Nest Monitors’ Response to Invasive House Sparrows

Lincoln Larson, Caren Cooper, & Mark HauberOctober 7, 2014

House Sparrows (HOSP) = non-native species, commensal with humans, competes w/ native passerines for nestboxes

Nest monitors concerned about HOSP

How should HOSP be managed?

Management guidance from bottom-up (www.sialis.org)

CLO’s NestWatch

Citizen science project goal: co-develop best practices to manage native birds

Project Components

Management Experiment

Online Discussions

Webinars

Reporting of Management Practices

RQ 1: What factors influence public stewardship of & management actions related to songbirds? H1: Affective factors > cognitive factors

RQ2: How does citizen science project participation alter participant reasoning & emotions? H2: Participation enhances scientific reasoning,

dampens emotions

Dominance of cognitive decision making theories in human dimensions research Assumption: process is deliberative, rational

Problem: Logic, reasoning only part of process…

Cognitive

Hierarchy(Vaske & Donnelly, 1999)

Integrated, dual-process decision making models

System 2: Controlled, reasoned, conscious (based on cognitive thought)

System 1: Automatic, unconscious (based on affect/emotions)

? Need to account for affect & emotions in behavior models

What role do emotions play in wildlife-related decision making?

Identify actions taken to manage HOSP Assess frequency, efficacy, & acceptability

Examine relative influence of various factors on HOSP management actions Demographics (age, gender)

Experience (years, boxes, HOSP contact)

Cognitive Factors (values, beliefs)

Affective Factors (emotions)

Web survey of participants in HOSP Project & CLO’s NestWatch monitoring program

HOSP Project Participants (n = 144)

▪ Voluntary enrollment (252 registered, 57.1% completed survey)

▪ Pre-project survey in April 2013, Post in August 2013

NestWatchers (n = 304)

▪ Random sample of 619 who didn’t enroll in HOSP Project, response rate = 49.1%

▪ Survey administered July 2013

Variable

HOSP ProjectParticipants

(n = 144)NestWatchers

(n = 304)

Gender (Female) 62.1% 58.2%

Age (Mean in Years) 58.3 55.7

Nest Monitoring Experience (5+ yrs.) 66.0% 41.8%

Number of Nests Monitored (10+) 48.2% 36.8%

Firsthand Contact with HOSP Damage 75.7% 54.3%

Attempted to Control HOSP 79.2% 64.3%

Demographics

Experience

Action% UsingStrategy

Perceived Effect on Bird Populations*

Bluebird HOSP

Removed nests being built 86.0

Destroy eggs 69.1 0.143 -0.126

Trap and destroy birds 45.9 0.354

Changed nestbox location/type 45.6

Sparrow repelling device (sparrow

spookers, monofilament lines, etc.)35.2 0.198

Nestbox hole size restrictors 33.9

Shoot birds 20.5 0.139 -0.110

OVERALL: Some Form of Lethal Management

81.4 0.237 -0.121

*Sig. correlations with Likert-type Scale Ratings: -3 = Very negative effect to 3 = Very positive effect

N = 307

Construct/Item M SDPattern* Structure*

A B C A B C

A. No Management -1.57 1.45

Leave HOSP alone. -1.61 1.51 0.746 0.750 -0.499

Do nothing to alter HOSP nesting behavior.

-1.53 1.62 0.984 0.945 -0.587

B. Non-lethal Management 1.81 1.19

Change/alter nestbox location/design 1.98 1.39 0.713 0.656

Remove HOSP nests 1.82 1.62 0.551 -0.540 0.671 0.558

Use devices to repel HOSP 1.63 1.51 0.690 0.715

C. Lethal Management 0.47 1.47

Destroy eggs 1.49 1.93 0.442 -0.665 0.549 0.735

Trap & destroy HOSP 0.76 2.29 0.976 -0.639 0.971

Shoot HOSP 0.08 2.30 0.866 -0.520 0.830

Likert-type Scale: -3 = Extremely unacceptable to 3 = Extremely acceptable

*Principal Axis Factoring with Direct Oblimin Rotation: KMO = 0.77, 3 factors explain 79.8% of variance

α = 0.843

α = 0.694

α = 0.634

0.22

0.09

0.36

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

No Management

ExtremelyAcceptable

ExtremelyUnacceptable

HOSP Management Acceptability Ratings

Non-lethalManagement

LethalManagement

Type of Management

Neutral

Bubble Location = Mean

Bubble Size = PCI

Full Sample, n = 438

Variable

Cluster*

Non-lethalMgmt. Advocates

(n = 120)

LethalMgmt. Advocates

(n = 318)

