Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22:361-370, 1994
SPECIALIZATION AND MOTIVATIONS
OF BIRDWATCHERS
BONITA L. McFARLANE, Department of Natural Resources Canada, Northern Forestry Centre,
5320122 Street, Edmonton, AB T6H 3S5, Canada
Key words: birdwatchers, human dimensions, motivations, nonconsumptive use, specialization
Wildlife recreation studies indicate a high
level of participation in nonconsumptive wild­
life recreation (U.S. Fish and Wildl. Servo 1988,
Filion et al. 1992). This level is expected to
continue into the 21st century (Filion et al.
1992). One group with a growing number of
participants is birdwatchers (Kelly 1987:7778). Because birdwatchers represent a poten­
tial economic and political influence for wild­
life conservation efforts (Hvenegaard et al.
1989, Wiedner and Kerlinger 1990), address­
ing their needs is important in gaining support
for wildlife conservation and management.
Wildlife management agencies are being
challenged to develop products and programs
for the nonconsumptive user (Thorne et al.
1992). Defining the desired products is nec­
essary for developing specific management and
recreation programs tailored to the client's de­
mands of the wildlife resource (Driver 1985).
By understanding the experiences preferred
by the nonconsumptive user, products can be
defined and differentiated. One aspect of ad­
dressing client needs and identifying product
attributes is understanding the desired psy­
chological outcomes, satisfactions, or motiva­
tions of wildlife recreational activities (Driver
1985). Understanding motivations for partic­
ipating in a recreational activity helps differ­
entiate desired products and assists in the plan­
ning and management of a variety of preferred
experiences (Manning 1986:79-95). For ex­
ample, the multiple satisfactions concept of
hunting is well documented (e.g., Hendee 1974,
Hautaluoma and Brown 1978, Decker et al.
1980) and has provided agencies with infor­
mation on the effectiveness of wildlife man­
agement strategies and insights into how to
improve the hunting experience (Decker and
Connelly 1989).
Whereas the product of a hunting experi­
ence has evolved from a "game-bagged" to
"days-afield" to a "multiple satisfactions" ap­
proach (Decker et al. 1980), a similar evolution
for nonconsumptive users has been slow (Driv­
er 1985, Thorne et al. 1992). For example,
demographics, activities, and expenditures of
birdwatchers have been studied at specific lo­
cations (Applegate et al. 1982, Applegate and
Clark 1987, Hvenegaard et al. 1989) or for
special events (Witter et al. 1980, Wiedner and
Kerlinger 1990, Boxall and McFarlane 1993),
but little attention has been directed to product
attributes such as satisfactions or motivations
associated with the birdwatching experience
(e.g., Vaske et al. 1982, Kellert 1985).
Typically, several satisfactions or goals are
sought from participation in a recreational ac­
tivity. However, there are usually 1 or 2 that
are primarily important to an individual (Man­
ning 1986:79-95). Decker et al. (1987) hy­
pothesized that most, but not all, motivations
for wildlife-related recreation can be com­
bined into 3 categories: (1) affiliation-oriented
wildlife recreationists become involved in an
activity primarily to accompany another per­
son and to enjoy their company or to strength­
en personal relationships; (2) achievement-ori­
ented wildlife recreationists become involved
in an activity primarily to meet some standard
of performance; and (3) appreciation-oriented
wildlife recreationists seek the sense of peace,
belonging, and familiarity, and the resulting
stress reduction that they have come to asso­
ciate with the activity.
Decker et al. (1987) proposed a model of
362
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22(3) 1994
wildlife recreation in which participants pro­
gress through stages from initiation into an
activity to continued participation. A change
in motivations occurs over time, shifting from
an achievement or affiliation orientation dur­
ing initial involvement to appreciation orien­
tation during continued involvement. Decker
and Connelly (1989) verified the existence of
affiliative, achievement, and appreciative goals
among hunters and concluded that involve­
ment in wildlife recreation is a dynamic pro­
cess with the goal orientation changing with
increased experience.
Bryan (1979) also hypothesized a process of
involvement in wildlife recreation where par­
ticipants move along a continuum of low to
high specialization over time. He proposed a
theoretical framework of specialization in
bird watching with beginners, listers or
"twitchers," and advanced birders arranged
from low to high specialization. Decker et al.
