Towards a set of priorities for bird conservationand research in Australia: the perceptions of ornithologists

Kelly K. MillerA,B and Michael A. WestonA

ASchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Deakin University,221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia.

BCorresponding author. Email: kelly.miller@deakin.edu.au

Abstract. Australian delegates at the Australasian Ornithological Conference (2007) were surveyed by questionnaire todetermine their perceived research and conservation priorities for Australian birds (n 134). Respondents were honours orpostgraduate students (37.4%), academics (26.2%), wildlife managers (6.5%), land managers (6.5%), environmentalconsultants (5.6%), independent wildlife researchers (5.6%) or had other occupations not relevant to birds or theirmanagement (12.1%). Respondents rated their priorities on a predetermined set of issues, and were invited to add additionalpriorities. Conservation of threatened specieswas considered the highest priority, followed by Conservation of birds andbiodiversity in general, Monitoring, Management and Working with communities. Animal welfare/rights wasregarded as comparatively less important. Eight of 11 conservation strategies were regarded as of high importance, theseincluded habitat protection and rehabilitation, threat abatement, research, advocacy and education. This studydocuments theview of the ornithological community with respect to priority issues facing birds and could potentially feed into governmentand 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 onresearch and conservation resources means setting priorities isessential (Department of Education, Science and Training 2002;Mace et al. 2007). As in other scientific disciplines, the process ofsetting priorities for Australian birds should be informed andcomprehensive (Mace and Collar 2002). Clear priorities can flagopportunities for students and researchers, help direct funding,raise awareness, and help inform planning.

Priorities can be set in a variety of ways, such as identificationof 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 thatidentifies significant gaps in current knowledge (e.g. Miller andMiller 1998; Winker 1998; Bautista and Pantoja 2000);(3) scientific research, such as deriving quantitative measuresof priority species, areas or threats (e.g. Garnett and Crowley2000; Polasky et al. 2001); and (4) community consultation,which may involve consultation with particular stakeholdergroups or the wider community (e.g. Miller and Jones 2005).

Ornithology is the scientific study of birds, but can be broadlydefined to include the conservation biology of birds, theapplications of ornithology and other topics (see the scope ofEmu). Among the natural sciences, ornithology has enjoyed arelatively long period of development and specialisation(Kazantidis 2007). Birds are ubiquitous and possess a broadrange of habitat requirements and life-history characteristics. Thediscipline of ornithology is diverse, involving aspects of ecology,behavioural science,physiology,genetics, taxonomy,evolutionarybiology and many others (Bairlein and Prinzinger 2001).

Ornithologists are diverse with traditions both in the formal,university-trained scientific sector and a prominent tradition ofcitizen science, involving the public and community groups in thecollection of scientific data (Bibby 2003; Greenwood 2003;Galloway et al. 2006). Such diversity is a challenge for thoseattempting to identify key priorities for the discipline.

In conservation circles, birds are often used as indicators ofecosystem health (Balmford 2002). As such, priorities forornithology may inform conservation priorities more broadly.Ornithological priorities can be classified into research priorities,those questions of theoretical interest or where knowledge gapsexist, or conservation priorities, where activities aim to promoteviable bird populations. In reality, the two types of priority arerarely distinct research activities usually have conservationbenefits and vice versa (Fjelds 1995; Flasbarth 2001), andornithology is often a fusion of research and conservationgoals (e.g. Bock 1997).

Priorities in ornithology differ between stakeholder groups(e.g. government agencies, research institutions, non-government organisations (NGOs), community groups) andwill be driven by a range of factors (e.g. politics, funding,conservation philosophies, ethics and values). Within thiscomplex environment, ornithologists play a significant role insetting priorities through their research recommendationsand their involvement and work with organisations such asBirds Australia and the Ornithological Society of New Zealand(OSNZ), the largest national non-government bird conservationorganisations in Australia and New Zealand respectively.

Ornithological expertise represents a rich resource which israrely utilised en masse. We describe a survey of attendees at the2007 Australasian Ornithological Conference (AOC) that aimed

CSIRO PUBLISHING

www.publish.csiro.au/journals/emu Emu, 2009, 109, 6774

Royal Australasian Orinthologists Union 2009 10.1071/MU08054 0158-4197/09/010067

to determine their perceptions of research and conservationpriorities. More specifically, this paper aims to answer thefollowing questions:

(1) What are the highest (perceived) research and conservationpriorities in Australian ornithology?

