Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/emu
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Deakin University,
221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia.
B
Corresponding author. Email: kelly.miller@deakin.edu.au
Abstract. Australian delegates at the Australasian Ornithological Conference (2007) were surveyed by questionnaire to
determine their perceived research and conservation priorities for Australian birds (n 134). Respondents were honours or
postgraduate students (37.4%), academics (26.2%), wildlife managers (6.5%), land managers (6.5%), environmental
consultants (5.6%), independent wildlife researchers (5.6%) or had other occupations not relevant to birds or their
management (12.1%). Respondents rated their priorities on a predetermined set of issues, and were invited to add additional
priorities. Conservation of threatened species was considered the highest priority, followed by Conservation of birds and
biodiversity in general, Monitoring, Management and Working with communities. Animal welfare/rights was
regarded as comparatively less important. Eight of 11 conservation strategies were regarded as of high importance, these
included habitat protection and rehabilitation, threat abatement, research, advocacy and education. This study documents the
view of the ornithological community with respect to priority issues facing birds and could potentially feed into government
and other policies aimed at conserving and understanding Australias birds.
Introduction
With increasing pressure on species and ecosystems,
conservation of biodiversity is a growing challenge. Limits on
research and conservation resources means setting priorities is
essential (Department of Education, Science and Training 2002;
Mace et al. 2007). As in other scientic disciplines, the process of
setting priorities for Australian birds should be informed and
comprehensive (Mace and Collar 2002). Clear priorities can ag
opportunities for students and researchers, help direct funding,
raise awareness, and help inform planning.
Priorities can be set in a variety of ways, such as identication
of gaps in current knowledge, emergent opportunities or threats,
or on the basis of needs. Such priorities can be determined using:
(1) expert opinion (e.g. Cox et al. 2000); (2) literature review that
identies signicant gaps in current knowledge (e.g. Miller and
Miller 1998; Winker 1998; Bautista and Pantoja 2000);
(3) scientic research, such as deriving quantitative measures
of priority species, areas or threats (e.g. Garnett and Crowley
2000; Polasky et al. 2001); and (4) community consultation,
which may involve consultation with particular stakeholder
groups or the wider community (e.g. Miller and Jones 2005).
Ornithology is the scientic study of birds, but can be broadly
dened to include the conservation biology of birds, the
applications of ornithology and other topics (see the scope of
Emu). Among the natural sciences, ornithology has enjoyed a
relatively long period of development and specialisation
(Kazantidis 2007). Birds are ubiquitous and possess a broad
range of habitat requirements and life-history characteristics. The
discipline of ornithology is diverse, involving aspects of ecology,
behavioural science, physiology, genetics, taxonomy, evolutionary
biology and many others (Bairlein and Prinzinger 2001).
Royal Australasian Orinthologists Union 2009
0158-4197/09/010067
68
Emu
Table 1. Demographic prole of survey respondents compared with that of all AOC delegates (of a total 258 delegates)
The observed ratio in the sample is compared with expected values derived from the ratio apparent in all delegates
Ratio
Female : Male
Australian : International
A
Delegate ratio
Respondent ratio
1.0 : 1.3
1.0 : 0.3A
253
247
1.0 : 1.1
1.0 : 0.2
158
158
Difference
c2 = 1.4, d.f. = 1, P < 0.24
c2 = 3.3, d.f. = 1, P < 0.07
Of the 21.1% of non-Australians, 50.0% were from New Zealand, 23.1% from the USA, 13.5% from South Africa, 3.8% from both the UK
and Czechoslovakia, and a single delegate attended from each of Japan, Germany and The Netherlands.
Emu
Relationship to birds
Avian focus
General
Specic species group
Encompass birds
Exclude birds
Encompass birds
Exclude birds
Broad focus
Specic focus
Number of organisations
25
12
42
9
9
8
69
70
Emu
Table 3. Research and conservation priorities as assigned by respondents, in descending order of perceived priority
Each issue was rated on a scale from low (1) to high priority (5). Respondents also declared their top three priorities by listing them in a separate survey question;
the frequency at which respondents included an issue area in their top three declared priorities is also provided, with the overall ranking of issues (and percentage
in parentheses) of 394 nominated top priorities
Issue
(1) Threatened communities and habitats
(2) Conservation of avian (bird) diversity
(3) Threatened species management
(4) Education (e.g. of the community)
(5) Monitoring population trends in birds
(6) Monitoring trends in the distribution of birds
(7) Biological diversity conservation
(8) The effect of climate change on birds
(9) Identication of important habitats and sites for birds
(10) Community engagement
(11) Loss, fragmentation and degradation of native vegetation
(12) Systematic conservation of birds at the landscape scale
(13) Bird conservation in coastal areas
(14) Management of introduced species
(15) Management of invasive and pest animal species
(16) Freshwater ows, water management and bird conservation
(17) Effects of re on birds
(18) Marine issues (e.g. sheries by-catch)
(19) Logging and timber harvesting
(20) International bird conservation
(21) Effects of grazing on birds
(22) Management of invasive and pest plant species
(23) Avian disease
(24) Urban birds and habitats
(25) Human dimensions of bird management (e.g. understanding how
people interact with and regard birds)
(26) Economic values of birds
(27) Animal welfare (i.e. humane treatment of animals)
(28) Systematics and vernacular (common) names
(29) Animal rights (i.e. the right of individual animals to live a life
without human-induced stress)
Mean priority
rating s.e.