(1987) hypothesized that these levels of spe­
cialization are behavioral indicators of the pro­
cess of primary goal orientation shifts. As in­
dividuals manifest behaviors of increasing spe­
cialization, they should follow a shift in primary
goal orientation from achievement or affilia­
tion to appreciation. Differences in reasons for
birding between levels of experience have been
found where committed birders (those who
could identify 2::40 species) cited a personal
fascination with birds and casual participants
(those who could identify ::s 10 species) indi­
cated the aesthetic qualities of birds as their
main reasons for birding (Kellert 1985). This
suggests that goals change with increasing ex­
perience in birding.
The specialization framework has proven
useful in describing differences in motivations
among individuals within an activity (e.g.,
Chipman and Helfrich 1988). This framework
is usually measured as a multidimensional con­
struct on an additive scale incorporating such
dimensions as past experience in and commit­
ment to the activity and how central the ac­
tivity is to an individual's life. However, stud­
ies have shown that examining the differential
effects of underlying dimensions can provide
a better understanding of how they influence
involvement in a recreational activity. For ex­
ample, in river runners commitment is asso­
ciated with motives such as excitement, fun,
skill, and fitness, whereas past experience is
associated with convenience and physical
workout (Kuentzel and McDonald 1992), sug­
gesting that the individual dimensions con­
tribute differently to motivations. Knowing how
specialization affects motivations will provide
further insight into the process of involvement
in wildlife recreation.
Determining motivations of nonconsump­
tive wildlife recreationists, identifying shifts in
motivations with experience, and understand­
ing the process of involvement in wildlife rec­
reation should interest managers developing
nonconsumptive recreation programs. Man­
agers have recognized the need to provide the
opportunity for satisfying recreational expe­
riences for nonconsumptive clientele. Know­
ing the psychological consequences desired
from a birding experience will assist managers
in developing programs specific to the expe­
rience of target audiences for promotion of
wildlife programs.
Herein I explore the speCialization frame­
work to examine the motivations of birdwatch­
ers and the process of birdwatching involve­
ment and discuss implications for developing
recreational programs designed to meet spe­
cific user-group needs. The hypotheses tested
were: (1) birdwatchers can be segmented into
distinct groups based on a specialization
framework; (2) birdwatchers seek multiple sat­
isfactions from their birding experiences that
are similar to those of other wildlife recrea­
tionists such as hunters; (3) specialization levels
differ in their primary motivations; and (4)
specialization dimensions have differential ef­
fects on motivations.
METHODS
The population of birdwatchers is not easily iden­
tified because their activities are not licensed, few pro-
BIRDWATCHER MOTIVATIONS· McFarlane
grams are designed specifically for them, and their
activities do not require specialized recreation areas or
facilities. Because a general population sample would·
probably yield few birdwatchers, a sampling strategy
was used that would likely represent birdwatchers with
a range of birding expertise. A sample of birdwatchers
in Alberta, Canada was obtained from: the 1991 mail­
ing lists of all natural history societies in the province,
the only bird observatory and the only birdwatching
club in the province, and participants in the Edmonton
Christmas bird count. The Edmonton Christmas bird
count was included because it attracts people with a
wide range of birding experience (Boxall and Mc­
Farlane 1993). I selected every second individual from
the organizations' mailing lists resulting in a sample of
1,014 individuals. A questionnaire was mailed to these
individuals in January 1992. A follow-up postcard was
sent 10 days after the initial mailing.
An additional 51 questionnaires were distributed to
patrons of a retail store specializing in birdwatching
supplies to contact birdwatchers who might not belong
to one of the sampled organizations or participate in
an organized birding event. Questionnaires were dis­
tributed by store staff, completed by respondents at
their convenience, and returned by mail.
The questionnaire sought information on birding
specialization, attitudes toward wildlife, involvement
in wildlife conservation, birdwatching history, and s0cioeconomic data. A motivational scale incorporating
25 items was developed based on personal interviews
with 20 birdwatchers and a literature review of leisure
motivations. In addition to the 3 motivations described
earlier (Decker et al. 1987), an intellectual (Beard and
Ragheb 1983) and a conservation motivation were in­
cluded because they were identified during personal
interviews as salient to the birding experience. Most
items for inclusion in the scale were adapted from
Decker and Connelly (1989) and Beard and Ragheb
(1983). Respondents rated how important each reason
was for their birdwatching activities on a 7-point scale
(1 = not at all important, 7 = very important).