(2) What are the most important (perceived) conservationstrategies in Australian ornithology?

(3) What are the perceived roles of national ornithologicalorganisations?

Methods

A 10-page questionnaire (see Accessory publication, availablefrom the Emu website) was distributed to 258 delegates at the2007 AOC in Perth, Australia. Although delegates had differentinterests, degrees of specialisation and areas of expertise, the4-day conference represented the largest known gathering ofAustralasian ornithologists and was therefore considered thebest opportunity to survey experts in the field (an expertis a person having special knowledge or skill; BloomsburyPublishing 2001). Here, expertise is considered relative to thatof the general public: some delegates were new to ornithology, orworked on birds out of general interest or peripherally, but werestill considered to possess expertise. We defined all delegates asornithologists because they had attended an ornithologicalconference.

A covering letter and consent form were attached to eachquestionnaire; all respondents were entered into a draw for thechance to win one of three prizes (each worth ~$A100). Thequestionnaire consisted of three sections, of which two are thefocus of this paper. Section 1, consisting of 11 questions, askedparticipants for basic demographic and professional information,such as age, gender, country of residence, membership ofscientific or conservation organisations, current occupation,and interests. Section 2 consisted of nine questions and askedparticipants to rate the importance that Birds Australia or theOSNZ should place on a list of 29 conservation and managementissues in Australasian ornithology, and the importance ofparticular conservation strategies on a Likert scale (Robson2002) of one (low priority) to five (high priority). Questionswere adapted from Miller and Jones (2005) and refined during aworkshop with staff of Birds Australia.

We collected 158 completed surveys (61.2% of the 258registered delegates listed in the conference proceedings);almost half (48.1%) were female, and most resided inAustralia (84.8%) or New Zealand (10.7%). We examinedwhether our sample was representative of the delegates presentat the conference by comparing our survey with the demographicprofile of all delegates. Of 258 entries in the list of delegates

(Australasian Ornithological Conference 2007), we were able toconfidently assign sex and country of origin to 253 (98.1%) and247 (95.7%) delegates respectively. Our samplewas not biased interms of the sex of respondents but the comparison of the countryof origin approached statistical significance with our surveysample having fewer international delegates than expected(Table 1).

To choose an appropriate sample, we first tested whether thenationality of respondent influenced responses. To do this, weexamined 29 questions associated with the main section of thesurvey on research and conservation priorities. Using PRIMER2006 (Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK), we generated anormalised Euclidean resemblance matrix once a smallnumber of missing values had been substituted. Data werevisualised using non-metric multidimensional scaling, whichindicated that the distribution of responses differed betweenAustralian and New Zealand respondents (analysis ofsimilarity, r= 0.171, P= 0.029).

We analysed Australian respondents only (n= 134), because:(1) Australian experts were anticipated to have themost informedviews of conservation priorities for Australia; (2) they were themost numerous respondents, and other nationalities were toofew to analyse independently; and (3) this avoided potentialambiguity with respect to the country being addressed in therespondents answers. International respondents, especiallyNew Zealand respondents, reported some concern over therelevance of the results to New Zealand. Informal discussionswithAustralian respondents revealed a clear understanding of thefocus of the survey on the Australian situation. Subsequentsummary statistics and analyses refer only to Australianrespondents.

Data were analysed using SPSS (v. 14.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago,IL, USA). Descriptive statistics, factor analysis (principalcomponents analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation), reliabilityanalysis (Cronbachsa), one-wayanalysis of variance (ANOVA)andc2-analyseswere usedwith ana level of 0.05.Untransformedmeans one standard error are reported.

Results

We obtained completed surveys from 134, or 68.7%, of knownAustralian delegates (at least 65.0% of Australian delegatesassuming those who could not be assigned a nationality (5 of258) were Australian). This rate of response is high comparedwith similar studies (e.g. Miller and Jones 2005).

