volunteers in bird conservation: insights from the australian threatened bird network

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 4 NO 3 DECEMBER 2003 205

R E S E A R C HR E P O R T

Volunteers in bird conservation: Insights from the Australian Threatened Bird NetworkBy Michael Weston, Michael Fendley, Robyn Jewell, Mary Satchell and Chris Tzaros

Summary Volunteers play an important role in recovery efforts on threatenedAustralian birds. We surveyed the demography, motivation and preferences of peopleregistered with the Threatened Bird Network, a network dedicated to placing volunteers inrecovery efforts. Most were employed or studying and were members of conservation ornatural history groups. The main reason for volunteering was an interest in conservation, andmost volunteers considered habitat conservation of primary importance. They preferredoutdoor projects on highly threatened species and where organizers set clear goals,provided feedback and supervised in a friendly and helpful manner. We also surveyed therecovery projects to determine the extent of volunteer involvement required, and theexpectations recovery teams had of volunteers. Volunteers made a major contribution torecovery efforts, with $3.4 million being directed to 32 recovery efforts in the period1996–2000 – a contribution that has been increasing in recent years. Most activities involvedsurveying and searching and most activities were available in spring, which coincides withthe breeding season of the taxa involved. Volunteers travelled considerable distances, yetonly a few projects provided financial support.

Key words volunteers, birds, conservation, recovery, demography, preferences,motivation.

Introduction

olunteers contribute to a variety of envi-ronmental monitoring programs (e.g.

Lopez & Dates 1998). Many bird surveys,particularly ‘atlassing’ or counting projects,would not be possible without substantialvolunteer support (e.g. Blakers et al.1984). Volunteers also fulfil many roles inbird recovery teams. For example, theyrehabilitate injured birds, warden sensitivehabitat, conduct surveys and counts,enhance habitat, enter data and provideother administrative support (e.g. Oatley &van Noordwijk 1999; Elliot 2000). Withappropriate training, volunteers can carryout sophisticated surveys and providecredible data. For example, volunteers cantrack the course of avian disease (Dhondtet al. 1998) and migration (Bildstein 1998),or collect behavioural data (Demauro1993). Besides surveying, volunteers alsocarry out highly technical tasks such asbanding, radio-tracking and blood sampling(Birds Australia, unpubl. data 2001).

Volunteers can also indirectly contrib-ute to a recovery effort by increasing com-munity participation and public awareness.

By involving members of the community, agreater sense of ownership and connectionwith the recovery process is fostered, andthis can have tangible benefits particularlywhere members of local communitiesmanage important habitats or sites (e.g.remnant vegetation on farms). Involve-ment of the community can also lead togreater political and financial support forrecovery teams, potentially contributing toproject sustainability.

Some attention has been given to thereliability and analysis of data collected byvolunteers (e.g. McLaren & Cadman 1999).However, little is known about volunteermotivation, preferences and demography –factors important in the wise managementof this conservation resource. As unpaidlabour, volunteers are probably moreresponsive to internal motivating factorscompared with employed members ofrecovery teams. Motivation is importantthroughout the volunteer process, fromrecruitment, to actually becoming involvedin recovery efforts, to the maintenance oflong-term involvement. The expectationsof volunteers may play a role in their initialdecision to become involved in a project,

and how well those expectations are metmay contribute to a volunteer’s ongoingsupport. Knowledge of the demography ofvolunteers is useful when designing volun-teer components of recovery efforts. Forexample, the full-time employed are oftenavailable on weekends only, and studentsoften lack transportation but can partici-pate for extended periods during univer-sity holidays.

The requirements of the recoveryefforts need to be balanced with those ofthe volunteers. Currently, there is anabsence of basic information on what isbeing asked of volunteers. Little is knownof the contribution volunteers make torecovery efforts, or of the skills and experi-ence required – essential information forlong-term conservation planning, and theprovision of effective volunteer supportmechanisms.