Acceptability Rating** –

No Management0.07 -2.19

Acceptability Rating** –

Non-lethal Management0.89 2.16

Acceptability Rating** –

Lethal Management-1.40 1.18

Behavior –

Attempt to Control HOSP30.0% 84.3%

Behavior –

HOSP Mngmt Action TakenNothing: 70.0%

Some lethal: 12.5%

Nothing: 15.7%

Some lethal: 73.6%

*Optimal solution from Two-Step Cluster Analysis

**Likert-type Scale: -3 = Extremely unacceptable to 3 = Extremely acceptable

Motivations to Monitor Nesting Birds

Human-Nature Relationship

Role of Science in Wildlife Management

Scale # Items M SD α

Appreciation-oriented 3 5.34 1.36 0.702

Conservation-oriented 5 6.30 0.87 0.852

Scale:

1=Not at all important

7=Very important

Scale # Items M SD α

Eco-responsibility 3 2.36 0.77 0.671

Eco-detachment 3 -0.79 1.29 0.765

Scale:

-3=Strongly disagree

3=Strongly agree

Scale # Items M SD α

Science-based 3 1.77 0.82 0.504

Experience-based 3 -0.70 1.11 0.683

Scale:

-3=Strongly disagree

3=Strongly agree

Cognitive

Factors

Core Affect & Feelings about Birds

Discrete Emotions related to Birds

Scale # Items M SD α

Feelings about Bluebirds 2 2.86 0.34 0.678

Feelings about HOSP 2 -1.85 1.23 0.872

Scale # Items M SD α

JOY regarding Bluebirds 2 2.84 0.52 0.910

PITY for Bluebirds 2 2.43 1.05 0.913

ANTIPATHY toward HOSP 4 1.44 1.52 0.870

Scale:

-3=Strongly disagree

3=Strongly agree

Scale:

-3=Extremely negative

3=Extremely positive

JOY = happy, excited PITY = sad, sorry ANTIPATHY = angry, disgusted

Affective

Factors

Block Items -2LL Nagel. R2

Class. Acc.

χ2 df Sig.

1. Demo-graphics

2 486.3 0.014 73.2% 4.1 2 0.130

2. Experience 3 396.9 0.289 77.0% 89.5 3 <0.001

3. CognitiveFactors

6 370.7 0.359 78.9% 26.1 6 <0.001

4. Affective Factors

5 223.0 0.683 91.0% 147.7 5 <0.001

FULL MODEL 16 223.0 0.683 91.0% 267.4 16 <0.001

Hierarchical Logistic Regression: Block Structure

Variables in Full Model B SE OR

Gender (Female) 0.246 0.431 1.28

Age -0.029 0.014 0.97*

Experience Monitoring (5+ years) 0.214 0.415 1.24

Nest Monitored (10+) 0.684 0.425 1.98

Firsthand Contact with HOSP damage 1.276 0.377 3.58***

Motivation - Appreciation -0.001 0.161 1.00

Motivation - Conservation 0.137 0.255 1.15

Eco-responsibility 0.248 0.294 1.28

Eco-detachment -0.203 0.155 0.82

Science-based management decisions -0.385 0.294 0.68

Experience-based management decisions -0.436 0.197 0.65*

*, **, *** denotes statistical significance at α = 0.05, 0.01 & 0.001, respectively

Full Model

Variables in Full Model B SE OR

Feelings - Bluebirds 0.699 0.579 2.01

Feelings - HOSP -0.908 0.232 0.40***

Emotions – JOY about Bluebirds 0.059 0.377 1.06

Emotions – PITY for Bluebirds -0.370 0.213 0.69

Emotions – ANTIPATHY toward HOSP 0.967 0.201 2.63***

*, **, *** denotes statistical significance at α = 0.05, 0.01 & 0.001, respectively

Full Model

Need for HOSP management widely recognized by participants Non-lethal management most acceptable

Lethal mgmt. highest perceived efficacy, but controversial

Emotions matter! Best predictors of lethal management orientation:▪ Emotional dispositions toward HOSP (negative feelings,

antipathy)

▪ Firsthand experience with HOSP damage

▪ Lack basis for decision making (either experiential or scientific)

HOSP management:

Non-lethal approaches preferable, but efficacy uncertain

Communication with citizen scientists:

Acknowledge & harness the power of emotions

Consider delicate balance between scientific & experiential evidence

Examine actual (not perceived) efficacy of various HOSP management options

Investigate role of emotions in management systems that are:

Less contentious/controversial

More data rich (data vs. emotions: zero sum?)

Explore potential inclusion of emotion & affect into integrated behavior theory/models

Lincoln Larson LRL@clemson.edu