Sample profile

All respondents reported their sex, with 45.5% female. Thisproportion was not different from the sex-ratio of Australian

Table 1. Demographic profile 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 Delegate ratio n Respondent ratio n Difference

Female :Male 1.0 : 1.3 253 1.0 : 1.1 158 c2 = 1.4, d.f. = 1, P< 0.24Australian : International 1.0 : 0.3A 247 1.0 : 0.2 158 c2 = 3.3, d.f. = 1, P< 0.07AOf 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 UKand Czechoslovakia, and a single delegate attended from each of Japan, Germany and The Netherlands.

68 Emu K. K. Miller and M. A. Weston

http://publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU08054_AC.pdf

delegates (evident from the conference list) (female : male, 1 : 1.3;c2 = 0.1, d.f. = 1, P< 0.74). All respondents indicated their age(in years); 23.9% were 1830, 32.8% were 3145, 22.4% were4660, 17.9% were 6170 and 3.0% were >70 years.

All respondents indicated whether they were members ofBirds Australia (76.1%) or the OSNZ (3.0%) (2 of 17 NZrespondents were members of Birds Australia). Respondentsindicated how long they had been members of theorganisations: for Birds Australia, it was 3 months46 years,with a mean of 13.4 1.1 years (n= 101); for the OSNZ,525 years, 15.0 4.6 years (n= 4). Delegates providedinformation about their membership of other member-basedorganisations (we included Birds Australia Special InterestGroups and excluded non-membership based places ofemployment and subscriptions). Of 131 responses, 77.9% ofdelegates belonged to up to 12 other organisations (mean2.1 0.3 organisations; n = 103). Of 285 memberships, 35.4%involved five organisations: Ecological Society of Australia(13.0%), Bird Observation and Conservation Australia (7.4%),the Australian Bird Study Association (5.6%), the AustralianConservation Foundation (4.9%) and the Worldwide Fund forNature (4.6%). Of 126 organisations which could be classified interms of their mission, 27.4% were organisations concernedwith birds, 34.7% were professional associations and 16.9%were cause-related NGOs. Of 112 organisations for whichinformation was available, 33.1% were national in scope,25.0% involved a state, 18.8% involved a country other thanAustralia, 11.6% were international, 8.0% were local and5.4% were regional. For 124 organisations, we classified therelationship of an organisations mission to birds; the scope ofonly 13.7% of organisations apparently excluded birds (Table 2).

Delegates indicated what triggered their interest in birds(n= 118 respondents made 166 responses; thus, percentages donot add to 100): 23.3% of respondents indicated their intereststemmed from childhood, or that they had a lifelong interest;16.1% cited an experience or environment that included birds;14.4% cited an interest in conservation; 12.7% cited family orsocial networks; 12.1%of respondents became interested throughaspects of the natural history of birds; 11.9% cited a broad interestin natural history or the environment; 11.9% cited their formaleducation; and 5.1% from an interest in research or theory(20 responses defied classification).

Respondents indicated their current occupations (n = 107,excluding 20 retirees); they 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 otheroccupations not relevant to birds or their management (12.1%).Respondents had been involved for a mean 17.7 1.2 years(range 160 years) in the field of their primary interest. Of 121respondents, 82.6%hadbeenpaid in afield related to their interestin ornithology. Of these, 33.0% had been paid for up to 4 years,22.0% for 59 years, 16.0% for 1014 years, 7.0% for1519 years, 5.0% for 2024 years, 7.0% for 2530 years and10.0% for >30 years.

Perceived roles of national bird organisations

In response to a question about the role of Birds Australia and theOSNZ, 130 respondents indicated a preferred role for theorganisations. These options were: (1) provision of scientificor management information and expert opinion (86.2% ofrespondents); (2) lobbying of public policy makers with theirpositions on important issues relating to bird conservation(86.9%); and (3) engagement in public education campaigns toinform citizens about their position on important issues relating tobird conservation (86.9%). Of the 130 respondents, 71.5%desired engagement in all of the above activities. Respondentswere also asked to add additional roles (n= 21 specific additions).These included: directing and supporting research (3 responses);lobbying governments (3); funding students and research (3);harnessing the skills and energy of their members (3); workingwith land managers (2); providing networks for researchers (2);establishing reserves (1); taxonomic research (1); identifying keygaps (1); and working collaboratively with other institutions(1) and the public (1).