In recognition of the need to supportvolunteers in bird conservation, theFederal Government of Australia throughthe Natural Heritage Trust, funded theThreatened Bird Network (TBN), a nationalproject to enhance the involvement of vol-unteers in the bird recovery process. This

V

Michael Weston, Michael Fendley, Robyn Jewell,

Mary Satchell and Chris Tzaros worked on the

Threatened Bird Network (TBN) with Birds

Australia (415 Riversdale Road, Hawthorn East,

Vic 3123, Australia. Tel: +61 3 9882 2622 Email:

[email protected]). Michael Fendley’s

present address is Victorian National Parks

Association, 3rd Floor, 60 Leicester St, Carlton,

Victoria, 3053, Australia). This project is part of

the TBN effort to enhance the effectiveness of

volunteer management.

R E S E A R C H R E P O R T

206 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 4 NO 3 DECEMBER 2003

paper describes volunteers and projectsassociated with TBN. The results presentedhere aim to facilitate better incorporationof volunteer involvement in recoveryprograms.

Methods

Volunteers are considered as any unpaidcontributors, regardless of their level oftraining or previous experience. Recoveryteams are groups with a knowledge of,commitment to and responsibility for ataxon. Projects are defined as coordinatedefforts for the recovery of a taxon. Projectsare not necessarily funded, and are co-ordinated by volunteers, or by employedproject officers working under the direc-tion of a formal recovery team. Projectsgenerally carried out a range of researchand conservation management activities,several of which could be conducted byvolunteers.

To effectively facilitate volunteer involve-ment in recovery efforts, details of availablevolunteer activities and suitable and inter-ested volunteers were required. The basicoperation of TBN was to match volunteerswith activities. To fulfil this task, substantialamounts of data were collected.

Volunteer ac t i v i t i es

The volunteer activities available weredetermined by TBN representation onrecovery teams, and annual questionnairesof appropriate team representatives.Details of suitable activities were deter-mined (e.g. the need for travel, accommo-dation, food and skills) and compiled foreach species, along with location and dateof the activity. Summaries of this infor-mation were sent to every registered vol-unteer. Volunteers were encouraged tocontact TBN staff, either to discuss volun-teering possibilities, or to register for anactivity. Occasionally, volunteers in a par-ticular area were requested by mail toparticipate in an activity.

Volunteer survey

The Threatened Bird Network maintained anup-to-date database of contact details of vol-unteers, each of whom received a free news-letter describing volunteer opportunities

and experiences. The version of the data-base used here contained 1809 registrations.

A questionnaire (see http://www.birds-australia.com.au) was sent out with theJanuary 2000 newsletter, and an article inthat edition requested that volunteerscomplete and return the form. In total,87 surveys were returned (4.8% of 1809surveys mailed). However, we excludedsurveys completed by office-bearers ofgroups (25 returns) on the basis that theyrepresented groups rather than individualvolunteers, and we excluded three volun-teers who resided outside Australia on thebasis that responses may be culturally spe-cific. This left 59 surveys (sample sizes varyfor different survey questions because notall respondents answered all questions).Henceforth, such respondents are termednon-office-bearing Australians (NOBA).

Ana lys is

Summary statistics are reported as mean ±standard deviation. Untransformed data arepresented to improve readability, and donot imply that the underlying data are nec-essarily normally distributed. The unit ofcurrency used is Australian dollars.

Results

The need for vo lun teers in th rea tened b i rd recovery programs

The number of projects (recovery efforts)registered with TBN has varied from yearto year: 18 (1996), 19 (1997), 23 (1998), 25(1999) and 25 (2000); 22.0 ± 3.3 per year.In addition, four multitaxa projects wereserviced by TBN.

Threatened Taxa

Projects registered with TBN are shown inTable 1. Of all taxa registered, 20.8% wereCritically Endangered, 31.3% were Endan-gered, 31.3% were Vulnerable, 6.2% wereNear Threatened and 12.5% were LeastConcern (after Garnett & Crowley 2000).

