CSIRO PUBLISHING

Emu, 2009, 109, 6774

www.publish.csiro.au/journals/emu

Towards a set of priorities for bird conservation

and research in Australia: the perceptions of ornithologists
Kelly K. Miller A,B and Michael A. Weston A
A

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

Ornithologists are diverse with traditions both in the formal,

university-trained scientic sector and a prominent tradition of
citizen science, involving the public and community groups in the
collection of scientic data (Bibby 2003; Greenwood 2003;
Galloway et al. 2006). Such diversity is a challenge for those
attempting to identify key priorities for the discipline.
In conservation circles, birds are often used as indicators of
ecosystem health (Balmford 2002). As such, priorities for
ornithology may inform conservation priorities more broadly.
Ornithological priorities can be classied into research priorities,
those questions of theoretical interest or where knowledge gaps
exist, or conservation priorities, where activities aim to promote
viable bird populations. In reality, the two types of priority are
rarely distinct research activities usually have conservation
benets and vice versa (Fjelds 1995; Flasbarth 2001), and
ornithology is often a fusion of research and conservation
goals (e.g. Bock 1997).
Priorities in ornithology differ between stakeholder groups
(e.g. government agencies, research institutions, nongovernment organisations (NGOs), community groups) and
will be driven by a range of factors (e.g. politics, funding,
conservation philosophies, ethics and values). Within this
complex environment, ornithologists play a signicant role in
setting priorities through their research recommendations
and their involvement and work with organisations such as
Birds Australia and the Ornithological Society of New Zealand
(OSNZ), the largest national non-government bird conservation
organisations in Australia and New Zealand respectively.
Ornithological expertise represents a rich resource which is
rarely utilised en masse. We describe a survey of attendees at the
2007 Australasian Ornithological Conference (AOC) that aimed
10.1071/MU08054

0158-4197/09/010067

68

Emu

K. K. Miller and M. A. Weston

to determine their perceptions of research and conservation

priorities. More specically, this paper aims to answer the
following questions:
(1) What are the highest (perceived) research and conservation
priorities in Australian ornithology?
(2) What are the most important (perceived) conservation
strategies in Australian ornithology?
(3) What are the perceived roles of national ornithological
organisations?
Methods
A 10-page questionnaire (see Accessory publication, available
from the Emu website) was distributed to 258 delegates at the
2007 AOC in Perth, Australia. Although delegates had different
interests, degrees of specialisation and areas of expertise, the
4-day conference represented the largest known gathering of
Australasian ornithologists and was therefore considered the
best opportunity to survey experts in the eld (an expert
is a person having special knowledge or skill; Bloomsbury
Publishing 2001). Here, expertise is considered relative to that
of the general public: some delegates were new to ornithology, or
worked on birds out of general interest or peripherally, but were
still considered to possess expertise. We dened all delegates as
ornithologists because they had attended an ornithological
conference.
A covering letter and consent form were attached to each
questionnaire; all respondents were entered into a draw for the
chance to win one of three prizes (each worth ~$A100). The
questionnaire consisted of three sections, of which two are the
focus of this paper. Section 1, consisting of 11 questions, asked
participants for basic demographic and professional information,
such as age, gender, country of residence, membership of
scientic or conservation organisations, current occupation,
and interests. Section 2 consisted of nine questions and asked
participants to rate the importance that Birds Australia or the
OSNZ should place on a list of 29 conservation and management
issues in Australasian ornithology, and the importance of
particular conservation strategies on a Likert scale (Robson
2002) of one (low priority) to ve (high priority). Questions
were adapted from Miller and Jones (2005) and rened during a
workshop with staff of Birds Australia.
We collected 158 completed surveys (61.2% of the 258
registered delegates listed in the conference proceedings);
almost half (48.1%) were female, and most resided in
Australia (84.8%) or New Zealand (10.7%). We examined
whether our sample was representative of the delegates present
at the conference by comparing our survey with the demographic
prole of all delegates. Of 258 entries in the list of delegates