Based on the assumption that respondents were sim­
ilar to nonrespondents, nonresponse bias was evaluated
by comparing selected demographic and specialization
variables between early, middle, and late respondents
(Wellman et al. 1980). Early respondents were those
who responded within 1 week; middle respondents, 13 weeks; and late respondents >3 weeks of the initial
mail-out. Respondents from the mailing lists were com­
pared with respondents from the retail store to deter­
mine if these samples differed.
Eleven variables were chosen to measure specializa­
tion based on the hypothesized dimensions of past ex­
perience, commitment, and centrality-to-lifestyle (Bry­
an 1979, Buchanan 1985, McIntyre and Pigram 1992).
Variables were standardized to a mean of ° and stan­
dard deviation of 1 to account for the different metrics.
Principal component analysis with varimax rotation
was used to identify specialization components (Wat­
son and Niccolucci 1992). Components were extracted
until the eigenvalue fell below 1.0. A minimum factor
loading of 0.30 was used to identify items belonging
363
to a component (Gorsuch 1983:209). Separate scores
were calculated for each component by adding the
standardized item responses. Scale reliability was ex­
amined using Cronbach's alpha.
Recognizing the multidimensional nature of the spe­
cialization concept, I used a disjoint clustering proce­
dure (FASTCLUS procedure, SAS Inst., Inc. 1989) to
create 4 discrete clusters. This created a profile rather
than a summed index thereby recognizing the singular
contribution of each component in the construct
(McIntyre and Pigram 1992).
Principal axis factoring with varimax rotation was
used to analyze the scale of motivational items. Factors
were extracted using the criteria described for spe­
cialization components and interpretability of the fac­
tors. The primary motivation for each cluster was de­
termined by averaging scores for each factor and
selecting the factor with the greatest score (Decker and
Connelly 1989). I used chi-square tests to test the hy­
pothesis that the distribution of primary motivations
differed among specialization clusters.
To understand how the specialization process af­
fected motivations, I examined the differential effects
of the specialization dimensions (Kuentzel and Mc­
Donald 1992). Zero-order correlations between moti­
vation and specialization dimension scores were com­
pared (Zar 1974:241-242) to test the hypothesis that
the correlations of the specialization components with
motivations were equal for past experience, centrality­
to-lifestyle, and economic commitment.
RESULTS
Questionnaire Response
There were 756 of 1,014 mail questionnaires
returned. This represented an 81% response
when adjusted for undeliverables and unusa­
bles. Of 51 questionnaires from the retail store,
31 were returned giving a total sample of 787.
The only difference between early, middle,
and late respondents was mean age (F 6.83,
2 df, P
.0012) which ranged from 48-54
years. This range represents a middle-aged co­
hort; therefore, the difference was not consid­
ered to be substantive. Based on these results
and those of others examining nonresponse bias
in homogenous groups (e.g., Wellman et al.
1980, Becker and Iliff 1983, Dolsen and Mach­
lis 1991), I inferred that no nonresponse bias
existed. A comparison of respondents from the
mailing lists and the retail store showed no
differences between these 2 samples on de­
�ographic and specialization variables.
=
=
364
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22(3) 1994
Table 1.
Principal components of variables used to measure birdwatching specialization in Alberta, 1992."
Principal components
Specialization variables
Past experience
Days on outings or trips in 1991b
Farthest distance travelled on outings of trips in 1991c
Personal involvementd
Perceived skill levele
Identification abilityl
Number species on life Iistg
Number birding magazine subscriptionsh
Number birding books'
Number of equipment itemsi
Equipment replacement valuek
Eigenvalue
Percent variance
Centrality-t<>­
Ufestyle
0.78
0.75
0.56
0.55
0.51
0.21
0.09
0.44
0.15
0.20
4.57
41.54
0.08
0.18
0.29
0.29
0.47
0.80
0.71
0.60
0.08
0.27
1.16
10.53
Economic
commitment
0.00
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.25
0.00
0.30
0.22
0.91
0.85
1.11
10.11
Scale reliability: Cronbach's alpba = 0.86.
on an open-ended scale.
'" Measured by a 6-category question from 0 to >500 km.
d Four statements described involvement, the number marked measured personal involvement.
