ 50), collector status (collectors of stag beetles, collectors
of other animals/plants, collectors of objects such as coins or stamps, non collectors), and
their pet owners status (stag beetles, domestic animals such as dogs or cats; owners of
exotic animals; non-owners). The last webpage invited participants to send the link of the
website to friends and colleagues including a prepared message and requested that they did
not to disclose information about the experiments. The four intervening pages contained
our experiments and are described below.
Experiment 1
The first experiment was designed to measure value attributed to stag beetles because of
perceived rarity (i.e., fewer individuals in an image). This webpage contained an image with 50
stag beetles; the individuals were, in fact, from one single picture colored in three different
shades (red, black or green) and positioned randomly in the image (see Fig. 1a). Of the three
colors presented, one was relatively abundant (33 individuals), one was less abundant (15
individuals) and one was rare (two individuals only). The participants were asked to choose
their preferred stag beetle in the image by clicking on it. For 472 participants, no information
was provided to help with the choice. For 37 additional participants, information was provided
describing the relative abundance of the stag beetles. For example, in one scenario, the green
stag beetle was represented by 2 images and the description stated that one type of stag beetle
was rare. Six pictures with different combinations of relative abundance and color were pre-
sented randomly. A program recorded the color and rarity of the beetle that had been chosen (by
the participant clicking on their preferred choice). We worked under the hypothesis that, all
other things being equal, if participants chose the rarer color more often than expected by
chance (i.e., the number expected proportional to the number of individuals of the color in the
image), it showed a preference for rarity.
Experiment 2
The second experiment was designed to simultaneously test preference for rarity, color and
mandible size and to ascertain their relative importance. The participants were asked to
choose, in order of preference, three individuals from eight stag beetles in a picture (see
Fig. 1b). Each individual was a modification of a single photo and a unique combination of
a set of three variables with two categories each: color (red or black), mandibles size (small
or large) and rarity status (rare/abundant). Rarity was explicit in this experiment, indicated
by a label below the photo (with the other variables). The combination of these three
criteria was placed randomly each time to avoid a bias due to the position of the word or
the place of the picture in the webpage.
Experiment 3
The third experiment was designed to determine if knowledge of the rarity of a species will
influence the consumer’s choice in stag beetles when compared with other factors,
including mandible size, color and size. We asked participants to choose one of four
species of stag beetles, this time represented by photographs of real collected species.
Similarly to the other experiments, the photos appeared in a random order for each par-
ticipant. Each stag beetle was characterized by one outstanding attribute among the four
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
Fig. 1 a Picture presented for the first experiment of the questionnaire is composed of stag beetles with threedifferent colors: black is the rarer here, green is moderately abundant and red is very abundant. b Picture presentedfor the second experiment where people were asked to choose among beetles with three different attributes (color,mandible size, rarity). c Picture showing the four species of stag beetles presented to the participants for the thirdexperiment. The first one from the left side is rarer than the three others, the second has larger mandibles, the third ismore colorful and the fourth is larger
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
following: large size, colorful, large mandibles and rarity (see Fig. 1c). Only Dorcusgracilicornis is rare, the other ones are common but Dorcus curvidens has a large size,
Phalacrognatus muelleri is very colorful and Cyclommatus metallifer has large mandibles.
Except for rarity, each characteristic is visible on the photos; the rarity value should be
only known by people with a good knowledge of stag beetles. We compared four groups of
people: non-collectors and collectors of objects or of animals and plants—these groups
were expected to be unable to identify that one of the species is rare—and collectors of stag
beetles only—some which were expected to be able to identify one of the species as rare
and the others as common. We hypothesized that the participants will select the beetle
according to a criterion important for them; if rarity is highly valued and they have a high
understanding of the market, they will select the rare species in preference. Through a
comparison of the two groups, we expected to be able to demonstrate that participants are
selecting stag beetles for their rarity value only when they are aware of this rarity.