Research and conservation priorities

Respondents assigned priorities to 29 issues, and 13 of theseissues achieved the highest possiblemodal scores (Table 3).Withthe exception of Animal rights, which achieved the lowestpossible modal score, all other modes were at the midpoint ofthe scale or higher. Respondents were also asked to nominatethose three issues that they considered to be of highest priority.While 131 respondents provided three priority issues, 9.1%provided a priority list of fewer or more than three priorities.For the purposes of analysis, all listed priorities were used(Table 3). The ranks of the two measures of priorities (rank ofmodal score v. rank frequency of nominated top priorities) werehighly correlated (rs = 0.8, P < 0.001).

Another question sought additional priorities fromrespondents (49 respondents provided 73 substantially newpriorities). These priorities were diverse, and varied in scale,scope and generality. The commonest priorities focussed onresearch (38.4% of new priorities), which included small-scale research, various theoretical research aspects (e.g. avianevolution, biology and behaviour), various applied researchaspects (e.g. adaptive management) and research into theimpacts of specific activities such as ecotourism. The nextcommonest declared priorities involved advocacy andlobbying (15.1% of new priorities), addressing specific threats(such as feral bees) (9.6%) and the development of enhanceddecision-making for conservation (5.5%). Less frequently

Table 2. A classification of member-based organisations patronised byrespondents, in relation to the organisations focus and specificity

The number of organisations patronised by respondents is provided (n= 124).Broad focus involves organisations that cover a variety of issues or taxa,whereas specific focus involves organisations that work in a specific park or

on a particular taxonomic group (e.g. friends groups)

Classification Relationship to birds Number of organisations

Avian focus General 25Specific species group 12

Broad focus Encompass birds 42Exclude birds 9

Specific focus Encompass birds 9Exclude birds 8

Perceived priorities for Australian birds Emu 69

declared priorities (

adaptivemanagement; 14.3% to developing strategies for climatechange; 9.5% to establishing or supporting the economic value ofbirds; andone response (4.7%) each to species triage, establishingan incentive-based program for bird conservation, and thedistribution of research funds.

Discussion

Ornithological priorities can be established at a variety of spatialand temporal scales, and using a variety of techniques (Short1984; Dunn et al. 1999; Bautista and Pantoja 2000; Garnett andCrowley 2000). Perceptions can complement quantitative

scientific review (Brown et al. 2004). Expert opinion hasproven valuable in setting priorities for conservation (Cowlinget al. 2003; Pullin et al. 2004) but published accounts of nationalavian research and setting of avian conservation priorities usingthe perceptions of ornithologists appear uncommon (but see Latta2000).Here,we canvassedviewsonabroad rangeof issues fromadiverse group of respondents who can be regarded as experts inAustralian ornithology.

Our approach of measuring perceptions assumes thatrespondents had reasonable knowledge of the subject matter(many did not offer views on every question). Our samplerepresented people with a variety of demographic profiles andwho declared a range of interests and experience with birds.However, we suggest most respondents were able to offerinformed responses; over 80% had been paid in relation toornithology, over 50% were associated with universities, andthe average length of time respondents had been involved in theirprimary interest was 18 years. We recognise that the interests ofdelegates may have influenced their responses, perhaps becausethey felt their responsesmay have influenced the decisionmakingof national bird organisations (e.g. students may have advocatedformore student funding). This is an unavoidable consequence ofour method.

Research and conservation priorities

Setting priorities for the investment of limited resources intoconservation activities is a basic function of conservation NGOsand governments (Coates and Atkins 2001). All setting ofpriorities is to some extent relative to the process used todetermine priorities (see, for example, Mehlman et al. 2004),and the differential incorporation of a variety of factors, such associal, political and economic issues (Hughey et al. 2003;OConnor et al. 2003). Our closed survey questions combinedwith factor analysis permitted us to examine the relativeimportance delegates placed on a series of priorities wepresented to respondents.