Modal priority
rating
Inclusion in the
top priorities
4.7 0.1
4.6 0.1
4.5 0.1
4.5 0.1
4.5 0.1
4.5 0.1
4.4 0.1
4.4 0.1
4.4 0.1
4.4 0.1
4.3 0.1
4.2 0.1
4.1 0.1
3.9 0.1
3.9 0.1
3.9 0.1
3.8 0.1
3.8 0.1
3.7 0.1
3.6 0.1
3.6 0.1
3.5 0.1
3.4 0.2
3.4 0.1
3.4 0.1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
132
133
131
133
134
134
134
133
134
134
134
134
134
132
134
132
133
134
134
132
133
134
132
133
134
6 (6.3%)
4 (7.6%)
4 (7.6%)
2 (9.1%)
5 (7.4%)
8 (5.3%)
2 (9.1%)
1 (9.6%)
9 (3.6%)
7 (6.1%)
3 (8.9%)
4 (7.6%)
15 (0.3%)
13 (0.8%)
10 (2.5%)
11 (1.3%)
11 (1.3%)
14 (0.5%)
15 (0.3%)
13 (0.8%)
15 (0.3%)
14 (0.5%)
12 (1.0%)
15 (0.3%)
12 (1.0%)
3.1 0.1
2.8 0.1
2.6 0.1
2.5 0.1
3
3
3
1
133
132
133
131
15 (0.3%)
16 (0.0%)
13 (0.8%)
16 (0.0%)
Emu
71
Table 4. A model of the data as suggested by factor and reliability (Cronbachs a) analyses
A scale is used here as a grouping of survey items, derived from factor analysis. The numbering of issues (in parentheses under Scale) corresponds
with numbering of issues in Table 3
Cronbachs a (no. of
items in scale)
Scale (issues)
Summary
1.0
Mean score
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
A
0.861 (7 items)
0.797 (5 items)
0.735 (4 items)
0.901 (2 items)
0.713 (3 items)
0.644 (2 items)
72
Emu
Table 5. Perceived importance of different conservation strategies for bird conservation, in descending order of perceived
importance (based on mean score)
Each issue was rated from low (1) to high importance (5)
Issue area
(1) Tackling key threats to birds
(2) Habitat protection
(3) Research
(4) Working with land managers outside the reserve network
(5) Education and awareness
(6) Lobbying and advocacy
(7) Focussing on recovery of multiple threatened species
(8) Habitat restoration and rehabilitation
(9) Managing for common but declining (non-threatened) species
(10) Reserve purchase and management
(11) Focussing on recovery of single threatened species
A
Mean priority
ranking s.e.
Mode
Rank
of mean score
4.6 0.1
4.6 0.1
4.6 0.1
4.5 0.1
4.5 0.1
4.4 0.1
4.3 0.1
4.3 0.9
3.9 0.1
3.7 0.1
3.4 0.1
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.5A
5
4
5
4
133
133
134
133
134
134
134
134
134
131
134
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
Emu
73
References
Australasian Ornithological Conference (2007). Fourth Biennial
Australasian Ornithological Conference: Program, Timetable and
Abstracts, 35 December 2007, Perth. (Birds Australia: Perth.)
Australian Government (2004). National Biodiversity and Climate Change
Action Plan 20042007. (Australian Government: Canberra.)
Bairlein, F., and Prinzinger, R. (2001). Ornithologie hobby oder
wissenschaft? Journal of Ornithology 142(Suppl. 1), 124128.
doi: 10.1007/BF01651450
Ballard, G. (2006). Introduction. In Social Drivers of Invasive Animal
Control. (Ed. G. Ballard.) p. 1. (Invasive Animals Cooperative
Research Centre: Canberra.)
Balmford, A. (2002). Selecting sites for conservation. In Conserving Bird
Biodiversity: General Principles and Their Application. (Eds K. Norris
and D. J. Pain.) pp. 74104. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK.)
Bautista, L. M., and Pantoja, J. C. (2000). A bibliometric review of the recent
literature in ornithology. Ardeola 47, 109121.
Bibby, C. (2003). Fifty years of bird study. Bird Study 50, 194210.
Bloomsbury Publishing (2001). Encarta Concise English Dictionary.