Experiment 4
With the objective of determining if rarity is chosen among a set of potential choice
criteria, the fourth experiment invites participants to choose in order of preference three out
of twenty characteristics: rare, popular, familiar, exotic, easy to breed, cheap, colorful,
large size, abundant, difficult to breed, large mandibles, small size, unpopular, unusual,
non-aggressive, aggressive, expensive, small mandibles, black, and Japanese native. To
avoid the bias that may occur because of the position of the words, the words appeared in a
unique and random order for every participant. This experiment highlights the role of new
characteristics (e.g., aggressiveness, popularity) that had not been included in the other
experiments to assess whether rarity would still be favored among a larger number of
potential attributes.
Statistical analysis
The analysis of the distribution of the answers to the four experiments was done by v2 tests
(the H0 hypothesis being the homogeneity of the data distribution). The ordination of the
responses was examined using Kendall tests (the H0 hypothesis being the independence of
the order of data). The statistical analysis were performed with R� version 2.9.0 (2009-04-
17).
Results
Market survey
Price explanation
The best explanatory model of the variations of the selling price is provided by the size of
the mandibles and rarity of the species, without interaction. Rarity is significantly corre-
lated to the selling price of the individuals (LR v2 = 12.13; P = 0.0005). A negative
correlation was demonstrated between the estimation of rarity and the selling price of the
individuals (r = -0.25; P = 0.0013, see Fig. 2a); that is, the rarer the species, the more
expensive it is.
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
Volume of importation explanation
The best explanatory model of the variations of the volumes imported is provided by the
size of the mandibles and rarity of the species, without interaction. Rarity is significantly
correlated to the volumes imported (Likelihood Ratio v2 = 9.99; P = 0.0016). A positive
correlation was found between the estimation of rarity and the volumes imported
(r = 0.37; P = 0.0003, see Fig. 2b); that is, fewer individuals of rare species are imported
than common ones.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was put on line the 15th of May. We collected answers until the 28th of
November 2009. In total, 509 persons participated to the questionnaire (i.e., participated to
the four experiments), among which 153 were not collectors, 51 were collectors of objects,
70 collected plants or animals other than stag beetles and 235 were stage beetles collectors.
Fig. 2 Anthropogenic Allee effect demonstrated by a a negative correlation between estimation of rarityand the selling price and b a positive correlation between estimation of rarity and the volumes imported. Inboth cases, 1 is for the rarer species
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
The distribution of the number of participants relative to the different categories is pre-
sented on Fig. 3. In all results below, n is therefore 509.
Experiment 1
The first experiment demonstrated that there is a significant difference in the frequency that
participants selected the rare, medium and abundant type of stag beetle. When no infor-
mation was provided to the participant about the abundance of each type, significantly
fewer people choose the most abundant type compared with rarest (v2 = 9.99;
P = 0.0406; see Fig. 4a) and marginally fewer people also selected the medium compared
with the rarest (v2 = 9.02; P = 0.0605; see Fig. 4a). Furthermore, when we provided
information about the relative abundance of the types, participants significantly choose the
rarest compared to the medium and abundant types (v2 = 22.52; P = 0.0001; see Fig. 4b).
Experiment 2
When participants were asked to rank a set of criteria in order of preference, we found that
the order was significantly different from random (v2 = 165.12; P \ 2.2e-16): the
majority selected the criteria ‘‘large mandibles’’, ‘‘rarity’’, and ‘‘colored’’ (see Fig. 5a). We
found that for each rank position, a criterion was significantly favored more than the
others; i.e. there was preference for a particular criterion at the first (v2 = 487.60;
P \ 2.2e-16), second (v2 = 301.60; P \ 2.2e-16) and third (v2 = 58.39; P = 2.607e-11)
positions. In each of rank position, ‘‘large mandibles’’ was favored the most, followed by
‘‘rarity’’ and then ‘‘colored’’. This is supported by the Kendall ordination tests, which
showed that the criteria order of the first choice is the same as the second choice (s = 1;
P = 0.0085) and as the third choice (s = 0.867; P = 0.0242). Similarly, the criteria order
of the second choice is the same as the third choice (s = 0.867; P = 0.0242).