Most projects had several different vol-unteer activities listed, and many activitieswere available year after year. In total, 301activities were available to volunteers overthe study period (mean 60.2 per year).

Types of volunteer activities available

We developed six categories of volunteeractivities. The categories, the percentageof activities available in each category andthe number of volunteer hours required(averaged across years) were:1 Surveying: This category included

census and survey work, as well asnest searching and monitoring of nestsand sites (52% of activities, requiring2550.0 ± 497.9 h of volunteer input peryear).

2 Habitat conservation included fencing,tree planting and propagation, andoperating a native plant nursery (22%,1101.6 ± 681.4 h).

3 Communication included the produc-tion of newsletters, fliers, brochures aswell as public talks and media presen-tations (11%, 398.6 ± 171.5 h).

4 Specialist field work included radio-tracking, banding, blood sampling andother field activities that requiredspecific expertise or training (9%,242.6 ± 261.4 h).

5 Administration involved data entry,book-keeping, budgeting and fundingapplications (5%, 98.8 ± 123.3 h).

6 Other (1%, 7.4 ± 16.5 h).

Duration of activities

The required duration of volunteer activities(mid-point) varied with the type of activity(one-way ANOVA on logged duration data,F5,293 = 10.145, P < 0.001). The duration ofactivities was substantially higher for spe-cialist field work (11.6 ± 26.7 days) overother categories (means, 1.3–4.1 days) (allTukey HSD comparisons P < 0.05; the‘Other’ category was not considered).

Seasonal variation in the availability of volunteer activities

The number of activities available for vol-unteers (across years) varied slightly butsignificantly with month (one-way ANOVA,F11,48 = 2.858, P < 0.006, Fig. 1). Overall,25.0 ± 2.4 activities were available permonth, but slightly more activities wereavailable in spring, coinciding with themain breeding season for the taxa regis-tered with TBN.



Project support offered to volunteers

Most projects offered no financial ormaterial in-kind support to participatingvolunteers. Accommodation was providedfor 5.3% of activities (16), but for at leastsome activities this represented the provi-sion of a camping site. Food was providedon 3.0% of activities (nine), and wasoffered in conjunction with accommo-dation for all but one activity. Four activi-ties (1.3%) covered full expenses (travel,accommodation and food) from thenearest main population centre, and these

activities involved lengthy work in remoteplaces.

Total volunteer contribution required

The number of volunteer days required onTBN registered projects increased from3144 in 1996 to 6418 in 2000 (175–257days per registered project per year) andtotalled 21 995 days over the 5 years.Assuming an 8-h working day, the numberof volunteer hours required totalled175 960 h. At the modest pay rate of $15per hour, this equated to a contribution of$2 639 400.

Volunteer skills, experience and participation

Sk i l l s and exper ience

Of 57 respondents that informed us of theirprevious volunteer experience, 3.5% haddone none, 21.1% had done little, 50.9%had done some and 24.6% had donemuch. To assess field identification skills,respondents were asked to rate how manybirds they could identify when bird-watching. Of 57 suitable responses, 14.0%could identify all species of birds, 66.7%could identify most species, 12.3% could

Table 1. Taxa for which recovery programs were registered with the Threatened Bird Network, 1996–2000 (taxonomy follows Garnett & Crowley2000). Asterisks indicate years for which projects were registered