(Australasian Ornithological Conference 2007), we were able to

condently assign sex and country of origin to 253 (98.1%) and
247 (95.7%) delegates respectively. Our sample was not biased in
terms of the sex of respondents but the comparison of the country
of origin approached statistical signicance with our survey
sample having fewer international delegates than expected
(Table 1).
To choose an appropriate sample, we rst tested whether the
nationality of respondent inuenced responses. To do this, we
examined 29 questions associated with the main section of the
survey on research and conservation priorities. Using PRIMER
2006 (Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK), we generated a
normalised Euclidean resemblance matrix once a small
number of missing values had been substituted. Data were
visualised using non-metric multidimensional scaling, which
indicated that the distribution of responses differed between
Australian and New Zealand respondents (analysis of
similarity, r = 0.171, P = 0.029).
We analysed Australian respondents only (n = 134), because:
(1) Australian experts were anticipated to have the most informed
views of conservation priorities for Australia; (2) they were the
most numerous respondents, and other nationalities were too
few to analyse independently; and (3) this avoided potential
ambiguity with respect to the country being addressed in the
respondents answers. International respondents, especially
New Zealand respondents, reported some concern over the
relevance of the results to New Zealand. Informal discussions
with Australian respondents revealed a clear understanding of the
focus of the survey on the Australian situation. Subsequent
summary statistics and analyses refer only to Australian
respondents.
Data were analysed using SPSS (v. 14.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago,
IL, USA). Descriptive statistics, factor analysis (principal
components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation), reliability
analysis (Cronbachs a), one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
and c2-analyses were used with an a level of 0.05. Untransformed
means  one standard error are reported.
Results
We obtained completed surveys from 134, or 68.7%, of known
Australian delegates (at least 65.0% of Australian delegates
assuming those who could not be assigned a nationality (5 of
258) were Australian). This rate of response is high compared
with similar studies (e.g. Miller and Jones 2005).
Sample prole
All respondents reported their sex, with 45.5% female. This
proportion was not different from the sex-ratio of Australian

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.

Perceived priorities for Australian birds

Emu

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% were
4660, 17.9% were 6170 and 3.0% were >70 years.
All respondents indicated whether they were members of
Birds Australia (76.1%) or the OSNZ (3.0%) (2 of 17 NZ
respondents were members of Birds Australia). Respondents
indicated how long they had been members of the
organisations: 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 provided
information about their membership of other member-based
organisations (we included Birds Australia Special Interest
Groups and excluded non-membership based places of
employment and subscriptions). Of 131 responses, 77.9% of
delegates belonged to up to 12 other organisations (mean
2.1  0.3 organisations; n = 103). Of 285 memberships, 35.4%
involved ve organisations: Ecological Society of Australia
(13.0%), Bird Observation and Conservation Australia (7.4%),
the Australian Bird Study Association (5.6%), the Australian
Conservation Foundation (4.9%) and the Worldwide Fund for
Nature (4.6%). Of 126 organisations which could be classied in
terms of their mission, 27.4% were organisations concerned
with birds, 34.7% were professional associations and 16.9%
were cause-related NGOs. Of 112 organisations for which
information was available, 33.1% were national in scope,
25.0% involved a state, 18.8% involved a country other than
Australia, 11.6% were international, 8.0% were local and
5.4% were regional. For 124 organisations, we classied the
relationship of an organisations mission to birds; the scope of
only 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 do
not add to 100): 23.3% of respondents indicated their interest
stemmed 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 or
social networks; 12.1% of respondents became interested through
aspects of the natural history of birds; 11.9% cited a broad interest
in natural history or the environment; 11.9% cited their formal
education; and 5.1% from an interest in research or theory
(20 responses deed classication).
Respondents indicated their current occupations (n = 107,
excluding 20 retirees); they were: honours or postgraduate
Table 2. A classication of member-based organisations patronised by
respondents, in relation to the organisations focus and specicity
The number of organisations patronised by respondents is provided (n = 124).
Broad focus involves organisations that cover a variety of issues or taxa,
whereas specic focus involves organisations that work in a specic park or
on a particular taxonomic group (e.g. friends groups)
Classication