(Bloomsbury Publishing: Sydney.)
Bock, C. E. (1997). The role of ornithology in the conservation of the
American west. Condor 99, 16. doi: 10.2307/1370218
Bowen-Jones, E., and Entwistle, A. (2002). Identifying appropriate agship
species: the importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36, 189195.
doi: 10.1017/S0030605302000261
Brown, G., Smith, C., Alessa, L., and Kliskey, A. (2004). A comparison of
perceptions of biological value with scientic assessment of biological
importance. Applied Geography 24, 161180. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.
2004.03.006
Capra, F. (2002). The Hidden Connections: Integrating the Biological,
Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life into a Science of
Sustainability. (Doubleday: New York.)
Coakes, S. J., and Steed, L. G. (1996). SPSS for Windows: Analysis without
Anguish. (Wiley: Brisbane.)
Coates, D. J., and Atkins, K. A. (2001). Priority setting and the conservation of
Western Australias diverse and highly endemic ora. Biological
Conservation 97, 251263. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00123-3
Cowling, R. M., Pressey, R. L., Sims-Castley, R., le Rouxd, A., Baard, E.,
Burgers, C. J., and Palmer, G. (2003). The expert or the algorithm?
Comparison of priority conservation areas in the Cape Floristic Region
identied by park managers and reserve selection software. Biological
Conservation 112, 147167. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00397-X
74
Emu
Cox, R. R., Johnson, D. H., Johnson, M. A., Kirby, R. E., Nelson, J. W., and
Reynolds, R. E. (2000). Waterfowl research priorities in the Northern
Great Plains. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, 558564.
Decker, D. J., Brown, T. L., and Siemer, W. F. (2001). Human Dimensions of
Wildlife Management in North America. (The Wildlife Society:
Bethesda, MD.)
Department of Education, Science and Training (2002). Developing National
Research Priorities: An Issues Paper. (Commonwealth of Australia:
Canberra.)
Dunn, A., and Weston, M. A. (2008). A review of terrestrial bird atlases and the
data they generate. Emu 108, 4267. doi: 10.1071/MU07034
Dunn, E. H., Hussell, J. D. T., and Welsh, D. A. (1999). Priority-setting tool
applied to Canadas landbirds based on concern and responsibility for
species. Conservation Biology 13, 14041415. doi: 10.1046/j.15231739.1999.98400.x
Fjelds, J. (1995). Have ornithologists slept during class? On the response
of ornithology to the biodiversity crisis and biodiversity convention.
Journal of Avian Biology 26, 8993. doi: 10.2307/3677056
Flasbarth, J. (2001). Die bedeutung der ornithologie in der naturschutzarbeit.
Journal of Ornithology 142(Suppl. 1), 172181. doi: 10.1007/
BF01651455
Galloway, A. W. E., Tudor, M. T., and Vander Haegen, W. M. (2006).
The reliability of citizen science: a case study of Oregon white oak stand
surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34, 14251429. doi: 10.2193/00917648(2006)34[1425:TROCSA]2.0.CO;2
Garnett, S. T., and Crowley, G. M. (2000). The Action Plan for Australian
Birds 2000. (Environment Australia: Canberra.)
Gaunt, A. S., and Oring, L. (1999). Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in
Research. (The Ornithological Council: Washington, DC.)
Greenwood, J. J. D. (2003). The monitoring of British breeding birds: a
success story for conservation science? Science of the Total Environment
310, 221230. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00642-3
Harding, R. (1998). Environmental Decision-making: The Roles of
Scientists, Engineers and the Public. (Federation Press: Sydney.)
Hughey, K. F. D., Cullen, R., and Moran, E. (2003). Integrating economics
into priority setting and evaluation in conservation management.
Conservation Biology 17, 93103. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.
01317.x
Kazantidis, S. (2007). Trends in current ornithology in Greece. Journal of
Biological Research Thessaloniki 8, 139149. Available at http://www.
jbr.gr [Veried 23 February 2009].
Latta, S. C. (2000). Making the leap from researcher to planner: lessons from
avian conservation planning in the Dominican Republic. Conservation
Biology 14, 132139. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98511.x
Mace, G. M., and Collar, N. J. (2002). Priority-setting in species conservation.
In Conserving Bird Biodiversity: General Principles and their
Application. (Eds K. Norris and D. J. Pain.) pp. 6173. (Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK.)
Mace, G. M., Possingham, H. P., and Leader-Williams, N. (2007). Prioritizing
choices in conservation. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology.
(Eds D. W. Macdonald and K. Service.) pp. 1734. (Blackwell
Publishing: Melbourne.)
Mehlman, D. W., Rosenberg, K. V., Wells, J. V., and Robertson, B. (2004).
A comparison of North American avian conservation priority ranking
systems. Biological Conservation 120, 383390. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.
2004.03.013
http://www.publish.csiro.au/journals/emu