Species 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Albert’s Lyrebird Menura alberti * *Black-breasted Button-quail Turnix melanogaster *Black-eared Miner Manorina melanotis * * * * *Black-throated Finch (Southern subspecies) Poephila cincta cincta *Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus latirostris * *Southern Cassowary Casuarius casuarius johnsonii *Coxen’s Fig-Parrot Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni * * * *Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus * * *Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Kangaroo Is subspecies) Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus * * * * *Golden-Shouldered Parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius *Gouldian Finch Erythrura gouldiae * * * * *Gould’s Petrel Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera * * * * *Grey-crowned Babbler Pomatostomus temporalis * * *Ground Parrot (Eastern) Pezoporus wallicus wallicus * * *Ground Parrot (Western) Pezoporus wallicus flaviventris * * *Helmeted Honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix * * * * *Hooded Plover (Eastern) Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis * * * * *Hooded Plover (Western) Thinornis rubricollis tregellasi * *Little Tern (western Pacific subspecies) Sterna albifrons sinensis * * * * *Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata * * * * *Night Parrot Pezoporus occidentalis * * * *Noisy Scrub-bird Atrichornis clamosus *Orange-bellied Parrot Neophema chrysogaster * * * * *Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta *Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus * * * * *Plains-wanderer Pedionomus torquatus *Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo (South-eastern subspecies) Calyptorhynchus banksii

graptogyne* * * * *

Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia * * * * *Rufous Scrub-bird Atrichornis rufescens ferrieri *Southern Emu-wren (Mt Lofty Ranges subspecies) Stipiturus malachurus intermedius * * * * *Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii * * * * *Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor * * * * *



identify some species, and 7.0% couldidentify a few species.

Any skills beyond base-level compe-tency at bird identification are here con-sidered ‘specialist skills’. These includebanding, abseiling, specialized botanicalor horticultural skills, boat handling, andadministrative skills. Of all activities avail-able, 28% required specialist skills. Thenumber of activities requiring specialistskills decreased from 22 in 1996 to 12 in2000. However, the number of volunteerdays involving specialist skills has varied,with a minimum of 24 days in 1998 and amaximum of 694 days in 2000. Thus, in theyear 2000, fewer activities required special-ist skills but they required more days ofvolunteer service.

Par t ic ipa t ion

Of 57 survey respondents, 29.8% wereinvolved in a TBN activity more than oncea year, 33.3% about once a year, and 36.8%were not involved in an activity every year.We also collected data on the maximumnumber of TBN activities per year in whichrespondents participated and the maxi-mum number of days per year they partici-pated (Fig. 2).

Of 54 respondents that categorized howfar they have travelled from their residenceto participate in a TBN activity: 22.2% hadtravelled 0–50 km, 11.1% had travelled50–100 km and 100–200 km, 5.6% hadtravelled 200–300 km and 50.0% had trav-elled more than 300 km. The maximumdistance travelled from home was1317.4 ± 1226.7 km (95–4000 km, n = 21).

Volunteer preferences, motivation and demography

Pre ferences

All respondents identified at least one typeof activity that interested them, although52.5% identified a number of activities.Thus, the following percentages do notsum to 100. The following activities inter-ested participants (percentage of respond-ents listing an activity in brackets): countsand surveys (88.1%), habitat restoration(57.6%), general administration (8.5%),data entry (6.8%) and newsletter prepar-ation (3.4%).

Of 58 responses, 10.3% preferredongoing involvement in one project, 17.2%preferred a variety of projects and 72.4%indicated they had no preference.

Respondents answered 26 questionsabout the factors that influenced theirdecision to become involved in a particularproject. They rated the importance of eachfactor on a five-point scale, and theresponses are summarized in Table 2.

Fifty-four respondents nominated anideal duration of an activity (the maximumduration nominated is considered here). Intotal, 87.0% of respondents indicated that

the ideal duration was up to and including7 days, with the remaining respondentsindicating activities up to 14 days longwould be suitable. Only 3.7% of respond-ents indicated that activities would ideallybe less than 1 day in duration.

Mot iva t ion

Only 34 respondents (57.6%) identifiedone main interest in volunteering. Forthose respondents, 50.0% were interestedin conservation in general, 29.4% in birds,14.7% in self-education and 5.9% inresearch. When given five options to

Figure 1. The seasonal variation in the number of activities (mean plus standard error) availa-ble for volunteers.

