Transcript The Dark Side of Birding: Perceptions of Bird Watching’s Negative Ecological Impacts Lisa Jeane Reznicek Co-advisors Dr.

The Dark Side of Birding: Perceptions of Bird Watching’s Negative Ecological Impacts
Lisa Jeane Reznicek
Co-advisors Dr. W. vonZharen and Dr. F. Pearl
Texas A&M University at Galveston. Masters in Marine Resources Management
ABSTRACT
METHODS
Birding, the act of observing birds in the outdoors, is a form of nature recreation. The
rapid growth and popularity of birding pushes people into remote habitats in search of these
birds, creating closer and more extreme encounters that are altering bird physiology and
behavior (Blumstein et al., 2005; Erwin, 1989; Koshak, 2007; Smith-Castro and Rodewald,
2009; Sekerciogul, 2002). Often, competition for space or resources can create conflict among
recreational users and bird conservation initiatives.
The geographic range of the data collection of the study included the upper portion of
the Great Texas Birding Trail (GTCBT) and focused on sites and events with the highest
number of birding stakeholders who could participate in the study. The GTCBT is one of five
state-designated systems of trails, and it identifies sites and resources for birding.
RESULTS
Through an analysis of targeted data from interviews and surveys from different
stakeholders and specialization levels, this study has resulted in both supported and
unsupported hypotheses. Even though birders have traditionally been labeled as “nonconsumptive,” there were many interviews which reported perceptions of birders negatively
impacting the environments in which they were pursuing their activity. A total of twenty-two
negative ecological impacts were noted during the interviews, with calls and playbacks being
noted most frequently (23% of all interview responses).
There were 243 surveys returned from 443 surveys requested from all possible
participants (or a survey response rate of 55%). As a result of surveyed perceptions,
participants believe negative ecological impacts to be occurring “Rarely” to "Sometimes" on
the five-point Likert scale used in the survey (or a perception score of 2.76).
Hypothesis 1 testing results indicated that there was a relationship between the
progressive nature of birder specialization and increasing frequency of perceived negative
ecological impacts from birding. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported by the data.
HYPOTHESIS 1 RESULTS
Results showed a statistically significant difference between
intensity levels of birders. Additionally, as birders progress in
intensity, they also increase their perceptions of negative
impacts from birding.
All study participants were asked to voluntarily participate if they fit into the
stakeholder criteria. Structured interviews (n= 18) in the spring and summer months of 2011
created a baseline of knowledge and confirmed stakeholder perceptions of impacts from
birding. From the interviews, anonymous survey was developed for each stakeholder category.
The surveys (n=243) were administered to stakeholders in December 2011 and January 2012,
which targeted perceptions of birding’s negative ecological impact and strategies of
conservation.
A portion of this research examined differences in the various levels of involvement in
birding. Birding participants vary in levels of experience, financial investment, and
commitment to birding, but many follow a code of ethics to ensure the sustainability of their
recreation and the resources needed. As a means to understand differences between birding
management stakeholders and within-birder specialization, this study examined perceptions of
unethical birding. Unethical birding was surveyed using questions based upon a standard
birding code of ethics, previous research on birding impacts, and preliminary interviews.
DATA ANALYSIS
Through two separate independent T-tests, Hypotheses 2 & 3 were supported . Tests
indicated statistically significant differences in perceptions between birders and the two other
stakeholder groups. Further exploration of perceptional questions revealed that birders had
more perceptional differences with bird managers than birding guides.
To begin analyzing within- birder specialization perceptions, birder survey
participants (n=213) were segmented into three levels of specialization by a K-means
cluster analysis of the twenty questions regarding experience, economic investment, and
lifestyle. To answer Hypothesis 1, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test examined for
statistical significance difference and a Least Significant Difference (LSD) test defined
any differences between the negative ecological impact perceptions of the three levels of
birder specialization.
HYPOTHESIS 2 & 3 RESULTS
Among stakeholders, tests indicated that there was a
statistically significant difference between perceptions of
birding’s negative ecological impact. 59% of the time,
birders perceived the least amount of negative ecological
impacts.
Figure 3: This figure depicts the two major questions of focus for this study:
do birders perceive their own negative ecological impacts differently as they
change in level of specialization; and do other stakeholders – bird guides and
bird managers - perceive birder impacts differently than birders?
:
HYPOTHESES
1. Birders’ perception of impact is not significantly (p < .05) related to their
specialization level of birding.
3. There is a significant (p > .05) difference between birders’ and birding
guides’ perceptions of impact from birding
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012
www.PosterPresentations.com
Blumstein, D.T., Fernandez-Juricic, E., Zolhner, P. A., and Garity, S.C. , D. F.-J. (2005). Interspecific variation in avian responses to human disturbances. . Journal of Applied Ecology, 42
(5), 943-953.
Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Niles, L. (1995). Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey:
Contrasting responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22(1), 5665.
Decker, D.J., and Chase, L.C. (1997). Human Dimensions of Living with Wildlife: A
Management Challenge for the 21st Century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25 (4), 788-795.
