Hunting,

Birdwatching,

& Conservation Behavior:

CAREN COOPER, LINCOLN LARSON, ASHLEY DAYER,

RICHARD STEDMAN, & DAN DECKER

Associations & Management Implications

October 8, 2014

Conservation?Recreation

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

ConservationRecreation

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 LarsonLRL@clemson.edu

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

Results: Regression Models

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