Figure 2. The maximum number of activities (n = 57 respondents, shaded bars) and themaximum number of days spent on those activities for the Threatened Bird Network Volunteers(n = 58 respondents, non-shaded bars) are shown.



identify why volunteers were involved inTBN, and the space to add additionalreasons, all participants responded. Of 29(50.9%) that chose a single option, 55.2%indicated that their main reason forinvolvement was helping birds, 17.2% indi-cated researching birds, 13.8% identifiedpersonal experience, 13.8% identified con-servation of habitat, and none identifiedwork experience.

Overall 94.9% of respondents provideda response as to whether they consideredconservation of habitat, or conservation ofbirds to be of greater importance. However17.9% of respondents listed both habitatand birds, presumably because they con-sidered them to be of equal importance. Of

46 respondents that listed one alternative,93.5% listed habitat as of greatest impor-tance leaving only 6.5% listing birds.

Demography

Respondents that provided their date ofbirth (n = 84, 96.6% of all respondents)were aged 14–73 years (NOBA, 18–73years) (Fig. 3). Of those that adequatelyreported their employment status (n = 56),50.8% and 8.5% were employed full-timeand part-time, respectively, 15.3% werestudents, 16.9% were retired and 3.4%were unemployed. The peaks in the agedistribution of volunteers were made upby different demographic categories. Thepeak in the numbers of volunteers aged

20–24 years was dominated by students(66.7%). The peak at 35–39 years wascomposed entirely of employed persons.The peak at 50–54 years was mostly ofemployed people.

Of the 59 respondents, 81.4% weremembers of a conservation or naturalhistory group, and another 4.2% ranwildlife shelters. Of the 48 respondentswho were members of at least one group,45.8% belonged to at least two groups, andsome belonged to up to four groups(overall 37.3% belonged to more than onegroup). Including all club memberships(n = 73), 45.2% were members of a birdclub, 28.8% of a conservation organization,13.7% were involved in a Landcare group

Table 2. Rating of preferences for volunteer involvement in projects. Sample sizes (number of responses from non-office-bearing Australians) varybecause some respondents did not answer all questions. Bold numbers indicate the most frequent response

Rating (percentage of responses)

Factor (question) n Very important

Important Moderately important

Minor importance

Not important

High likelihood of seeing target species

57 10.5 24.6 33.3 17.5 14.0

Species is highly threatened 58 32.8 31.0 27.6 5.2 3.4Activity not physically demanding 57 0.0 7.0 15.8 21.1 56.1Activity is in an accessible location 57 10.5 15.8 28.1 21.1 24.6Species is interesting 57 10.5 14.0 40.4 15.8 19.3Activity is within 2-h drive from

home57 12.3 19.3 7.0 21.1 40.4

Activity is within 8-h drive from home

55 20.0 16.4 16.4 12.7 34.5

Group activity 57 5.3 8.8 29.8 28.1 28.1Desirable location 58 5.2 13.8 22.4 22.4 36.2Organizers provide regular

feedback57 36.8 33.3 21.1 7.0 1.8

Activity is outdoors 58 34.5 34.5 20.7 5.2 5.2Opportunity for some free time 57 5.3 19.3 31.6 28.1 15.8Good weather has been predicted 57 3.5 10.5 14.0 28.1 43.9Training component 57 14.0 28.1 26.3 17.5 14.0Existing skills are adequate 57 10.5 10.5 42.1 29.8 7.0Not costly 57 29.8 26.3 26.3 12.3 5.3Costs subsidized 56 16.1 5.4 25.0 21.4 32.1Equipment provided 57 5.3 3.5 15.8 17.5 57.9Goals of work clear 57 45.6 33.3 21.1 0.0 0.0Activity on weekend 57 14.0 14.0 21.1 12.3 38.6Transport provided 55 5.5 10.9 16.4 27.3 40.0Accommodation provided 56 7.1 25.0 17.9 19.6 30.4Duration is a day or less 57 3.5 1.8 28.1 15.8 50.9Supervision friendly and helpful 57 47.4 31.6 15.8 3.5 1.8Can participate with friends 57 10.5 14.0 29.8 22.8 22.8Personally contacted by

organizers57 21.1 29.8 22.8 8.8 17.5



(a partnership between land owners andconservationists) and 12.3% weremembers of field naturalist clubs.

