Practice and attitudes of suburban and rural dwellers to feeding wild birds in Southeast Queensland, Australia

Transcription

1 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Practice and attitudes of suburban and rural dwellers to feeding wild birds in Southeast Queensland, Australia Go ISHIGAME #, * and Greg S. BAXTER Ornithol Sci 6: (2007) School of Natural & Rural Systems Management, The University of Queensland, Gatton Campus, Gatton Queensland 4343, Australia ORNITHOLOGICAL SCIENCE The Ornithological Society of Japan 2007 Abstract Feeding wild birds in suburban house yards (backyard bird feeding) is an extremely popular activity throughout western countries. In Australia, several studies into the sociological aspects of wildlife feeding have recently been conducted, which report that over a third of suburban householders commonly feed birds on their property. This study was aimed to obtain in-depth sociological information related to backyard bird feeding in both urban and rural settings and to make geographical comparisons. The survey was conducted in August 2003, targeting households in suburbs of Greater Brisbane and localities in the Lockyer Valley, southeast Queensland. The survey confirmed the popularity of backyard feeding both in suburban and rural environments, with the estimated household feeding rate between 36% and 48%. It also involved 43 species of birds being fed. Respondents reported interaction-related reasons and charity-inspired motivations as reasons for starting to feed birds in their backyard. Most feeders regarded the effects of bird feeding as either positive or none despite a lack of authoritative reference sources. The survey consistently showed no significant differences between urban and rural households no matter what question was asked. With now more realistic information that backyard feeding is popular throughout the study area, concerns for the possible effects on recipient animals seem valid. Further research in this area would undoubtedly be useful for relevant agencies in Australia and other countries, including Japan, where this activity is prevalent, to develop more objective and effective policies and guidelines in relation to this complicated and rather controversial activity. Key words Attitudes, Bird feeding, Geographic trend, Rural feeders, Urban feeders, Wildlife feeding (Received 1 December 2006; Accepted 15 March 2007) # Corresponding author, gamegoh@f3.dion.ne.jp * Present address: Midori-machi 4-chome, Makomanai, Minami-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido , Japan Feeding of wild birds in suburban house yards (backyard bird feeding) is an extremely popular activity throughout western countries. Approximately 20% of households in the USA feed birds regularly (Deis 1986), distributing around 450 million kilograms of seed annually (Brittingham 1991). Birds are also fed at one in every five British households (Cannon 1999). In temperate latitudes, the popularity further increases during the winter (Cowie & Hinsley 1987, 1988; Brittingham & Temple 1988), when natural food resources may be scarce. In the northern hemisphere bird feeding is often encouraged as beneficial to birds and as having an important role in conserving wildlife (see Cannon 1999, 2000), as exemplified by active promotion of bird feeding by organizations such as the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (RSPB 2002; BTO 2003). In Australia relevant agencies oppose wildlife feeding (at least in the context of reserves and national parks) (e.g., Platt 1995; Mallick & Driessen 2003), but householders commonly feed birds on their property. For example in a study of randomly selected Brisbane households, Thomas (2000) reported 38% of respondents purchased food specifically to feed wildlife. Rollinson et al. (2003), in a similar study conducted in Brisbane, reported 37% of respondents indicated they fed wildlife, and McLees (2001), in a study in metropolitan Melbourne, reported 57% of survey respondents 11