Respondents considered threatened species as being ofhighest priority, perhaps because they are at risk of extinction(by definition), thus heightening the perceived urgency and scale

Table 4. A model of the data as suggested by factor and reliability (Cronbachs a) analysesA 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

Scale (issues) Summary Cronbachs a (no. ofitems in scale)

Monitoring (issues 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 21) Monitoring distribution and population trends 0.861 (7 items)Monitoring changes in bird populations resulting from impacts

such as climate change, fire, grazing, etc.Management (issues 11, 14, 15, 19, 22) Management of threats (e.g. invasive and pest species;

habitat loss and degradation)0.797 (5 items)

Working with communities (issues 4, 10, 24, 25) Community engagement and education 0.735 (4 items)Urban birds and habitat

Animal welfare/rights (issues 27, 29) Animal welfare and animal rights 0.901 (2 items)Conservation of birds and biodiversity in general Conservation of birds 0.713 (3 items)(issues 2, 7, 12) Conservation of biodiversity

Conservation of threatened species (issues 1, 3) Threatened species management 0.644 (2 items)Threatened communities and habitats

FEDCBA

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Mea

n sc

ore

Fig. 1. Mean scale scores (s.e.) obtained from survey respondents(see Table 4): (A) Monitoring (n= 131); (B) Management (n= 132);(C) Working with communities (n= 132); (D) Animal welfare/rights(n= 131); (E) Conservation of birds and biodiversity in general (n= 133);(F) Conservation of threatened species (n= 129). A scale is used here as agrouping of survey items, derived from factor analysis. Scores werestandardised between 0 and 1: a score 0.5 suggests that the respondent places ahigh priority on the issues being measured.

Perceived priorities for Australian birds Emu 71

of management intervention required. Threatened species alsoenjoy a high profile among ornithologists and the broadercommunity, and are commonly selected as flagship species(Bowen-Jones and Entwistle 2002). Respondents regarded thestrategies to recover multiple threatened species as moreimportant than single-species efforts, in line with the broadtrend towards multi-species conservation efforts (Simberloff1998).

Unsurprisingly, the next most important priority area was theconservation of birds and biodiversity, a prominent theme inmodern society, which derives in part from widespread threats tobiodiversity and a recognition that people themselves depend onbiodiversity for ecosystem services (Capra 2002). With a goodknowledge of the status of birds and their threats, the ecologiesand habitats that they rely on, and an awareness of a potential roleof birds in broader conservation efforts, it is not surprising thatrespondents placed a high priority on broader conservation.The fact threatened species and more general biodiversityconservation fell into two scales rather than a single scalesuggests they are viewed slightly differently by respondents.This aligns with the treatment provided under most Australianconservation legislation, where provisions for threatened speciesare separated from larger-scale, broader mechanisms (e.g. threat-based approaches and biodiversity action plans).

Monitoring, management and working with communitieswere also considered high priorities, and these activitiesrepresent long-standing traditions among ornithological NGOsinAustralia (e.g. bird atlases;Dunn andWeston 2008). It is highlylikely many or most respondents had participated in suchactivities or used their data or information products, and sopresumably value them. The comparatively low priority placedon Human dimensions is incongruous in the context of therelatively high rating of Community engagement, and thegeneral support of Education and awareness as an importantconservation strategy. It is possible that respondents did notappreciate or understand the role of human dimensions (i.e.how people value wildlife, how they want wildlife to bemanaged, and how they affect or are affected by wildlife andwildlife management decisions; Decker et al. 2001: p. 3) inunderpinning education, awareness, advocacy and lobbying

activities, a role which is generally considered critical inwildlife management and conservation biology (Decker et al.2001). The priority rating of human dimensions by AOCrespondents (mean 3.4) was slightly lower than, though similarto, that of respondents to an equivalent question put to theAustralasian Wildlife Management Society (AWMS)conference delegates (mean 3.7; recoded from Miller andJones 2005). This is unsurprising given that the field of humandimensions is an emerging discipline in Australia and worldwide(Decker et al. 2001; Ballard 2006; Nimmo and Miller 2007).