'" Self�rated as casual, novice, intermediate, or advanced.
f Self-rated ability to identify species without using a field guide; a 6-category scale from 0 to >200 species.
I': Total number from respondent's life list indicated on questionnaire.
I, Measured by an open-ended question.
, Measured on a 6-category scale ranging from 0 to > 100 books.
I Measured by an II-item check list.
, Measured on a 9-category scale from $0 to >$5000.
•
h Measured
Specialization Framework
Three components were identified for the
specialization construct (Table 1). A past ex­
perience component consisted of days spent on
birding outings or trips, farthest distance trav­
elled on outings or trips for the main purpose
of birdwatching, self-perceived skill level, per­
sonal involvement in birdwatching, and self­
rated identification abilities. A centrality-to­
lifestyle component consisted of number of
species on a life list, number of birdwatching
magazine subscriptions, and number of bird­
ing books. An economic commitment com­
ponent consisted of the number of birding
equipment items owned and the replacement
Table 2.
value of birding equipment. Years of birding
experience did not load on any component and
was dropped from the analysis. The loadings
of items on components were consistent with
those identified for specialization in other rec­
reational activities (e.g., Wellman et al. 1982,
Virden and Schreyer 1988).
Segmentation Analysis
Four birder types were identified by cluster
analysis on the 3 specialization components
supporting the hypothesis that birdwatchers
can be segmented into distinct groups based
on a specialization framework (Table 2). The
casual group had the lowest and the advanced
Mean scores of specialization components for 4 clusters of 787 birdwatchers surveyed in Alberta, 1992.
Specialization cluste....
Specialization components
Past experience
Economic commitment
Cen trali ty-to-IifestyIe
•
Casual
n =341
-3.08
-1.21
-1.81
Novice
Intermediate
n = 297
n = 93
0.60
0.72
-0.20
5.66
0.60
0.98
Advanced
ANOVA statistics
n = 56
F value
p
6.19
2.50
6.58
884.3
153.7
587.6
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Clusters were ordered from low-high specialization as casual, novice, iRtermediate, and advanced birders.
BIRDWATCHER MOTIVATIONS
Table 3.
•
McFarlane
365
Factor loadings and mean scores for items measuring motivations for birdwatching in Alberta, 1992."
Factor loading
Factor: itemb
Mean
scor�
Affiliative (63.8% of variance, eigenvalue 8.08):
gain respect from other birders
be considered a good birdwatcher
build friendships with other birdwatchers
meet people who share my interests
be with birdwatching companions
compete with other birdwatchers
add species to a list
help others develop their birdwatching skills
contribute to society's general knowledge and understanding of birds
0.76
0.73
0.70
0.67
0.62
0.60
0.53
0.51
0.48
2.23
2.70
3.27
3.21
3.43
1.54
3.38
3.54
3.73
0.66
0.63
0.56
0.53
0.48
5.91
4.88
4.26
5.88
5.12
0.73
0.69
0.42
5.24
5.11
5.77
0.62
0.61
0.54
0.39
0.39
5.77
6.20
4.69
3.50
6.14
Achievement (15.6% of variance, eigenvalue 1.97):
expand my knowledge of birds
improve my birdwatching skills and abilities
challenge my birdwatching abilities
study birds in their natural habitat
see new or rare bird species
Conservation (7.5% of variance, eigenvalue 0.95):
contribute to the conservation of birds
help wildlife
learn about the natural environment
Appreciative (6.5% of variance, eigenvalue 0.82):
get outdoors for a chance to enjoy the natural environment
experience the sights, sounds, and smells of the outdoors
get away from everyday problems
observe all types of wildlife
be alone
Scale reliability, Cronbach's alpha = 0.91.
b Each item began with the statement: "One of my reasons for biTdwatching is to.
, Rated on a scale of 1-7 where 1 = not at all important and 7 = very important.
•
group the highest mean scores on all 3 spe­
cialization components. Novice and interme­
diate scored nearly the same on the economic
commitment component. However, the inter­
mediate group scored higher on the past ex­
perience and centrality-to-lifestyle compo­
nents. Casual birders comprised 43% of the
sample; novices, 38%; intermediates, 12%; and
advanced birders, 7%.