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

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 had been involved for a mean 17.7  1.2 years
(range 160 years) in the eld of their primary interest. Of 121
respondents, 82.6% had been paid in a eld related to their interest
in 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% for
1519 years, 5.0% for 2024 years, 7.0% for 2530 years and
10.0% for >30 years.
Perceived roles of national bird organisations
In response to a question about the role of Birds Australia and the
OSNZ, 130 respondents indicated a preferred role for the
organisations. These options were: (1) provision of scientic
or management information and expert opinion (86.2% of
respondents); (2) lobbying of public policy makers with their
positions on important issues relating to bird conservation
(86.9%); and (3) engagement in public education campaigns to
inform citizens about their position on important issues relating to
bird conservation (86.9%). Of the 130 respondents, 71.5%
desired engagement in all of the above activities. Respondents
were also asked to add additional roles (n = 21 specic 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); working
with land managers (2); providing networks for researchers (2);
establishing reserves (1); taxonomic research (1); identifying key
gaps (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 these
issues achieved the highest possible modal scores (Table 3). With
the exception of Animal rights, which achieved the lowest
possible modal score, all other modes were at the midpoint of
the scale or higher. Respondents were also asked to nominate
those 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 of
modal score v. rank frequency of nominated top priorities) were
highly correlated (rs = 0.8, P < 0.001).
Another question sought additional priorities from
respondents (49 respondents provided 73 substantially new
priorities). These priorities were diverse, and varied in scale,
scope and generality. The commonest priorities focussed on
research (38.4% of new priorities), which included smallscale research, various theoretical research aspects (e.g. avian
evolution, biology and behaviour), various applied research
aspects (e.g. adaptive management) and research into the
impacts of specic activities such as ecotourism. The next
commonest declared priorities involved advocacy and
lobbying (15.1% of new priorities), addressing specic threats
(such as feral bees) (9.6%) and the development of enhanced
decision-making for conservation (5.5%). Less frequently

70

Emu

K. K. Miller and M. A. Weston

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)

declared priorities (<5.0%) were: collation of knowledge or data,

education and communication, habitat protection and restoration,
enhanced support for students and the greater inclusion of
additional stakeholders into bird conservation and research
(e.g. industry and traditional owners).
Factor analysis (PCA with varimax rotation; absolute values
<0.48 suppressed) of the 29 issues in Table 3 extracted eight
factors (eigenvalues >1; explained 67.6% of the variance). These
factors are hereafter referred to as scales (i.e. scale of survey
items). Each scale was then subjected to reliability analysis
(Cronbachs a). Six of the eight scales (23 of the 29 items in
Table 3) had a clear theme and relatively high reliability
coefcient (Table 4) so were used as a model to categorise
responses. The two scales with reliability coefcients <0.6 or
unclear groupings of issues, or both, were excluded from
subsequent analysis (Coakes and Steed 1996).
There were signicant differences between priority
scales (one-way ANOVA, F5,782 = 85.67, P < 0.01; Fig. 1).
Respondents rated the Conservation of threatened species
scale as highest priority, followed by the Conservation of
birds and biodiversity in general scale, though these two

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%)

scales differed signicantly (Tukey P < 0.05). The next highest

scales did not differ signicantly (Tukey P > 0.05) and were all
rated as high priority. These were Monitoring, Management
and Working with communities. The only scale to be scored as a
relatively low priority was Animal welfare/rights, which was
signicantly lower than all other scales (Tukey P < 0.05).
Conservation strategies
Respondents rated the importance of 11 conservation strategies
for birds (Table 5). Of 1468 responses, 93.9% indicated high
importance (i.e. scores of four or ve; overall mean scores
4.3  0.0; mode = 5 (highest possible importance score)). A
further question asked respondents to nominate additional
conservation strategies. While there were 45 responses, many
of these were general comments, repeats of strategies presented
in the previous question or highly specic activities rather
than strategies (e.g. use news media). Of 21 responses (20
respondents) indicating additional conservation strategies: 41.6%
referred to the development of communication networks with
various stakeholder groups; 14.3% to bird monitoring and