Discussion

Although volunteers are thought to make asubstantial contribution to bird recoveryefforts in Australia, there have been virtu-ally no studies of the actual levels ofinvolvement. Recently, it has been esti-mated that volunteers have contributedservices worth $7 million to all recoveryefforts on Australia’s threatened birds,1992–2000, and that a further contributionof $7 million would be required from vol-unteers 2000–05. The latter figure repre-sents over 13% of the entire budgetrequired to fund all actions on threatenedAustralian birds (Garnett & Crowley 2000).TBN serviced volunteer activities worth$2.6 million in 1996–2000. Importantly,these estimates do not include travelexpenses, which can be considerable asdemonstrated by the distances travelled byTBN volunteers. If it is assumed that theaverage trip to an activity is 200 km, with1.5 people per vehicle, and costs of $0.50per kilometre, then the travel costsrequired by TBN projects in 1996–2000was $733 200. The total monetary contri-bution over the 5 years is thus $3.4 million.

Clearly, the investment of volunteers in therecovery of Australia’s threatened birds isconsiderable. We believe it is possible andhighly desirable to increase the contri-bution volunteers make to bird recovery,but this would require further resourceallocations for enhanced volunteer supportand recruitment.

Other countries have a longer history ofusing volunteers in bird conservation. Forexample, in Britain large scale volunteersurveys began in the early 1960s (Blakerset al. 1984) and since then thousands of vol-unteers have successfully monitored birds(Greenwood 2003). Although comparativefigures are available for altas schemes, theonly available figures we could find onvolunteering for bird conservation are fromthe UK for 2001–02 (Royal Society for theProtection of Birds, unpubl. data 2003).These data suggest 6986 volunteers contrib-uted 557 545 h. The annual contributiondescribed here represents only 6% of theUK contribution, perhaps reflecting thehigher human population in the UK, and thelonger history of volunteering for birds. Ourdata suggest that the already substantialneed for volunteers within Australianrecovery efforts is growing, and that theavailability of volunteers is increasing (therehas been a steady increase in TBN member-ship since 1996). Thus, it is likely that the

full potential of volunteers has not yet beenrealized in Australia.

Const ra in ts and l im i ta t ions

Comparatively few volunteers wereprepared to help with administration.Large-scale volunteer involvement requiresconsiderable organizational support, andthat support is likely to come from paidstaff rather than from volunteers (seeSafstrom & O’Byrne 2001).

Most TBN volunteers had some experi-ence and skills but many were not expertbird watchers. Many volunteers indicateno or very limited experience when theyregister with TBN and training workshopsare usually filled to capacity. Thus, skillacquisition through training should be acomponent of volunteer programs.

The lack of importance that volunteersplaced on financial and in-kind supportmay represent a sampling bias, becausevolunteers that require such support mayhave been less likely to respond to the sur-vey or may have dropped out of TBNbecause such support was not generallyavailable. A stamped, self-addressed envel-ope (total cost ∼$0.75) was not suppliedwith the questionnaire, and this may havecaused a slight bias toward the employedin our sample. Alternatively, volunteersmay be constrained by time rather than bycost; about 75% were employed or study-ing. Future questionnaire surveys couldminimize any sampling bias by includingreturn postage or by being conducted byphone.

Towards grea ter invo lvement

To our knowledge, the factors thatpromote the involvement of volunteers inbird conservation have not been studied inAustralia or elsewhere, despite the fact thatsuch information is important for establish-ing and maintaining an effective volunteersupport base (but see Hewish & Loyn1989). Motivating factors can be classifiedas general factors that cause people tobecome involved in a bird recovery effort,and specific factors that make a particularproject appealing.