No differences existed among the clusters on
age, education, total household income, or place
of residence. The distribution of women dif­
fered among the clusters. Over 60% of the
casual birders were women, but only 37% of
the advanced group were (x2 15.23, 3 df, P
.0020). The women in this sample appeared
to be relatively new to birding with 46% having
:510 years of experience compared to 36% of
=
=
..
men (X2 8.46, 1 df, P .0040). Of respond­
nets with :55 years of experience, 60% were
women.
Consistent with other studies of birdwatch­
ers (e.g., Kellert 1985, Hvenegaard et al. 1989),
the sample consisted equally of men and wom­
en. Respondents were well educated, high in­
come, middle-aged individuals: >70% had a
college or university education, >30% had a
household income > $60,000, and the mean
age was 51 years.
=
=
Primary Motivations
Factor analysis revealed 3 motivations sim­
ilar to those proposed by Decker et al. (1987)
for wildlife-related recreation and identified a
fourth relating to conservation (Table 3). This
366
Table 4.
Wildt. Soc. Bull. 22(3) 1994
Distribution of 700 birdwatchers' primary motivations by level of specialization in Alberta, 1992.
Level of birdwatching specializatio n
Primary
motivation-
Appreciative
Conservation
Achievement
Total
•
Casual
Novice
Intermediate
Advanced
Total sample
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
138
125
55
318
43.4
39.3
17.3
100.0
72
119
64
255
28.2
46.7
25.1
100.0
18
31
29
78
23.1
39.7
37.2
100.0
6
16
27
49
12.2
32.7
55.1
100.0
234
291
175
700
33.4
41.6
25.0
100.0
Goodness-of·lit test between primary motivation and specialization level (x' - 53.51. 6 df.
supports the hypothesis that the birdwatching
experience involves multiple satisfactions sim­
ilar to those of hunting. The items hypothe­
sized to form an intellectual dimension loaded
on 3 of the other dimensions. Three items did
not load on the factors and were dropped from
the analysis.
About 89% of respondents had a primary
motivation: 25% of these were achievement,
33% appreciative, and 42% conservation ori­
ented (Table 4). No respondents had a pri­
marily affiliative motivation. The affiliative
motivation was not rated as an important rea­
son for birding by any of the specialization
levels. Its importance decreased with increas­
ing specialization: casuals had a mean score of
3.81, novices 3.77, intermediates 3.30, and ad­
vanced 2.32 (F 78.03, 3 df, P
.0001). Of
respondents who did not have a primary mo­
tivation, 49% scored conservation and achieve­
ment equally, 36% scored appreciative and
achievement equally, 14% scored appreciative
and conservation equally and 1% scored con­
servation and affiliative equally.
The primary motivation differed by level of
specialization supporting my third hypothesis
(Table 4). A higher proportion (55%) of ad­
vanced birders had an achievement orientation
whereas casual birders (43%) tended to have
an appreciative orientation, and novice (47%)
and intermediate (39%), a conservation ori­
entation.
Assuming this study represents a "slice-in­
time" of birding involvement, motivations
should change across the specialization levels.
=
=
P=
0.0000).
The distribution of primary motivations (Table
4) indicated the proportion of respondents hav­
ing an appreciative orientation decreased across
specialization levels from the casual (43%) to
the advanced group (12%). The proportion with
an achievement orientation increased from the
casual (17%) to the advanced group (55%). The
proportion having a conservation orientation
increased from the casual (39%) to the novice
group (47%) and decreased in the intermediate
(40%) and advanced (33%) groups, suggesting
that conservation represents a transition stage
at the novice level. These results suggest that
the shift in the primary motivation is appre­
ciative-conservation-achievement. This dif­
ference in primary motivations among the spe­
cialization levels suggests that specialization
represents a behavioral manifestation of a psy­
chological process operating at the level of goal
orientation shifts. These results are consistent
with the theory that participation in wildlife
recreation is a dynamic process involving shifts
in goal orientations over time. However, panel
data involving the study of individuals over
time from initiation into birding to an ad­
vanced level are required to confirm goal ori­
entation shifts.
Effects of Specialization
To understand the relationship between the
behavioral indicators of specialization and goal
orientation shifts, I examined the differential
effects of the specialization dimensions on mo­
tivations. With one exception, all correlations
BIRDWATCHER MOTIVATIONS· McFarlane
between specialization and motivations were
positive and significant (Table 5). These results
supported my fourth hypothesis. The past ex­
perience dimension had the highest correlation
and differed from the other specialization di­
mensions with only one exception. The behav­
ioral indicators of specialization that represent
on-going involvement in birdwatching such as
number of birding trips, farthest distance trav­
elled on birding outings or trips, and birding
skill and ability are better indicators of moti­
vations than physical items such as equipment,
books, and magazine subscriptions.