When we repeated the analysis for different categories of collectors (non collectors,
collectors of stag beetles, and other collectors), the results revealed that the choice order of
Fig. 3 Ventilation of the number of participants of the survey in each category (A1: age class \13 yearsold, A2: age class 13–25 years old, A3: age class 26–50 years old, A4: age class [50 years old; C1: nocollector, C2: plants or animals collector, C3: objects collector, C4: stag beetles collector; O1: no owner,O2: domestic animal owner, O3: exotic animal owner, O4: stag beetle owner)
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
collectors was even more specific than the choice order of non-collectors: first
(v2 = 24.81; P = 0.053), second (v2 = 26.80; P = 0.030) or third (v2 = 21.83;
P = 0.1121) rank position.
Experiment 3
When we compared the frequency of selection of four different stag beetles by all par-
ticipants (i.e., not sorting the participants into the four categories), we found that most
participants preferred the large bodied species (D. curvidens) followed by the species with
the large mandibles (C. metallifer), the colorful species (P. muelleri) and the rare species
(D. gracilicornis; see Fig. 6a) and that the difference in the frequency in which each of the
species was selected was highly significant (v2 = 99.56; P \ 2.2e-16).
When we categorized the participants into groups (i.e. non-collectors, collectors of
objects, collectors of animals and plants, and collectors of stag beetles), we found that each
group had a different preferred species (v2 = 33.97; P = 9.053e-05). The rare species was
Fig. 4 Number of answers (%, ±SD) according to the status of the species on the picture of Experiment 1(rare, medium or abundant), regardless of colors: a rarity was not specified to the participants andb participants are informed that one species is rare
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
selected more frequently first by the collectors of plants and animals (v2 = 19.28;
P = 0.0002), and then by collectors of stag beetles (see Fig. 6b). The non-collectors
preferred the large bodied species (D. curvidens) and the collectors of objects preferred the
colorful species (P. muelleri).Notably, the participants that were not expected to have knowledge of the rarity value of
the stag beetles (i.e., non-collectors and collectors of objects) selected the rare species
much less often than the participants that were expected to have some knowledge
Fig. 5 Occurrence (%, ±SD) of the best criteria defining stag beetles, according to the order of choice ofparticipants a when rarity was proposed among only six criteria in Experiment 2 and b when rarity wasproposed among 20 criteria in Experiment 4
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
(i.e., collectors of animals and plants, and collectors of stag beetles; Fig. 6b). Knowing that
a species is rare thus influences preference for that species.
Experiment 4
When we compared the frequency in which criteria were selected from list of twenty, we
found that some criteria were selected more than others (v2 = 162.62; P \ 2.2e-16): the
criteria selected the most frequently were (in order) ‘rare’, ‘large size’, ‘large mandibles’,
‘colored’ and ‘easy to breed’ (see Fig. 5b). We found that for each rank position, a
criterion was significantly favored more than the others; i.e., there was preference for a
Fig. 6 a Choice of participants for the four stag beetles species presented in Experiment 3, showing that inabsence of explicit information, the rare species, Dorcus gracilicornis, is the less often chosen; b choice ofthat rare species for each collectors class (%, ±SD), showing that animal (including stag beetle) collectorschose this species more often than other participants
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
particular criterion at the first (v2 = 797.99; P \ 2.2e-16), second (v2 = 429.66;
P \ 2.2e-16) and third (v2 = 230.76; P = 2.607e-11) positions. Figure 5b reveals that in
each of rank position, ‘‘rare’’ was favored the most, followed by ‘‘large size’’ and then
‘‘large mandibles’’. This is supported by the Kendall ordination tests, which showed that
the criteria order of the first choice is the same as the second choice (s = 0.667;
P = 7.4912e-05) and as the third choice (s = 0.613; P = 0.0002). In the same way, the
criteria order of the second choice is the same as the third choice (s = 0.809;
P = 1.1917e-06).
When we repeated the analysis for different categories of collectors (non collectors,
collectors of stag beetles, and other collectors), the results revealed that everyone
responded in the same way regardless of their category. Specifically, we found that there
was no significant difference among the rank orders selected by each category of partic-
ipant for the first (v2 = 84.32; P = 0.2403), second (v2 = 96.48; P = 0.0565) or third
(v2 = 106.90; P = 0.0112) rank position.