Generally, conservation was the mainfactor that prompted people to volunteer.Interestingly, conservation of habitat was

Figure 3. The age distribution and employment status of volunteers registered with the Threat-ened Bird Network.



regarded as of equal or greater importancethan bird conservation per se, but most vol-unteers indicated that helping birds wastheir main reason for volunteering. Thissuggests a sophisticated appreciation ofthe role of habitat conservation in birdrecovery efforts. This may also be reflectedin the high rate of membership in naturalhistory and conservation organizations.

In terms of project-specific motivatingfactors, we found that communication tothe volunteers in terms of goal-setting,supervision and feedback were consideredas important determining factors for volun-teer involvement. Some aspects of theactivity were also considered important.Respondents desired activities on highlythreatened birds and preferred activitiesthat were outdoors and not costly. Mostactivities offered were outdoors, with overhalf representing surveys. We have no wayof determining how costly activities were,but little financial support was available forvolunteers.

By addressing these motivating factors,volunteers may be encouraged to contrib-ute regularly to the same project. This isparticularly important when volunteers aretrained, and where the use of experiencedvolunteers is desired. The scope for regularinvolvement in a project is considerable,given that projects on 75% of taxa were

available for more than 1 year, and that83% of volunteers preferred involvementin just one project or had no preferenceregarding how many projects they becameinvolved in. Many volunteers reported thatthey may not participate in an activityevery year, and many only participated in afew activities in any one year. Therefore,there is considerable scope for increasingthe level of involvement of existing volun-teers.

Acknowledgements

TBN volunteers, particularly those whoreturned the survey, have our sincerethanks. Thanks also to the recovery officersand teams, Katrina Jensz (EnvironmentAustralia), Jonathon Osbourne and MikeRobinson (RSPB). TBN was funded by theFederal Government’s Natural HeritageTrust and was hosted by Birds Australia.We would also like to thank Danielle Hart,Tara Martin and two anonymous reviewers.

References

Bildstein K. L. (1998) Long-term counts of migratingraptors: a role for volunteers in wildlife research.Journal of Wildlife Management 62, 435–445.

Blakers M., Davies S. J. J. F. and Reilly P. N. (1984)The Atlas of Australian Birds. MelbourneUniversity Press, Australia.

Demauro M. M. (1993) Colonial nesting birdresponses to visitor use at Lake RenwickHeron Rookery, Illinios. Natural Areas 13, 4–9.

Dhondt A. A., Tessaglia D. L. and Slothower R. L.(1998) Epidemic mycoplasmal conjunctivitis inHouse Finches from eastern North America.Journal of Wildlife Diseases 34, 265–280.

Elliot L. (2000) Oiled wildlife response volunteers: aHawai’i example. ‘Elepaio 60, 1–4.

Garnett S. and Crowley G. (2000) The Action Planfor Australian Birds. Environment Australia,Canberra.

Greenwood J. J. D. (2003) The monitoring of Britishbreeding birds: a success story forconservation science? Science of the TotalEnvironment Vol 310, Issues 1–3, 221–230.

Hewish M. J. and Loyn R. H. (1989) Popularity andeffectiveness of four survey methods formonitoring Australian land birds. RAOU (BirdsAustralia) Report 55.

Lopez C. and Dates G. (1998) The efforts ofcommunity volunteers in assessing watershedecosystem health. In: Ecosystem Health (edsD. Rapport, R. Costanza, P. R. Epstein, C.Gaudet and R. Levins) pp. 103–128. BlackwellScience, Oxford.

McLaren M. A. and Cadman M. D. (1999) Cannovice volunteers provide credible data for birdsurveys requiring song identification? Journalof Field Ornithology 70, 481–490.

Oatley T. and van Noordwijk A. J. (1999) Potentialand problems of large scale involvement ofamateurs. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Ornitho-logical Congress (eds N. J. Adams and R. H.Slowtow), p. 230. Birdlife South Africa,Johannesburg.

Safstrom R. and O’Byrne M. (2001) Communityvolunteers on public land need support.Ecological Management and Restoration 2,85–86.

volunteers in bird conservation: insights from the australian threatened bird network

Documents