DISCUSSION
This study corroborates the Decker et al.
(1987) model of continued involvement in
wildlife-related recreation by extending the
model to a group of nonconsumptive wildlife
recreationists. The 3 goals proposed by Decker
et al. (1987) as being salient to wildlife-related
recreation but tested among only hunters
(Decker and Connelly 1989) have now been
associated with a nonconsumptive activity.
Identification of these motivations for bird­
watchers suggests that multiple satisfactions are
sought from nonconsumptive wildlife recrea­
tion. Motivations of respondents in this study
are similar to those of hunters but have dif­
ferent degrees of importance depending on the
level of birding experience. Continued in­
volvement in birdwatching may involve pro­
cesses similar to those associated with hunting.
Specialization in birdwatching seems to be a
dynamic process that operates at a psycholog­
ical level of goal-orientation shifts.
Bryan's (1979) specialization framework
provided a useful means of differentiating this
group of birders. However, the stages of de­
velopment identified in this study differed from
those proposed by Bryan (1979). Bryan's stages
of development or continued involvement in
birding emphasized achievement. In Bryan's
model, the novice birder finds and matches
birds with an identification list. Another stage
367
Table 5. Pearson product-moment correlation coef­
ficients of specialization dimension and motivation scores
of birdwatchers in Alberta, 1992.
Specialization dimension'"
Motivation
experience
Centralitytolifestyle
Economic
commitment
Achievement
Appreciative
Affiliative
Conservation
0.506c
0.241c
0.526c
0.277c
O.33Bd
0.147d
O.S23d
0.225c
0.286d
0.078d
O.S06d
O.llBd
Past
• Correlation coefficients with different letters in the same row are different
at P < 0.05.
10 Correlation coefficients >0.11 are significant at P < 0.01.
emphasizes the number of species on a "life
list" or seen during formal competition. The
more advanced stages emphasize observation
and the study of bird behavior, physical ap­
pearance, sounds, and habitat. Respondents in
this study placed less emphasis on the achieve­
ment aspects of identification, listing, and com­
petition. Only advanced birders were associ­
ated with primarily an achievement motivation
of improving birding skills and knowledge. The
casual birder sought an appreciative experi­
ence of enjoying nature and the outdoors. At
this stage birdwatching may serve as a means
to experience nature with little emphasis on
birds per se. Novice and intermediate birders
were interested in contributing to conserva­
tion.
The predominant primary motivation among
respondents (42%) was to contribute to wildlife
conservation. This could be due to a large por­
tion of the sample being drawn from natural
history societies or other birding-related or­
ganizations which promote wildlife conserva­
tion and appreciative aspects of nature. If be­
longing to organizations influences the
conservation motive then the proportion of re­
spondents with a conservation orientation
should be greatest in the group with the highest
proportion holding a membership in wildlife
conservation organizations. However, the ad­
vanced group had the highest frequency of
memberships (98%) but the lowest proportion
with a conservation orientation (33%).
368
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22(3) 1994
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
A conservation motivation could have sig­
nificant implications for wildlife managers.
Communicating an agency's role in conser­
vation and recruiting support may be most
effective when directed to specialization levels
with a conservation orientation. For example,
recruiting volunteers to assist with data collec­
tion for conservation projects could represent
one means by which agencies could provide
an opportunity for participants to satisfy a con­
servation motivation while educating partici­
pants about wildlife conservation.
Developing programs that meet the needs
of specialization levels will require that these
groups be identified easily. The effects of the
specialization components indicate that the past
experience component has the greatest corre­
lation with motivation scores. Because the use­
fulness of the specialization construct lies in its
ability to predict factors such as motivations,
attitudes, and subsequent behavior, a few in­
dicators of on-going involvement may be suf­
ficient to predict desired experiences without
the need for elaborate indexes or reliance on
birding paraphernalia. Items such as self-re­
ported skill level and identification abilities may
reasonably measure birding involvement (Box­
all and McFarlane 1993) and provide a rela­
tively easy means to differentiate users and the
experiences they desire. Further research is
required to develop indicators of experience
in nonconsumptive wildlife-related recreation
which are reliable, valid, and easily adminis­
tered.