Discussion
We discovered that rarity is highly valued in stag beetles collections. Preference for stag
beetles is influenced by rarity conveyed in a variety of different ways including through (1)
visual cues of rarity (Experiment 1), (2) being informed that a type is rare (Experiments 1
and 2), and (3) knowing that a species is rare (Experiment 3). We also found that people
will specify rarity as a key criterion of the choice in stag beetles when asked to rank a short
list of criteria (Experiment 2) and select from a longer list (Experiment 4). Additionally,
we were able to demonstrate that rarity in the wild is correlated with rarity on the market
and consumers pay more for rare species (market survey). These finding provide com-
pelling evidence that there is a strong and pervasive desire for rarity in stag beetles and
suggests that this phenomenon may pose a threat to endangered stag beetles in the wild.
Furthermore, our results show that preference for rarity is found in collectors and non-
collectors alike. That rarity value is not restricted to consumers of specific economic
markets but is more general, as was already found in the context of luxury food con-
sumption (Gault et al. 2008) and trophy hunting (Palazy et al. 2011a, b). This may be
considered a disturbing result as it implies that the attraction to rarity may potentially exist
among society as a whole and is not restricted to a certain set of consumers.
The exaggerated value that is placed on rare stag beetles is likely to pervade the entire
hobby collection market, which is a form of materialistic luxury consumption driven by the
need to acquire either (or both) ‘distinction’ through having an extensive set and dem-
onstrating expertise, and ‘closure’ through completing a set, or a series, or filling in gaps in
a collection (Danet and Katriel 1990; Belk 1995 both cited in Long and Schiffman 1997).
Stag beetle and other wildlife products—butterflies and birds eggs for instance—make
ideal collector item as they belong to a large superordinate category (i.e. an Order)
comprised of neat subcategories (i.e. Genera and Families) which allows for manageable
sets to complete while offering seemingly endless opportunities; all of which are key
characteristics of collectables (Danet and Katriel 1990 in Long and Schiffman 1997).
Collectors of all types of objects are attracted to rarity as the scarcer an item, the more
likely the opportunity for distinction from possessing it and its ability to complete a set
(Danet and Katriel 1990; Belk 1995 in Long and Schiffman 1997). Within the wildlife
collection market, the desire for rarity has been documented for butterfly collections
(Courchamp et al. 2006) and trophy hunting (Palazy et al. 2011a, b).
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
Unlike other objects that collectors desire (i.e., stamps, coins, art), collections of
wildlife commodities can have dire negative consequences by depleting the species in the
wild. Through the process of the Anthropogenic Allee Effect, rare species that are cher-
ished by collectors can paradoxically be driven to extinction by them. Hall et al. (2008) and
Gault et al. (2008) demonstrated with ecological-economic models that the desire for rare
wildlife commodities could theoretically result in the extinction of the species through this
process. These results have been corroborated by examples in the wild where hobby
collectors have been implicated as a driver of the extinction or near extinctions: for
example, the great auk (Fuller 1999), the lady’s slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus;
Ramsay and Stewart 1998) and large copper butterfly (Lycaena dispar; Slone et al. 1997).
The interest in rare species as a leisure good is especially worrying as the general level
of world wealth increases. If these general trends translate to more interest in collecting
wildlife such as stag beetles, it will result in increased pressure on rare species that are
already threatened with over exploitation and the anthropogenic Allee effect.
These words of alarm can be tempered by the positive implications of wildlife hobby
collections. Benefits may include an increased awareness and appreciation of nature and
the increase in information gathering and sharing by enthusiasts (Lee and Trace 2009).
