14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Species traits explain public perceptions of human–bird interactions

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The impacts of urbanization on bird biodiversity depend on human–environment interactions that drive land management. Although a commonly studied group, less attention has been given to public perceptions of birds close to home, which can capture people's direct, everyday experiences with urban biodiversity. Here, we used ecological and social survey data collected in the metropolitan region of Phoenix, Arizona, USA, to determine how species traits are related to people's perceptions of local bird communities. We used a trait‐based approach to classify birds by attributes that may influence human–bird interactions, including color, size, foraging strata, diet, song, and cultural niche space based on popularity and geographic specificity. Our classification scheme using hierarchical clustering identified four trait categories, labeled as Metropolitan (gray, loud, seedeaters foraging low to ground), Familiar (yellow/brown generalist species commonly present in suburban areas), Distinctive (species with distinguishing appearance and song), and Hummingbird (hummingbird species, small and colorful). Strongly held beliefs about positive or negative traits were also more consistent than ambivalent ones. The belief that birds were colorful and unique to the regional desert environment was particularly important in fortifying perceptions. People largely perceived hummingbird species and birds with distinctive traits positively. Similarly, urban‐dwelling birds from the metropolitan trait group were related to negative perceptions, probably due to human–wildlife conflict. Differences arose across sociodemographics (including income, age, education, and Hispanic/Latinx identity), but explained a relatively low amount of variation in perceptions compared with the bird traits present in the neighborhood. Our results highlight how distinctive aesthetics, especially color and song, as well as traits related to foraging and diet drive perceptions. Increasing people's direct experiences with iconic species tied to the region and species with distinguishing attributes has the potential to improve public perceptions and strengthen support for broader conservation initiatives in and beyond urban ecosystems.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          FactoMineR: AnRPackage for Multivariate Analysis

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior

            Paul Stern (2000)
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Ecological Applications
                Ecological Applications
                Wiley
                1051-0761
                1939-5582
                December 2022
                July 14 2022
                December 2022
                : 32
                : 8
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA
                [2 ] School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and School of Sustainability Arizona State University Tempe Arizona USA
                [3 ] Department of Botany and Plant Sciences University of California‐Riverside Riverside California USA
                [4 ] USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station Amherst Massachusetts USA
                [5 ] College of Integrative Sciences and Arts Arizona State University Mesa Arizona USA
                [6 ] Department of Environmental Conservation University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst Massachusetts USA
                Article
                10.1002/eap.2676
                290f5825-75cf-4667-b482-b76f40adefa2
                © 2022

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#am

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log