Managers involved in the planning and
management of wildlife-related recreation
must be cognizant of the effect of experience
on motivations or product needs if they want
to provide effective wildlife programs to the
birding constituent. A birdwatching program
should emphasize a variety of potential ex­
periences and these experiences should be tai­
lored to meet the needs of specific groups of
birders in order to maximize their satisfaction.
Programs should be designed for a particular
product (e.g., achieving a certain number of
species in a day, assisting in conservation ef­
forts, or a day enjoying nature) and marketed
to specific groups. Managers must provide the
opportunity to fulfill a spectrum of satisfac­
tions or motivations for each nonconsumptive
activity by differentiating the psychological
consequences of the product that are expected
or desired (Driver 1985).
SUMMARY
It is important for managers involved in the
planning and management of nonconsumptive
wildlife-related recreational opportunities to
determine the attributes desired for satisfac­
tory experiences. One attribute that is impor­
tant for program and product development is
motivations for participating in an activity.
Based on survey responses of 787 birdwatchers
in Alberta, 4 motivations were identified as
salient for the birding experience: apprecia­
tive, conservation, achievement, and affilia­
tive. Primary motivations differed across levels
of birding specialization suggesting that spe­
cialization operates at a level of goal-orienta­
tion shifts similar to that described for hunting
involvement (Decker et al. 1987).
This study suggests that the Decker et al.
(1987) model of involvement in wildlife rec­
reation can be extended to include noncon­
sumptive users; the study also has shown that
specialization can be a useful means of clas­
sifying birders and differentiating motivations.
Managers should be aware that experience in
an activity can affect desired products. They
should provide a variety of opportunities with­
in an activity to maximize satisfaction for par­
ticipants. Further research is required to verify
the existence of the motivations identified in
this study and goal orientation shifts among
other populations of birders and other groups
of nonconsumptive wildlife recreationists.
Acknowledgments.-The author thanks the
organizations that provided mailing lists and
BIRDWATCHER MOTIVATIONS· McFarlane
assisted in mailing questionnaires, }. Clements
of the Wildbird General Store, Edmonton, Al­
berta for distributing questionnaires, and T.
Beckley, P. Boxall, G. Swinnerton, and B. White
for providing comments on earlier drafts of
the manuscript. Funding for the study was
provided by the Department of Natural Re­
sources Canada, the Alberta Recreation, Parks,
and Wildlife Foundation, and the Max Mc­
Graw Wildlife Foundation.
LITERATURE CITED
ApPLEGATE, J. E., AND K. E. CLARK. 1987. Satisfaction
levels of birdwatchers: an observation on the con­
sumptive-nonconsumptive continuum. Leisure Sci.
9:129-134.
---, R. A. OTIO, AND J. A. BUTIITIA.
1982. A
cluster analysis of appreciative wildlife users. Wildl.
Soc. Bull. 10:65-70.
BEARD, J. G., AND M. G. RAGHEB. 1983. Measuring
leisure motivation. J. Leisure Res. 15:219-228.
BECKER, R. H., AND T. J. ILIFF. 1983. Nonrespondents
in homogeneous groups: implications for mailed
surveys. Leisure Sci. 5:257-267.
BoXALL, P. C., AND B. L. McFARLANE. 1993. Human
dimensions of Christmas bird counts: implications
for nonconsumptive wildlife recreation programs.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:390-396.
BRYAN, H. 1979. Conflict in the great outdoors. Bur.
Public Adm. Sociological Stud. No. 4, Univ. Ala­
bama Press, University, Ala. 98pp.
BUCHANAN, T. 1985. Commitment and leisure be­
havior: a theoretical perspective. Leisure Sci. 7:401420.
CHIPMAN, B. D., AND L. A. HELFRICH. 1988. Recre­
ational specialization and motivations of Virginia
river anglers. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 8:390398.
DECKER, D. J., AND N. A. CONNELLY. 1989. Motiva­
tions for deer hunting: implications for antlerless
deer harvest as a management tool. Wild. Soc. Bull.
17:455-463.
---, T. L. BROWN, AND R. J. GUTIERREZ.
1980.
Further insights into the multiple-satisfactions ap­
proach for hunter management. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
8:323-331.
---, T. L. BROWN, B. L. DRIVER, AND P. J. BROWN.