Recently, Sir David Attenborough—a very high profile nature documentary producer and
conservationist—publicly announced his opinion that children should be allowed to collect
common species to encourage an appreciation of nature and conservation (Gray 2010;
Wilkes 2010). It is indeed indisputable that increased public interest in insects is likely to
enhance the public’s positive perceptions of nature in general and invertebrates in par-
ticular (New 2005). However, our results and those of others (e.g., Hall et al. 2008; Gault
et al. 2008; Palazy et al. 2011a) suggest that encouraging leisure exploitation of wildlife
can promote a demand for rare species, which could be devastating for them if not bal-
anced by appropriate information and regulation. The threat over-collection can represent
in Japan for rare species of stag beetles has already been emphasized (Kameoka and
Kiyono 2004; New 2005). As stated by New (New 2007), ‘‘beetlephilia can be a two-edgedsword in conservation’’. The increased interest of collectors is likely to drive the rare
species to extinction in the wild before the improved knowledge developed within the
hobbyist’s community can improve their chances of survival (Stuart et al. 2006) but see
Kratochvil (2006). Regrettably, our understanding of consumer behavior in wildlife col-
lecting and in natural resource extraction in general—described aptly as ‘‘Tragedy of the
Commons’’ (Hardin 1968)—suggests that rare species are often acutely threatened by
collectors and policies that encourage hobby collections may risk hastening their extinc-
tion. In the case of stag beetles hobby collection in Japan, it is noteworthy however that
ongoing effort to breed some species may result in significant lower harvest as ecologically
rare species become common on the market and, thus, less valued.
Given the potential threat to wildlife presented by hobby collectors on some taxonomic
groups, it might seem the straightforward policy recommendation should be to ban all trade
on demonstrated cases of overexploitation. However, evidence suggests that trade bans can
also stimulate illegal trade (Rivalan et al. 2007) and strictly regulated trade can potentially
maintain viable and healthy populations in the wild (Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003).
Similarly, withholding information about rarity can hinder conservation programs and
must therefore be used with circumspection (Courchamp et al. 2006; Rivalan et al. 2007).
We recommend that to protect endangered stag beetles and other wildlife collector items,
management should be supported at all levels including: improving enforcement of already
existing bans in trade in the wild endangered species (Messer 2010), improving monitoring
(Phelps et al. 2010), setting scientifically and informed quotas, encouraging captive
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
breeding (Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003; Kratochvil 2006), as well as educating and
informing the consumers (Jepson et al. 2008; Robbins 2003) who, paradoxically, may
inadvertently harm the very species they appreciate the most.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank Maxime Guinard for the website conception and Dr Yuya Watarifor translations of the site into Japanese. We also thank Kunio Araya, Luca Bartolozzi, Hiroshi Fujita, Paschoal C.Grossi, Tadatsugu Hosoya, Jen-Pan Huang, Hiroshi Kojima, Jean-Michel Maes and Eva Sprecher who all kindlyaccepted to rankall the stag beetles species in the database according to its rarity. We also wholeheartedly thank allparticipants for completing the survey and/or forwarding it to other participants. This work was supported by anANR Grant and a David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellowship.
References
Angulo E, Deves AL, Saint Jalmes M, Courchamp F (2009) Fatal attraction: rare species in the spotlight.Proc R Soc Lond Biol Sci 276:1331–1337
Belk RW (1995) Collecting as luxury consumption—effects on individuals and households. J Econ Psychol16:477–490
Brook BW, Sodhi NS (2006) Conservation biology—rarity bites. Nature 444:555–557Courchamp F, Angulo E, Rivalan P, Hall RJ, Signoret L, Bull L, Meinard Y (2006) Rarity value and species
extinction: the anthropogenic Allee effect. PLoS Biol 4:2405–2410Danet B, Katriel T (1990) Glorious obsessions, passionate lovers, and hidden treasures: collecting, meta-
phor, and the romantic ethic. In: International conference on the socio-semiotics of objects: the role ofartifacts in social symbolic processes. Toronto
Fuller E (1999) The great auk. Harry N. Abrams Inc. Publishers, New YorkGaston KJ (1994) Rarity. Chapman & Hall, LondonGault A, Meinard Y, Courchamp F (2008) Consumers’ taste for rarity drives sturgeons to extinction.