2 G. ISHIGAME and G. S. BAXTER regularly fed wildlife. Although these studies dealt with wild animals in general, birds are known to be main recipients in backyard feeding (e.g., 20 out of 22 species reported by Rollinson et al. 2003). Several assessments, although lacking in researchbased information, have been made regarding the possible negative and positive effects of wildlife feeding on recipient animals (see reviews by Anderson et al. 1997; Green & Higginbottom 2000; Orams 2002). Possible negative outcomes include malnutrition due to inappropriate food, dependency and aggression, transmission of diseases between animals and from animals to humans because of unhygienic feeding stations, and increase in certain (often aggressive) species by replacing others. Positive outcomes include helping animals survive in rapidly deteriorating habitats or through hard times like drought and winter. Other benefits include increasing people s awareness of wildlife and the broader environment consequently contributing to the conservation of nature. It may also be that the act gives feeders peace of mind and increases their quality of life (See review by Burger 1997). Currently, the general assumption seems to be that the benefits of food provision for both recipients and humans outweigh any potential detrimental effects brought about by the activity (O Leary & Jones 2006). In response to an active debate over the pros and cons of wildlife feeding in recent years (see Deis 1986; Hunter 2001; Jones & Howard 2001), several studies into the sociological aspects of wildlife feeding have recently been conducted in Australia (e.g., Thomas 2000; McLees 2001; Rollinson et al. 2003), which confirm the widespread popularity of the activity in suburban settings. It is, however, unclear whether it is also the case in rural areas. This knowledge would be useful in generalizing findings from past and future scientific and sociological studies on the topic, conducted either in urban, suburban or rural environments. This survey aimed to obtain in-depth sociological information related to backyard bird feeding in both urban and rural settings and to make geographical comparisons where possible. Specifically, the objectives of the survey were: to learn how widespread backyard bird feeding is and how feeders feed birds; to find out what motivates people to feed birds and how they regard the effects of their conduct; and to examine if there is any geographical variation in the above information. MATERIALS AND METHODS 1) Survey areas The survey was conducted in August 2003, as part of a Master s project on the biological effects of artificial bird feeding, targeting households in suburbs of Greater Brisbane and localities in the Lockyer Valley, southeast Queensland. All study sites were at or close to degrees south, and the urban sites ranged from to degrees East, while the rural sites were clustered around degrees East. Four sampling units (three in urban and one in a rural region) were selected to be consistent with the freeranging feeding experiment on Australian Magpies Gymnorhina tibicen conducted earlier in the project. In this study, urban regions were defined as places where dwellings were at a density of 8/ha or greater, and were in close contact without undeveloped land between dwellings; rural areas were defined as regions where dwellings were at a density of 1/ha and where there was undeveloped land surrounding most dwellings. The three urban units represented different urban settings inner, mountain foothill and coastal localities each containing three suburbs (Table1). These geographically different units in the urban region were chosen so that any results could more reasonably be extrapolated to other areas. Each urban unit consisted of three adjoining suburbs, forming a sampling cluster. The three rural towns were not geographically connected. Table 1. Sampling units for the survey. Region Sampling Unit Suburbs and Rural Towns Inner-suburb Unit (IU) Kenmore, Jindalee, Chapel Hill Urban region (Greater Brisbane) Mt. foothill-suburb Unit (MU) Brookfield, Pullenvale, Kenmore Hills Coastal-suburb Unit (CU) Alexandra Hills, Capalaba, Birkdale Rural region (Lockyer Valley) Rural-town Unit (RU) Gatton, Forest Hill, Minden 12

3 Attitudes to bird feeding in Queensland 2) Contents of questionnaire The survey had multiple-choice and open questions, both on the practice of wild bird feeding and on the feeders themselves. Specifically, the questions presented to households included (although not all results are reported here): Household s current and past conduct of backyard bird feeding, Bird species fed (names and number of fed species), Feeding regime adopted (food types, food amount provided, feeding frequencies), Reasons that people fed (or didn t feed) birds, Perceptions on the effect of providing birds with food This survey was conducted anonymously and nowhere in the questionnaire were householders asked their name or address. Questionnaires were hand-distributed to households after clearance from the School of Natural & Rural Systems Management Social Science Ethics Committee, the University of Queensland. 3) Street selection, sampling size, delivery Three hundred surveys were hand delivered to letterboxes in each sampling unit (except in the rural unit where there were only 256 houses); hence in total 1,156 households received the questionnaire. One to five target streets were randomly chosen in each suburb/rural town until 300 residences had been selected. A survey package with questionnaire sheets, a cover page that introduced the project and a replypaid envelope were directly delivered to houses on the pre-selected streets. The covering letter encouraged non-feeding households to respond as well as feeding households. Deliveries were completed in two consecutive days. Follow-ups to respondents and non-respondents were neither done nor feasible due to the survey s anonymous nature. A chi-squared test was conducted, where possible, to examine if there were any associations between response and the four survey units. RESULTS Of the 1,156 households that received a survey, 372 (32%) completed and sent back the form. Relatively higher response rates were obtained from the mountain foothill-suburb unit (MU) (41%) and Innersuburb Unit (IU) (35%), and lower response rates from coastal-suburb unit (CU) (26%) and rural units (RU) (25%). 1) Practice of backyard bird feeding Current and past feeding experiences The proportion of households who currently feed or have fed birds in their present property ranged from 45.3% (IU) to 59.3% (MU) (Fig. 1) (c , P 0.199, df 6). Therefore, roughly one in two households have had backyard-feeding experiences. When unintentional feeding (e.g., birds taking pets leftovers or discarded scraps) was included, the rate increased to 61.6% in CU 75.3% in RU. Fig. 1. Household practice of backyard feeding (Valid responses only included in analysis). 13