Animal welfare and animal rights were considered bydelegates to be relatively low priorities. This presumably stemsfrom one of four explanations. Respondents either have no realconcern for thewell-beingof birds (difficult to imagine; seeMiller2003; Miller and Jones 2005), they consider such concernssecondary to the other scales in terms of need or urgency, ourquestion evoked a negative response to perceptions of the animalwelfare and rights movements (see Schmidt and Bruner 1981), orrespondents answered the questions to dissuade national birdorganisations from becoming active in the field, perhaps becauseseveral international and national animal welfare or rightsorganisations are well established and active. The finding thatanimal rights and animal welfare evoked similar responses mightmean many delegates do not differentiate between the twomovements; this has been noted previously among wildlifeprofessionals (Schmidt 1990), despite the fact that mostornithologists have a major stake in the ethical treatment ofbirds (e.g. Gaunt and Oring 1999). Slight differences inresponses were evident in comparison with the survey of theAWMS conference delegates (mean scores: welfare, 2.8 (AOC,n = 132) v. 3.2 (AWMS, n= 137); rights, 2.5 (AOC, n= 131)v. 2.3 (AWMS, n = 136)) (AWMS data recoded from Miller andJones 2005). AWMS delegates differentiated more betweenAnimal rights and Animal welfare than did AOC delegates,perhaps suggesting the perception of equivalence of movementswas more widespread among AOC delegates.

Conservation strategies

Most respondents considered most conservation strategies to beimportant: eight of 11 proposed conservation strategies and 94%

Table 5. Perceived importance of different conservation strategies for bird conservation, in descending order of perceivedimportance (based on mean score)

Each issue was rated from low (1) to high importance (5)

Issue area Mean priority Mode n Rankranking s.e. of mean score

(1) Tackling key threats to birds 4.6 0.1 5 133 1(2) Habitat protection 4.6 0.1 5 133 1(3) Research 4.6 0.1 5 134 1(4) Working with land managers outside the reserve network 4.5 0.1 5 133 2(5) Education and awareness 4.5 0.1 5 134 2(6) Lobbying and advocacy 4.4 0.1 5 134 3(7) Focussing on recovery of multiple threatened species 4.3 0.1 4.5A 134 4(8) Habitat restoration and rehabilitation 4.3 0.9 5 134 4(9) Managing for common but declining (non-threatened) species 3.9 0.1 4 134 5(10) Reserve purchase and management 3.7 0.1 5 131 6(11) Focussing on recovery of single threatened species 3.4 0.1 4 134 7

AA tie between scores four and five.

72 Emu K. K. Miller and M. A. Weston

of all responses rated four or higher on a five-point scale. Inaddition to a range of strategies focussed on habitat, threats,outreach and engagement, research was considered an importantconservation strategy; and dominated the responses to theopen question on additional priority areas (almost 40% of newpriorities focussed on a range of research needs). Only threestrategies obtained ratings of moderate importance: managingfor declining but common species; reserve purchase andmanagement; and single-species recovery efforts. All of thelatter feature as current activities of government and NGOs tosome extent.

Australia, like most countries, lacks a comprehensive, agreedbird conservation strategy. The Action Plan for Australian Birds2000 (Garnett and Crowley 2000) focusses on threatened birds,although national biodiversity action plans and threat abatementplans exist that encompass birds (e.g. Australian Government2004). Barriers to a national bird conservation plan includeecological, policy and jurisdictional complexities, and thechallenge of funding and implementation of meaningful action ata continental scale. An important and unanswered questionis whether a separate national plan for bird conservationwould optimise bird conservation, although such a strategycould provide a framework for regional and local conservationactivities. If such a strategy was deemed useful, its developmentcould incorporate quantitative assessments of threats, currentactivities, areas of importance, perceptions of experts (e.g. thisstudy), and monitor progress using measures of existing activityandsuccess(BautistaandPantoja2000;Garnett andCrowley2000;Olsen 2008). Our results provide an overview of expert opinion onresearch and conservation priorities at the national level, andconfirm the importance of several existing conservation strategies.

The role of national bird organisations

The role of NGOs is varied and dynamic, but is rarely reviewed(Palmer and Birch 2003; Morrison and Lane 2004). Respondentsindicated they desired a broad role for national bird NGOs whichincluded but was not limited to the provision of expertise andscience, lobbying and education. They identified a host of issuesand strategies that they considered important. The identification ofimportant elements by respondents neither implies an absenceof action or attention nor constitutes a recommendationthat should be automatically adopted. Activities or strategiesperceived as important may already be the subject of significantattention from bird NGOs or other institutions, may not align withlonger term strategies or capabilities, or may not mesh withorganisational mission or capacity.