1987. Theoretical developments in assessing social
values of wildlife: toward a comprehensive un­
derstanding of wildlife recreation involvement.
Pages 76-95 in D. J. Decker and G. R. Goff, eds.
Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspec­
tives. Westview Press Inc., Boulder, Colo.
DOLSEN, D. A., AND G. E. MACHLIS. 1991. Response
369
rates and mail recreation survey results: how much
is enough? J. Leisure Res. 23:272-277.
DRIVER, B. L. 1985. Specifying what is produced by
management of wildlife by public agencies. Lei­
sure Sci. 7:281-295.
FILION, F. L., E. DuWoRS, P. BoXALL, R. REID, E.
HOBBY, P. BOUCHARD, P. GRAY, AND A. JAQUEMOT.
1992. The importance of wildlife to Canadians in
1987: trends in participation in wildlife-related
activities, 1981 to 2006. Environ. Can., Ottawa,
Ont. 36pp.
GORSUCH, R. L. 1983. Factor analysis. Second ed. L.
Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, N.J. 425pp.
HAUTALUOMA, J. E., AND P. J. BROWN. 1978. Attributes
of the deer hunting experience: a cluster-analytic
study. J. Leisure Res. 10:271-287.
HENDEE, J. C. 1974. A multipre-satisfaction approach
to game management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2:104-113.
HYENEGAARD, G. T., J. R. BUTLER, AND D. K. KRYSTOFIAK.
1989. Economic values of bird watching at Point
Peiee National Park, Canada. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 17:
526-531.
KELLERT, S. R. 1985. Birdwatching in American so­
ciety. Leisure Sci. 7:343-360.
KELLY, J. R. 1987. Recreation trends: toward the year
2000. Sagamore Publ., Champaign, Ill. 157pp.
KUENTZEL, W. F., AND C. D. McDONALD. 1992. Dif­
ferential effects of past experience, commitment,
and lifestyle dimensions on river use specialization.
J. Leisure Res. 24:269-287.
MANNING, R. E. 1986. Studies in outdoor recreation.
Oregon State Univ. Press, Corvallis. 166pp.
MciNTYRE, N., AND J. J. PIGRAM. 1992. Recreation
specialization reexamined: the case of vehicle-based
campers. Leisure Sci. 14:3-15.
SAS INSTITUTE, INC. 1989. SASjSTAT users guide,
version 6. Vol. 1. Cary, N.C. 943pp.
THORNE, D. H., E. K. BROWN, AND D. J. WITIER. 1992.
Market information: matching management with
constituent demands. Trans. North Am. Wildl. and
Nat. Resour. Conf. 57:164-173.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1988. 1985 national
survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife associated
recreation. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D.C.
167pp.
VASKE, J. J., M. P. DONNELLY, T. A. HEBERLEIN, AND
B. SHELBY. 1982. Differences in reported satis­
faction ratings by consumptive and nonconsump­
tive recreationists. J. Leisure Res. 14:195-206.
VIRDEN, R. J., AND R. SCHREYER. 1988. Recreation
specialization as an indicator of environmental
preference. Environ. Behav. 20:721-739.
WATSON, A. E., AND M. J. NICCOLUCCI. 1992. Defining
past-experience dimensions for wilderness recre­
ation. Leisure Sci. 14:89-103.
WELLMAN, J. D., J. W. ROGGENBUCK, AND A. C. SMITH.
1982. Recreation specialization and norms of de­
preciative behavior among canoeists. J. Leisure
Res. 14:323-340.
---, E. G. HAWK, J. W. ROGGENBUCK, AND G. J.
370
Wildt. Soc. Bull. 22(3) 1994
BUHYOFF. 1980. Mailed questionnaire surveys and
the reluctant respondent: an empirical examina­
tion of differences between early and late respon­
dents. J. Leisure Res. 12:164-172.
WIEDNER, D., AND P. KERLINGER. 1990. Economics
of birding: a national survey of active birders. Am.
Birds 44:209-213.
WI1TER, D. J., J. D. WILSON, AND G. T. MAUPIN. 1980.
"Eagle Days" in Missouri: characteristics and en-
joyment ratings of participants. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
8:64-65.
ZAR, J. H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 62Opp.
Received 7 September 1993.
Accepted 7 March 1994.
Associate Editor: Peyton.