Erwin, R. (1989). Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: experimental
results and management guidelines. Colonial Waterbirds 12 (1), 104-108.
Jacobson, S.K., and Duffer, M.D. (1998). Training Idiot Savants: The Lack of Human
Dimensions in Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology 12 (2), p 263-267.
Johnson, R.B., and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33 (7), 14-26.
Kazmierow, B., Hickling, G., and Booth, K. (2000). Ecological and human dimensions of
tourism-related wildlife disturbance: White herons at waitangiroto, New Zealand. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 5 (2), 1-14.
Koshak, D. C. (2007). The impacts of wildlife viewing and related non-consumptive outdoor
recreation activities on avian populations: An annotated bibliography. Denver, CO: Colorado
Division of Wildlife.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U. C. (2011). The State of the Birds 2011 Report
on Public Lands and Waters. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Interior.
Riley, S. S. (2003). Adaptive impact management: An integrative approach to wildlife
management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8 (2), 81-95.
Sekerciogul, C. H. (2002). Impacts of birdwatching on human and avian communities.
Environmental Conservation 29 (3), 282-289.
Smith-Castro, Jennifer R. and Rodewald, Amanda D. (2009). Behavioral responses of nesting
birds to human. Journal of Field Ornithology 81 (2), 130-138.
Wellman, J.D., Roggenbuck, J.W., and Smith, C.A. (1982). Recreation specialization and
norms of depreciative behavior among canoeists. Journal of Leisure Research 14 (4), 323-340.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
By completing a comparative study on perceptions of these impacts from birding along
the upper portion of the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail (GTCBT), professional bird
managers and guides will be provided an additional tool for effectively managing people
whom they serve.
2. There is a significant (p > .05) difference between birders’ and bird
managers’ perceptions of impact from birders.
For those who manage and monitor impacts from recreation, understanding human
dimensions are critical to the success of wildlife management, facilitating an understanding of
resource importance and cooperation amongst those who use public lands. Perceptions form
the basis for actions. There must be a consideration of the potential impacts to promote and
retain the benefits of wildlife-viewing recreation: benefits to individuals, to communities, and
to wildlife (Riley, 2003; Koshak, 2007).
Although Hypothesis 1 was not supported by the study results, a surprising relationship
between the progressive nature of birder specialization and the increasing frequency of
perceived negative ecological impacts from birding was observed. Hypothesis 2 & 3 were
supported by the testing results which indicated that birders are the least perceptive to negative
ecological impacts from birding among the three stakeholders in this study. Taken together,
the results validate the theory that those who have experience at a location or with birding
activities may become more sensitive to impacting behaviors.
This study has provided scientific data analysis of birding’s perceived negative impacts,
as well as strategies for bird conservation. This work provides needed data on the human
dimension of natural resource use conflicts for natural resource managers, who require better
understanding of their constituents to accomplish recreational and conservation conflict
management. From these results, birding managers can begin to identify ways stakeholders
and levels of specialization differ in their assessments and evaluation of negative ecological
impacts.
REFERENCES
This study approach to designing and conducting research is important because it
reflects the mixed methodology of social and biological science emphasized in natural
resource management (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Burger and Gochfeld, 1995; Decker
and Chase, 1997; Jacobson and Duffer, 1998; Kazmierow et al., 2000; Wellman et al., 1982).
To gauge frequency of perceived negative ecological impacts, a five-point Likert scale was
used and then numerically coded for analysis. Comparisons of negative impact perceptions
were investigated among birder specialization categories, and between birders and other
stakeholders.
The qualitative data were open-ended answers evaluated for frequency patterns,
and were specifically used with interviews and with conservation strategies from the
survey. The second quantitative data set, from the survey questions on specialization and
negative ecological impacts, was coded numerically. Quantitative data entry and analysis
were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19.
All statistics were evaluated at a 0.05 significance level.
CONCLUSIONS
Hypotheses2 & 3 compares the average scores from survey questions regarding
perceptions of negative ecological impacts. Through two independent T-tests, birders’
impact scores were tested against those of birding guides and bird managers separately.
Figure 9: Survey questions regarding perceptions of
negative ecological impact from birding were
compared between stakeholders to identify specific
points of difference. Stakeholder answers to
questions are coded according to the five-point
Likert scale.
There is a big note of gratitude to all the birding stakeholders who were willing to
participate in the study and teach me about the world of birding. Although many people
helped with the data collection, the faculty at Texas A&M at Galveston provided the
academic support needed to develop, advance, and analyze the project. I would like to thank
my committee co-chairs, Dr. vonZharen and Dr. Pearl, also my committee members, Dr.
Knock and Prof. Bodson, for their guidance and support throughout the course of this
research.
Thanks also go to my friends and colleagues and the department faculty and staff for
making my time at Texas A&M University at Galveston a great experience. Thanks to my
ma and pa for their encouragement as well as to my special man-friend for his patience and
love. Lastly, the project is a reflection of people who’ve led the way and given me examples
to follow. They should be acknowledged for their contributions.