hunting, birdwatching, & conservation behavior · hunting, birdwatching, & conservation...
TRANSCRIPT
Hunting,
Birdwatching,
& Conservation Behavior:
CAREN COOPER, LINCOLN LARSON, ASHLEY DAYER,
RICHARD STEDMAN, & DAN DECKER
Associations & Management Implications
October 8, 2014
Our hypothesis: “YES”
Hunting &
Conservation
Birding &
ConservationDirect financial contributions
(license fees, ducks stamps)
Indirect contributions to
conservation causes
Habitat conservation, improvement, enhancement
Membership in environmentalorganizations
Management assistance Citizen science
etc… etc…
Heffelfinger et al., 2013;
Mahoney & Jackson, 2013;
Vrtiska et al., 2013
Hvenegaard, 2002;
McFarlane & Boxall, 1996
Scott, 2013
Conservation outlook:
Is this distinction useful?
Non-consumptive
(Birdwatching)
Consumptive
(Hunting)
Conservation outlook:
Is this distinction useful?
Non-consumptive
(Birdwatching)
Similarities between birdwatchers & hunters:
Motivated to be close to nature
Concerned about ecosystems/habitats
Contribute to environmental organizations
Consumptive
(Hunting)
Decker et al., 1980; McFarlane, 1994; Adams et al., 1997; Reis, 2009; USFWS, 2012
Empirical data is limited
& inconclusive. Dunlap & Heffernan, 1975
Outdoor activities -> environmental concern
Theodori et al., 1998
Outdoor activities -> conservation behavior (activity type doesn’t matter)
Teisl & O’Brien, 2003
Outdoor activities -> env. concern & conservation behavior (activity type matters)
Thapa, 2010
Complex attitude-behavior relationships, mediating influence of outdoor activities uncertain
Glowinski et al., 2014
Outdoor activity-env. concern relationship mediated by other variables (e.g.., motivations)
Empirical data is limited
& inconclusive.Call to Action:“We know very little about how and why people relate to birds and bird conservation issues.
By understanding the attitudes, knowledge, motivation, and behaviors of existing and potential audiences, we can better target conservation solutions that are acceptable to society.”
Recreation Trends:
Implications?
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
1983 1995 2001 2009
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f U
.S. P
op
ula
tio
n
Par
tici
pat
ing
Year
Viewing/Photographing Birds Hunting
Source: NSRE, 2009
Hypotheses
Both birdwatchers AND hunters are more
likely than non-recreationists to engage in
pro-environmental behavior (PEB).
(Recreation -> Conservation)
Conservation behaviors
Environmental lifestyle behaviors
Recreationists who hunt AND birdwatch are
the MOST likely to engage in PEB.
(Additive Effect)
Method:
Sample Population
3 target populations in rural counties
across upstate NY:
Landowners – 2010 GIS Clearinghouse
database
Hunters – 2012 hunting license records
Birdwatchers – Cornell Lab member &
citizen science databases (e.g., eBird)
Methods:
Data Collection
Mail (landowners,
hunters) & web-based
(birdwatchers) surveys
from April to May 2013
(effective N=941)
Landowner RR: 37.8%
Hunter RR: 32.5%
Birdwatcher RR: 38.3%
Measures:
Pro-environmental Behaviors
Environmental Lifestyle
Behaviors
Conservation
Behaviors
Recycling Donation to support conservation
Green purchasing Conservation policy support
Resource conservation
(energy or water)
Participation in environmental group
Wildlife recreation advocacy
Private land habitat enhancement
Public land habitat enhancement
Rated on 5-point scale from 1=Never to 5=Very Often;
From Larson et al., (in review).