Perceived priorities for Australian birds

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

Monitoring (issues 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 21)

Monitoring distribution and population trends

Monitoring changes in bird populations resulting from impacts
such as climate change, re, grazing, etc.
Management of threats (e.g. invasive and pest species;
habitat loss and degradation)
Community engagement and education
Urban birds and habitat
Animal welfare and animal rights
Conservation of birds
Conservation of biodiversity
Threatened species management
Threatened communities and habitats

Management (issues 11, 14, 15, 19, 22)

Working with communities (issues 4, 10, 24, 25)
Animal welfare/rights (issues 27, 29)
Conservation of birds and biodiversity in general
(issues 2, 7, 12)
Conservation of threatened species (issues 1, 3)

1.0

Mean score

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
A

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 a
grouping of survey items, derived from factor analysis. Scores were
standardised between 0 and 1: a score <0.5 suggests that the respondent
places a low priority on the issues being measured; a score of 0.5 suggests a
neutral perspective; and a score >0.5 suggests that the respondent places a
high priority on the issues being measured.

adaptive management; 14.3% to developing strategies for climate

change; 9.5% to establishing or supporting the economic value of
birds; and one response (4.7%) each to species triage, establishing
an incentive-based program for bird conservation, and the
distribution of research funds.
Discussion
Ornithological priorities can be established at a variety of spatial
and temporal scales, and using a variety of techniques (Short
1984; Dunn et al. 1999; Bautista and Pantoja 2000; Garnett and
Crowley 2000). Perceptions can complement quantitative

0.861 (7 items)

0.797 (5 items)
0.735 (4 items)
0.901 (2 items)
0.713 (3 items)
0.644 (2 items)

scientic review (Brown et al. 2004). Expert opinion has

proven valuable in setting priorities for conservation (Cowling
et al. 2003; Pullin et al. 2004) but published accounts of national
avian research and setting of avian conservation priorities using
the perceptions of ornithologists appear uncommon (but see Latta
2000). Here, we canvassed views on a broad range of issues from a
diverse group of respondents who can be regarded as experts in
Australian ornithology.
Our approach of measuring perceptions assumes that
respondents had reasonable knowledge of the subject matter
(many did not offer views on every question). Our sample
represented people with a variety of demographic proles and
who declared a range of interests and experience with birds.
However, we suggest most respondents were able to offer
informed responses; over 80% had been paid in relation to
ornithology, over 50% were associated with universities, and
the average length of time respondents had been involved in their
primary interest was 18 years. We recognise that the interests of
delegates may have inuenced their responses, perhaps because
they felt their responses may have inuenced the decision making
of national bird organisations (e.g. students may have advocated
for more student funding). This is an unavoidable consequence of
our method.
Research and conservation priorities
Setting priorities for the investment of limited resources into
conservation activities is a basic function of conservation NGOs
and governments (Coates and Atkins 2001). All setting of
priorities is to some extent relative to the process used to
determine priorities (see, for example, Mehlman et al. 2004),
and the differential incorporation of a variety of factors, such as
social, political and economic issues (Hughey et al. 2003;
OConnor et al. 2003). Our closed survey questions combined
with factor analysis permitted us to examine the relative
importance delegates placed on a series of priorities we
presented to respondents.
Respondents considered threatened species as being of
highest priority, perhaps because they are at risk of extinction
(by denition), thus heightening the perceived urgency and scale

72

Emu

K. K. Miller and M. A. Weston

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

A tie between scores four and ve.