Ornithological NGOs have contributed substantially to thestudy, conservation and appreciation of birds worldwide.However, Morrison and Lane (2004) outlined several risks toenvironmental governance in the public interest with respect toNGOs. These include the assertion that NGOs are often poorproxies of the public interest because they fail to give expressionto the full array of values and opinions (p. 20). Science-basedNGOs can avoid this criticism by adhering to science as the basisfor all advocacy, by advocating from this perspective, and bytransparently setting priorities for their activities. Even so,scientific knowledge is rarely (if ever) entirely value free(Harding 1998). Personal values and judgments affect research

design, data collection, interpretation and communication offindings, and setting of priorities. Our survey highlights onepotential way of ensuring that diverse values and views aredocumented and disseminated. We hope that this surveyrepresents a first step in harnessing the collective expertise,enthusiasm and commitment of ornithologists in Australia, andbring it to bear on setting priorities for national research andconservation.

Acknowledgements

Wewould like to thank Birds Australia, for partial funding of this project, andfor supporting our efforts at running the survey, including facilitating a staffworkshop on questionnaire design. We also thank the Ornithological Societyof New Zealand, especially Richard Holdaway. The survey would nothave been possible without the active help of Sue Mather and felloworganisers of the 2007 AOC. Thanks to all those who completed thequestionnaires, and to James OConnor for helpful comments. The studywas conductedunder aDeakinUniversityHumanResearchEthicsCommitteepermit (#EC1912007).

References

Australasian Ornithological Conference (2007). Fourth BiennialAustralasian Ornithological Conference: Program, Timetable andAbstracts, 35 December 2007, Perth. (Birds Australia: Perth.)

Australian Government (2004). National Biodiversity and Climate ChangeAction Plan 20042007. (Australian Government: Canberra.)

Bairlein, F., and Prinzinger, R. (2001). Ornithologie hobby oderwissenschaft? Journal of Ornithology 142(Suppl. 1), 124128.doi: 10.1007/BF01651450

Ballard, G. (2006). Introduction. In Social Drivers of Invasive AnimalControl. (Ed. G. Ballard.) p. 1. (Invasive Animals CooperativeResearch Centre: Canberra.)

Balmford, A. (2002). Selecting sites for conservation. In Conserving BirdBiodiversity: General Principles and Their Application. (Eds K. Norrisand D. J. Pain.) pp. 74104. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,UK.)

Bautista, L. M., and Pantoja, J. C. (2000). A bibliometric review of the recentliterature 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: 10.2307/1370218Bowen-Jones, E., and Entwistle, A. (2002). Identifying appropriate flagship

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 ofperceptions of biological value with scientific assessment of biologicalimportance. 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 ofSustainability. (Doubleday: New York.)

Coakes, S. J., and Steed, L. G. (1996). SPSS forWindows: Analysis withoutAnguish. (Wiley: Brisbane.)

Coates,D. J., andAtkins,K.A. (2001). Priority setting and the conservationofWestern Australias diverse and highly endemic flora. BiologicalConservation 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 Regionidentified by park managers and reserve selection software. BiologicalConservation 112, 147167. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00397-X

Perceived priorities for Australian birds Emu 73

Cox, R. R., Johnson, D. H., Johnson, M. A., Kirby, R. E., Nelson, J. W., andReynolds, R. E. (2000). Waterfowl research priorities in the NorthernGreat Plains. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, 558564.

Decker,D. J., Brown, T. L., andSiemer,W. F. (2001). HumanDimensions ofWildlife Management in North America. (The Wildlife Society:Bethesda, MD.)

Department ofEducation,ScienceandTraining (2002). DevelopingNationalResearch Priorities: An Issues Paper. (Commonwealth of Australia:Canberra.)

Dunn,A., andWeston,M.A. (2008).A reviewof terrestrial birdatlases and thedata they generate. Emu 108, 4267. doi: 10.1071/MU07034

Dunn, E. H., Hussell, J. D. T., and Welsh, D. A. (1999). Priority-setting toolapplied to Canadas landbirds based on concern and responsibility forspecies. Conservation Biology 13, 14041415. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98400.x

Fjelds, J. (1995). Have ornithologists slept during class? On the responseof 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 standsurveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34, 14251429. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[1425:TROCSA]2.0.CO;2

Garnett, S. T., and Crowley, G. M. (2000). The Action Plan for AustralianBirds 2000. (Environment Australia: Canberra.)

