BIO 632 Module 4 Branching Scenario

Consequences of Charisma

One decision. Four species. Real consequences.

START

You’re the director of a conservation foundation. You have funding for ONE major project.Your decision will affect:

• Public support (what people care about)
• Donor funding (what gets sustained)
• Ecosystem health (what actually matters long-term)

Here’s the catch: What people like and what ecosystems need are not always the same.

NEXT

Who gets the funding?

VULTURE

SEA TURTLE

WASP

ELEPHANT

Each option comes with trade-offs. Choose carefully

Elephant Conservation Initiative

Go big: ElephantIconic. Loved. Expensive. Ecosystem engineer.

Select Elephant

BACK

Elephant Conservation Initiative

You chose a crowd favorite. Elephants are ecologically important and highly visible. Donors are excited already.

NEXT

Great choice… for your donors Your campaign explodes almost immediately. Donations spike Social media engagement is high Sponsors are eager to partner People feel good supporting elephants. Then your science team flags something: "Elephants matter—but this ecosystem has more urgent gaps." You’re at a crossroads.

Spread the love Redirect some funds to overlooked species

Check the data Pause and reassess ecological priorities

Ride the wave. Maximize momentum & funding

MAKE A CHOICE:

Sea Turtle Recovery Program

Play it safe: Sea Turtle Familiar. Relatable. Easy to rally around.

BACK

SELECT SEA TURTLE

You chose a social media superstar. The campaign is easy to market, and community partners love it.

NEXT

This campaign basically runs itself.Everything is clicking: Volunteers show up.Videos go viral Partnerships grow fast. Sea turtles are easy to love—and easy to fund. Then a marine scientist raises a concern: "Protecting turtles helps… but the whole coastal system needs attention."

Tell a bigger storyKeep turtles, expand the narrative

Zoom outShift to ecosystem-wide protection

Keep it simpleStick with what’s working

MAKE A CHOICE:

Vulture Protection Project

Bet on function: VultureUnpopular. Critical. Quietly prevents disease.

SELECTVULTURES

BACK

You chose function over fame. Scientists applaud. Your donors look nervous. Your materials specifically call out vultures as fast carcass removers that help limit disease spread.

NEXT

Well… this is awkwardPublic reaction is immediate, and not great. “Why vultures?” “That’s… a choice.” Meanwhile, scientists are thrilled. Why? Vultures:

• Remove carcasses quickly
• Limit disease spread
• Provide ecosystem cleanup for free

The problem isn’t the science. It’s perception.

Show the receiptsLead with data and evidence

Fix the imageRebrand vultures as ecosystem heroes

Play it safeShift funding to a more popular species

MAKE A CHOICE:

Native Wasp Habitat Initiative

Take the risk: WaspOverlooked. Essential. Hard to sell.

BACK

SELECTWASP

You chose the species most people would rather not think about.Ecologists nod. Your communications team starts sweating.

NEXT

Bold move. Public reaction: Not great.But behind the scenes: Farmers support the decision. Scientists highlight major benefits Wasps:

• Control crop pests
• Support pollination
• Stabilize food systems

The issue? They don’t have great PR.

Stand your groundLet science speak for itself

Reframe the win.Focus on agriculture and food security

Swap the faceRepackage the campaign using bees instead

MAKE A CHOICE:

Six Months Later…

Your campaign is thriving.

• Strong donor engagement
• High visibility
• Positive public sentiment

But ecosystem reports show limited improvement. You’re succeeding… just not where it matters most.

Follow the scienceShift priorities toward ecosystem needs

MAKE A CHOICE:

Chase the crowdKeep optimizing for attention

Split the differenceTry to rebalance impact

Six Months Later…

You’re walking a tightrope:

• Moderate donor support
• Growing ecological impact
• Mixed public reactions

It’s working… but it takes effort.

Go all-in on dataShift fully toward ecological outcomes

MAKE A CHOICE:

Hold the balanceMaintain dual focus

Lean into hypeBoost visibility and funding

Six Months Later…

Your decisions are grounded in evidence.

• Ecosystem indicators improve
• Scientists are aligned
• Public support is uneven

You’re solving the right problems. Just not the most visible ones.

Stay the courseCommit fully to data-driven conservation

MAKE A CHOICE:

Blend bothBalance science and storytelling

Pivot to popularIncrease public engagement

Your inbox is full. Some donors are excited. Others are hesitant. A few messages stand out:

• “Stick with what’s working.”
• “Can you show clearer results?”
• “This feels risky.”

Funding depends on confidence, not just impact. Do you follow donors or try to change their minds?

Ignore pressure Stay focused on your mission

Give donors what they want Prioritize funding and familiarity

Educate donors Shift what they value

MAKE A CHOICE:

A new report arrives.It shows:

• Which species are most at risk
• Where funding has the biggest impact

And it doesn’t match public or donor priorities. The most important species… aren’t the most popular. Do you follow the evidence or the momentum?

Use it selectively Support your current path

Follow the dataShift toward impact

Ignore it Stick with what’s working

MAKE A CHOICE:

What was subtle is now visible. You start seeing:

• Rising pests
• Missing species
• Early disease signals

Your earlier choices are catching up. The system is reacting. Do you pivot or hold the line?

Stay consistent Maintain trust

Downplay the issue. Control the narrative

Respond quicklyChange course

MAKE A CHOICE:

You’ve seen the full picture:

• Public reaction
• Donor pressure
• Scientific reality
• Real consequences

Every path has trade-offs. What matters most?

Balance everything Compromise across goals

Prioritize ecosystem function Long-term impact

Prioritize public supportVisibility and funding

MAKE A CHOICE:

Popular but Shallow Win

You won the campaign. You lost the bigger picture. You funded what people loved and ignored what the system needed. Public praise was strong, but ecosystem services collapsed elsewhere. More carcasses remained in the landscape. Pest populations rose. Biodiversity losses spread across the food web. Ecosystems are not popularity contests. Cute does not equal critical.

NEXT

Balanced Conservation Win

You built a bridge between emotion and evidence. You used a charismatic entry point or strong storytelling to bring people in, then expanded the message to include ecosystem function and overlooked species. This is often the most realistic conservation strategy: do not ignore charisma, but widen the frame. That solution directly matches the conclusion in your module materials.

NEXT

Ecological Win, Communication Struggle

Science was right. Your audience needed help catching up. You funded the species with the strongest ecosystem value, but public support lagged because the messaging failed. Good science alone is not always enough. Conservation also depends on communication, framing, and public understanding. Your slides explicitly point to better storytelling as part of the fix.

NEXT

So… what did you just do?

You made a conservation decision. But did you fund:

• What people love?
• What felt safe? or
• What ecosystems actually needed?

Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: We don’t just protect species. We protect the ones we like. And that shapes everything. Ecosystems don’t care about charisma. They depend on function.

PLAY AGAIN