of management intervention required. Threatened species also

enjoy a high prole among ornithologists and the broader
community, and are commonly selected as agship species
(Bowen-Jones and Entwistle 2002). Respondents regarded the
strategies to recover multiple threatened species as more
important than single-species efforts, in line with the broad
trend towards multi-species conservation efforts (Simberloff
1998).
Unsurprisingly, the next most important priority area was the
conservation of birds and biodiversity, a prominent theme in
modern society, which derives in part from widespread threats to
biodiversity and a recognition that people themselves depend on
biodiversity for ecosystem services (Capra 2002). With a good
knowledge of the status of birds and their threats, the ecologies
and habitats that they rely on, and an awareness of a potential role
of birds in broader conservation efforts, it is not surprising that
respondents placed a high priority on broader conservation.
The fact threatened species and more general biodiversity
conservation fell into two scales rather than a single scale
suggests they are viewed slightly differently by respondents.
This aligns with the treatment provided under most Australian
conservation legislation, where provisions for threatened species
are separated from larger-scale, broader mechanisms (e.g. threatbased approaches and biodiversity action plans).
Monitoring, management and working with communities
were also considered high priorities, and these activities
represent long-standing traditions among ornithological NGOs
in Australia (e.g. bird atlases; Dunn and Weston 2008). It is highly
likely many or most respondents had participated in such
activities or used their data or information products, and so
presumably value them. The comparatively low priority placed
on Human dimensions is incongruous in the context of the
relatively high rating of Community engagement, and the
general support of Education and awareness as an important
conservation strategy. It is possible that respondents did not
appreciate or understand the role of human dimensions (i.e.
how people value wildlife, how they want wildlife to be
managed, and how they affect or are affected by wildlife and
wildlife management decisions; Decker et al. 2001: p. 3) in
underpinning education, awareness, advocacy and lobbying

activities, a role which is generally considered critical in

wildlife management and conservation biology (Decker et al.
2001). The priority rating of human dimensions by AOC
respondents (mean 3.4) was slightly lower than, though similar
to, that of respondents to an equivalent question put to the
Australasian Wildlife Management Society (AWMS)
conference delegates (mean 3.7; recoded from Miller and
Jones 2005). This is unsurprising given that the eld of human
dimensions 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 by
delegates to be relatively low priorities. This presumably stems
from one of four explanations. Respondents either have no real
concern for the well-being of birds (difcult to imagine; see Miller
2003; Miller and Jones 2005), they consider such concerns
secondary to the other scales in terms of need or urgency, our
question evoked a negative response to perceptions of the animal
welfare and rights movements (see Schmidt and Bruner 1981), or
respondents answered the questions to dissuade national bird
organisations from becoming active in the eld, perhaps because
several international and national animal welfare or rights
organisations are well established and active. The nding that
animal rights and animal welfare evoked similar responses might
mean many delegates do not differentiate between the two
movements; this has been noted previously among wildlife
professionals (Schmidt 1990), despite the fact that most
ornithologists have a major stake in the ethical treatment of
birds (e.g. Gaunt and Oring 1999). Slight differences in
responses were evident in comparison with the survey of the
AWMS 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 and
Jones 2005). AWMS delegates differentiated more between
Animal rights and Animal welfare than did AOC delegates,
perhaps suggesting the perception of equivalence of movements
was more widespread among AOC delegates.
Conservation strategies
Most respondents considered most conservation strategies to be
important: eight of 11 proposed conservation strategies and 94%