Conserv Lett 1(5):199–207Gibbons JW, Scott DE, Ryan TJ, Buhlmann KA, Tuberville TD, Metts BS, Greene JL, Mills T, Leiden Y,
Poppy S, Winne CT (2000) The global decline of reptiles, deja vu amphibians. Bioscience 50:653–666Goka K, Kojima H, Okabe K (2004) Biological invasion caused by commercialization of stag beetles in
Japan. Glob Environ Res 8(1): 67–74Gray R (2010) Let children collect flowers and fossils says Sir David Attenborough (in The Telegraph-28/
04/10)Hall R, Milner-Gulland E, Courchamp F (2008) Endangering the endangered: the effects of perceived rarity
on species exploitation. Conserv Lett 1(2):75–81Hardin G (1968) Tragedy of commons. Science 162:1143–1248Hutton JM, Leader-Williams N (2003) Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human
and conservation interests. Oryx 37:215–226Jepson P, Prana M, Aksenta S, Amama F (2008) Developing a certification system for captive-bred birds in
Indonesia. TRAFFIC Bull 22:1–9Kameoka S, Kiyono H (2004) A survey of the rhinoceros beetle and stag beetle market in Japan. TRAFFIC
East Asia-Japan 36–74Kratochvil L (2006) Captive breeding and a threatened gecko. Science 313(5789): 915–915Lee CP, Trace CB (2009) The Role of information in a community of hobbyist collectors. J Am Soc Inf Sci
Technol 60:621–637Lindhjem H, Navrud S (2011) Are internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent
valuation? Ecol Econ 70:1628–1637Long MM, Schiffman LG (1997) Swatch fever: an allegory for understanding the paradox of collecting.
Psychol Mark 14:495–509Messer KD (2010) Protecting endangered species: when are shoot-on-sight policies the only viable option to
stop poaching? Ecol Econ 69:2334–2340Mizunuma T, Nagai S (1994) The lucanid beetles of the world. Mushisha, TokyoNew TR (2005) Inordinate fondness: a threat to beetles in South East Asia? J Insect Conserv 9(3):147–150New TR (2007) Beetles and conservation. J Insect Conserv 11:1–4Palazy L, Bonenfant C, Gaillard J-M, Courchamp F (2011a) Cat dilemma: too protected to escape trophy
hunting? PLoS One 6(7): e22424
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
Palazy L, Bonenfant C, Gaillard J-M, Courchamp F (2011b) Rarity, tropy hunting and ungulates. AnimConserv. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2011.00476.x
Phelps J, Webb EL, Bickford D, Nijman V, Sodhi NS (2010) Boosting CITES. Science 330:1752–1753Ramsay MM, Stewart J (1998) Re-establishment of the lady’s slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus L.) in
Britain. Bot J Linn Soc 126:173–181Rhodin A (1999) Celebrate the turtle: perception and preservation. In: Powdermill 1999, 4th occasional
freshwater turtle conference. Laughlin, NVRivalan P, Delmas V, Angulo E, Bull LS, Hall RJ, Courchamp F, Rosser AM, Leader-Williams N (2007)
Can bans stimulate wildlife trade? Nature 447:529–530Robbins C (2003) Eco-labelling as a conservation tool for American Ginseng. TRAFFIC Bull 19:153–156Rodriguez-Estrella R, Carmen M, Moreno B (2006) Rare, fragile species, small populations, and the
dilemma of collections. Biodivers Conserv 15:1621–1625Rosser AM, Mainka SA (2002) Overexploitation and species extinctions. Conserv Biol 16:584–586Slone TH, Orsak LJ, Malver O (1997) A comparison of price, rarity and cost of butterfly specimens:
implications for the insect trade and for habitat conservation. Ecol Econ 21:77–85Stuart BL, Rhodin AGJ, Grismer LL, Hansel T (2006) Scientific description can imperil species. Science
312 1137–1137Taylor HR (1904) The standard American egg catalogue: a true basis for the exchange of nests and eggs.
H.R. Taylor, New York 32Wilkes D (2010) Let children collect bugs again to boost interest in science, says Sir David Attenborough (in
MailOnline)
Biodivers Conserv
123
Author's personal copy
View publication statsView publication stats