Measures:
Recreation Groups
1. Self-identified Preferences
“Choose the ONE nature-based recreation activity that you enjoy the most…”
Options: hunting, birdwatching, other nature-based activity, or no nature-based activity
2. Self-reported Activity Levels
“In the past 12 months, about how many days did you spend some time participating in…”
“Regular participation” thresholds for each activity based on medians of self-reported participation
Measures:
Recreation Groups
4 distinct groups of wildlife recreationists:
Group n Favorite
Activity
Non-recreationists 74 NONE
Hunters 290 Hunting: 98%
Birdwatchers 513 Birding: 97%
Hunter-birdwatchers 63 Hunting: 66%
Birding: 30%
Measures:
Socio-demographics &
Environmental Beliefs
Socio-demographics:
Gender, age, education,
political orientation
Environmental beliefs:
Environmental concern,
environmental norms,
environmental efficacy
Results: Characteristics of
RecreationistsVariable Non-
Rec
Hunter Birder Hunter-
Birder
Socio-demographics
Gender (male) % 58 93 33 89
Age (mean in yrs) 63.5 53.0 60.7 60.7
Education (college) % 42 26 73 36
Political ideology (mean) 3.2 3.7 2.7 3.9
Environmental beliefs
Efficacy (mean) 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.6
Concern (mean) 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.1
Norms (mean) 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.5
Political ideology rated from 1=Very liberal to 5=Very conservative;
Environmental beliefs rated from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree
Results: cont’dVariable Non-
Rec
Hunter Birder Hunter-
Birder
Env. Lifestyle Behavior Scale% rating “often or very often”
61 52 77 61
Recycling 92 89 98 94
Resource Conservation 85 84 94 94
Green purchasing 73 70 90 78
Conservation Behavior Scale% rating “sometimes, often, or very often”
8 21 45 47
Donation to conservation 23 36 61 56
Conservation policy support 46 46 70 70
Join environmental group 12 13 35 34
Wildlife recreation advocacy 14 52 43 56
Private land enhancement 74 86 97 98
Public land enhancement 11 30 42 47
Binary conversion of PEB ratings: 0=Rare behavior, 1=Regular behavior
Results: Logistic Regression
& Relative Likelihood
Controlled for socio-demographics &
environmental beliefs to isolate effects of
recreation activities on PEB
RLi = ORi / [(1-P0) + (P0*ORi)]; where
RLi = Relative likelihood (i.e., relative risk) of PEB for group i
(compared to control group of non-recreationists)
ORi = Odds ratio for group i
P0 = Probability of condition (i.e., PEB) for average individual
in control group using: P0 = 1 / [1 + e-(a+b1*X1+b2*X2…)];
where (a+b1*X1+b2*X2…) = value of log(odds) calculated based
on logit model coefficients and mean X values for “average”
respondent in control group
Zhang & Yu, 1998
Results: Highlights
Recreation -> conservation behaviors
Hunters & birdwatchers 4-5 times more likely than non-recreationists to engage in conservation behaviors
Additive effect
Hunter-birdwatchers 8 times more likely than non-recreationists to engage in conservation behaviors
Engagement in environmental lifestyle behaviors roughly comparable across groups
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Overall Environmental Lifestyle Behaviors
Overall Conservation Behaviors
Private Land Habitat Enhancement
Conservation Policy Support
Donation to Conservation
Wildlife Recreation Advocacy
Public Land Habitat Enhancement
Participation in Environmental Group
Participation Likelihood Ratio(Relative to Non-Recreationist)
Hunter
Birdwatcher
Hunter-Birdwatcher
PEB Subscales
Specific Conservation Behaviors
Management Implications
Connect with & foster support for both
hunting AND birdwatching
Diversified agency program portfolios
increase conservation gains
Future Research
Explore relationships on broader scales
Consider influence of other nature-based recreation activities
Account for more potential PEB predictors
Examine more specific conservation behaviors
Compare different types of hunters & birders
Learn more about hunter-birdwatchers & their unique proclivity for conservation
Questions?
Lincoln [email protected]
Cooper, Larson, Dayer, Stedman, &
Decker. (forthcoming). Are wildlife
recreationists really conservationists?
Linking hunting, birdwatching, and
pro-environmental behavior.
Journal of Wildlife Management.
Recreation Trends:
Implications?
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
1996 2001 2006 2011
Tota
l Exp
end
itu
res
(Mill
ion
s o
f $U
SD)
Tota
l Par
tici
pan
ts in
U.S
.(T
ho
usa
nd
s)
Year
Hunters Wildlife Viewers
Hunting Expenditures Wildlife Viewing Expenditures
Source: USFWS, 2012
Recreation Participation Rates
Group Non-
Rec
Hunter Birder Hunter-
Birder
Hunting
>1 day/yr (%) 0 98 0 66
>19 days/yr(%) 0 55 0 79
Mean days/yr. 0.5 29.3 0.6 44.1
Median days/yr. 0 0 19 29
Birdwatching
>1 day/yr (%) 14 25 96 100
>19 days/yr(%) 0 0 55 86
Mean days/yr. 3.5 9.7 201.1 296.5
Median days/yr. 0 0 190 365
Implications for wildlife
management goals & practice.
“Goal: Growing numbers of
waterfowl hunters, other
conservationists and citizens who
enjoy and actively support
waterfowl and wetlands conservation.”
“Objectives can be divided into
three general categories:”
1. hunter participation
2. viewer participation
3. support for conservation