Perceived priorities for Australian birds

of all responses rated four or higher on a ve-point scale. In

addition to a range of strategies focussed on habitat, threats,
outreach and engagement, research was considered an important
conservation strategy; and dominated the responses to the
open question on additional priority areas (almost 40% of new
priorities focussed on a range of research needs). Only three
strategies obtained ratings of moderate importance: managing
for declining but common species; reserve purchase and
management; and single-species recovery efforts. All of the
latter feature as current activities of government and NGOs to
some extent.
Australia, like most countries, lacks a comprehensive, agreed
bird conservation strategy. The Action Plan for Australian Birds
2000 (Garnett and Crowley 2000) focusses on threatened birds,
although national biodiversity action plans and threat abatement
plans exist that encompass birds (e.g. Australian Government
2004). Barriers to a national bird conservation plan include
ecological, policy and jurisdictional complexities, and the
challenge of funding and implementation of meaningful action at
a continental scale. An important and unanswered question
is whether a separate national plan for bird conservation
would optimise bird conservation, although such a strategy
could provide a framework for regional and local conservation
activities. If such a strategy was deemed useful, its development
could incorporate quantitative assessments of threats, current
activities, areas of importance, perceptions of experts (e.g. this
study), and monitor progress using measures of existing activity
and success (Bautista and Pantoja 2000; Garnett and Crowley 2000;
Olsen 2008). Our results provide an overview of expert opinion on
research and conservation priorities at the national level, and
conrm 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). Respondents
indicated they desired a broad role for national bird NGOs which
included but was not limited to the provision of expertise and
science, lobbying and education. They identied a host of issues
and strategies that they considered important. The identication of
important elements by respondents neither implies an absence
of action or attention nor constitutes a recommendation
that should be automatically adopted. Activities or strategies
perceived as important may already be the subject of signicant
attention from bird NGOs or other institutions, may not align with
longer term strategies or capabilities, or may not mesh with
organisational mission or capacity.
Ornithological NGOs have contributed substantially to the
study, conservation and appreciation of birds worldwide.
However, Morrison and Lane (2004) outlined several risks to
environmental governance in the public interest with respect to
NGOs. These include the assertion that NGOs are often poor
proxies of the public interest because they fail to give expression
to the full array of values and opinions (p. 20). Science-based
NGOs can avoid this criticism by adhering to science as the basis
for all advocacy, by advocating from this perspective, and by
transparently setting priorities for their activities. Even so,
scientic knowledge is rarely (if ever) entirely value free
(Harding 1998). Personal values and judgments affect research

Emu

73

design, data collection, interpretation and communication of

ndings, and setting of priorities. Our survey highlights one
potential way of ensuring that diverse values and views are
documented and disseminated. We hope that this survey
represents a rst step in harnessing the collective expertise,
enthusiasm and commitment of ornithologists in Australia, and
bring it to bear on setting priorities for national research and
conservation.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Birds Australia, for partial funding of this project, and
for supporting our efforts at running the survey, including facilitating a staff
workshop on questionnaire design. We also thank the Ornithological Society
of New Zealand, especially Richard Holdaway. The survey would not
have been possible without the active help of Sue Mather and fellow
organisers of the 2007 AOC. Thanks to all those who completed the
questionnaires, and to James OConnor for helpful comments. The study
was conducted under a Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee
permit (#EC1912007).

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

K. K. Miller and M. A. Weston

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

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 environmental
NGOs: unforeseen risks to democratic environmental governance in
Australia. In Proceedings of the Australasian Political Studies
Association Conference. 29 September1 October 2004, University of
Adelaide. (University of Adelaide (Discipline of Politics): Adelaide.)
Available at http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Others/
MorrisonVer6APSA.pdf [Veried 26 September 2008].
Nimmo, D. G., and Miller, K. K. (2007). Ecological and human dimensions of
management 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: the
contribution and potential of a non-governmental organisation.
Environmental Education Research 9, 447460. doi: 10.1080/
1350462032000126104
Polasky, S., Csuti, B., Vossler, C. A., and Meyers, S. M. (2001). A comparison
of taxonomic distinctness versus richness as criteria for setting
conservation priorities for North American birds. Biological
Conservation 97, 99105. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00103-8
Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., Stone, D. A., and Charman, K. (2004). Do
conservation managers use scientic evidence to support their decisionmaking? Biological Conservation 119, 245252. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.
2003.11.007
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists
and Practitioner-Researchers. 2nd edn. (Blackwell Publishing: Oxford,
UK.)
Schmidt, R. H. (1990). Why do we debate animal rights? Wildlife Society
Bulletin 18, 459461.
Schmidt, R. H., and Bruner, J. G. (1981). A professional attitude toward
humaneness. Wildlife Society Bulletin 9, 289291.
Short, L. L. (1984). Priorities in ornithology: the urgent need for tropical
research and researchers. Auk 101, 892893.
Simberloff, D. (1998). Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species
management 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

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