Gaunt, A. S., and Oring, L. (1999). Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds inResearch. (The Ornithological Council: Washington, DC.)

Greenwood, J. J. D. (2003). The monitoring of British breeding birds: asuccess story for conservation science? Science of the Total Environment310, 221230. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00642-3

Harding, R. (1998). Environmental Decision-making: The Roles ofScientists, Engineers and the Public. (Federation Press: Sydney.)

Hughey, K. F. D., Cullen, R., and Moran, E. (2003). Integrating economicsinto 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 ofBiological Research Thessaloniki 8, 139149. Available at http://www.jbr.gr [Verified 23 February 2009].

Latta, S. C. (2000). Making the leap from researcher to planner: lessons fromavian conservation planning in the Dominican Republic. ConservationBiology 14, 132139. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98511.x

Mace,G.M., andCollar,N. J. (2002). Priority-setting in species conservation.In Conserving Bird Biodiversity: General Principles and theirApplication. (Eds K. Norris and D. J. Pain.) pp. 6173. (CambridgeUniversity Press: Cambridge, UK.)

Mace,G.M., Possingham,H.P., andLeader-Williams,N. (2007). Prioritizingchoices in conservation. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology.(Eds D. W. Macdonald and K. Service.) pp. 1734. (BlackwellPublishing: Melbourne.)

Mehlman, D. W., Rosenberg, K. V., Wells, J. V., and Robertson, B. (2004).A comparison of North American avian conservation priority rankingsystems. Biological Conservation 120, 383390. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.013

Miller, B. W., and Miller, C. M. (1998). Ornithology in Belize since 1960.Wilson Bulletin 110, 544558.

Miller, K. K. (2003). Public and stakeholder values of wildlife in Victoria.Australian Wildlife Research 30, 465476. doi: 10.1071/WR02007

Miller, K. K., and Jones, D. N. (2005). Wildlife management in Australasia:perceptions of objectives and priorities. Wildlife Research 32, 265272.doi: 10.1071/WR04042

Morrison, T. H., and Lane, M. B. (2004). The rise and rise of environmentalNGOs: unforeseen risks to democratic environmental governance inAustralia. In Proceedings of the Australasian Political StudiesAssociation Conference. 29 September1 October 2004, University ofAdelaide. (University of Adelaide (Discipline of Politics): Adelaide.)Available at http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Others/MorrisonVer6APSA.pdf [Verified 26 September 2008].

Nimmo,D.G., andMiller, K.K. (2007). Ecological and humandimensions ofmanagement of feral horses in Australia: a review.Wildlife Research 34,408417. doi: 10.1071/WR06102

OConnor, C., Marvier, M., and Kareiva, P. (2003). Biological vs. social,economic and political priority-setting in conservation.Ecology Letters 6,706711. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00499.x

Olsen, P. (2008). State of Australias Birds 2008. (Birds Australia:Melbourne.)

Palmer, J. A., and Birch, J. C. (2003). Education for sustainability: thecontribution and potential of a non-governmental organisation.Environmental Education Research 9, 447460. doi: 10.1080/1350462032000126104

Polasky, S.,Csuti,B.,Vossler,C.A., andMeyers, S.M. (2001).Acomparisonof taxonomic distinctness versus richness as criteria for settingconservation priorities for North American birds. BiologicalConservation 97, 99105. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00103-8

Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., Stone, D. A., and Charman, K. (2004). Doconservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119, 245252. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.007

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientistsand Practitioner-Researchers. 2nd edn. (Blackwell Publishing: Oxford,UK.)

Schmidt, R. H. (1990). Why do we debate animal rights? Wildlife SocietyBulletin 18, 459461.

Schmidt, R. H., and Bruner, J. G. (1981). A professional attitude towardhumaneness. Wildlife Society Bulletin 9, 289291.

Short, L. L. (1984). Priorities in ornithology: the urgent need for tropicalresearch and researchers. Auk 101, 892893.

Simberloff, D. (1998). Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-speciesmanagement pass in the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83,247257. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00081-5

Winker, K. (1998). Recent geographic trends in neotropical avian research.Condor 100, 764768. doi: 10.2307/1369763

Manuscript received 6 October 2008, accepted 22 December 2008

74 Emu K. K. Miller and M. A. Weston

http://www.publish.csiro.au/journals/emu