4 G. ISHIGAME and G. S. BAXTER Fig. 2. Frequency of food provision (valid responses). A high percentage (81.2%) of all households who reported that they had started backyard feeding were still engaged in the practice at the time of the study in all survey units (77.8% in CU to 88.6% in MU) (c , P , df 3). Combining the feeding experience rate (Fig. 1) and the current feeding rate results in an estimate of household feeding rate of approximately between 36% and 48%. Bird species fed In total 43 species of bird were reported as being fed in this survey. The highest number of species, 31, came from MU, followed by 27 of RU, 20 of IU and 18 of CU (24 6.1; mean SD). The three most commonly fed birds in all sampling units were Australian Magpies Gymnorhina tibicen, Grey/Pied Butcherbirds Cracticus spp. and Rainbow Lorikeets Trichoglossus haematodus. Other popular species included Laughing Kookaburras Dacelo novaeguineae, Scaly-breasted Lorikeets T. chlorolepidotus, Paleheaded Rosellas Platycercus adscitus and Galahs Cacatua galerita. Rainbow Lorikeets were most frequently reported in CU while Australian Magpies were in other units, although the gap between the two species was small. 2) Feeding regime of backyard feeders Frequency of feeding The proportions of household who feed birds everyday ranged from 31.3% (IU) to 42.9% (CU; Fig. 2). Roughly 70% of feeding-households fed birds more than a few days a week. (c , P 0.930, df 15; Answer options were aggregated to Daily, More than once per week, and Once per week or less. ) Cost of feeding Roughly 90% of households spent less than AU$5 (approximately JPY 450) on feeding in all units and the proportion of households who did not spend any money ranged from 25.0% (CU) to 39.5% (IU) (Fig. 3). (c , P 0.865, df 9; Answer options were aggregated to Nothing, $1 5, and $6 or more. ) 3) About the people who feed birds Motivation for backyard feeding The three main reasons why households started feeding wild birds in their properties were to attract birds to the yard, to provide birds with more food and to get closer to birds in all units (Fig. 4). Minority answers include for kids, birds started feeding on pets leftovers, to help birds breed and to avoid magpie attacks. The reasons that non-feeding households did not start feeding birds (Fig. 5) mostly related to considerations of animal welfare, and not human motivation. Not in the best interests of birds was the most common answer in all units, and it comprised roughly a half of all responses. In RU, however, relatively fewer households chose that answer (41.4%); instead more households were not interested (20.7%). (c , P 0.694, df 15; Answer options were aggregated to Not in the best interests of the birds and others. ) 14

5 Attitudes to bird feeding in Queensland Fig. 3. Weekly expense of households for feeding wild birds (valid responses). Fig. 4. Reasons for starting backyard feeding (valid responses): multiple answers permitted. Concepts of the effects on birds Over the whole survey area roughly 70% of feeding households thought food provision had positive effects on birds (Fig. 6), however, relatively fewer households in MU (54%) reported the same result and more in that unit thought the act has negative effects (19%), suggesting the relative cautiousness of the people in MU toward wildlife feeding (c , P 0.282, df 6). Fig. 7 shows the reasons why feeding households think feeding has positive/no/negative effects on birds. Only total data are shown due to the small sample sizes. In households which regarded the effects as positive (Upper chart), supplement to birds diet and help birds survive in adverse conditions were the two most common survey responses. Minority answers include encourage native birds and provide 15

6 G. ISHIGAME and G. S. BAXTER Fig. 5. Reasons of non-feeding households for not feeding birds (valid responses). Fig. 6. Conceptions of feeders on the effects of feeding on birds (valid responses). birds with safe place to eat and drink. For respondents that thought feeding produced noeffects (Middle chart), only small amount given, feed infrequently and not aware of any changes in birds health or behaviours were common reasons to justify their opinion. The lower chart shows the reasons why feeding households think food provision produced negative effects on birds. Create dependency was the most common reason, followed by cause malnutrition and increase bird number. DISCUSSION 1) Current practice of backyard feeding Before going into the discussion, it must be noted that a certain bias may exist in the survey results, which is often the case in this type of study, largely due to non-respondents (i.e., 68% for this study) (Horneman et al. 2002). Practitioners of wildlife feeding or pro-feeding people may be more willing to respond to the survey because of their interest, while non-practitioners who are not interested in wildlife 16

7 Attitudes to bird feeding in Queensland Fig. 7. Reasons for regarding the effects of feeding on birds Positive (top), None (middle) or Negative (bottom) (valid responses): multiple answers permitted. feeding may not have been motivated to return the survey. In this case, there is a possibility that the survey results are biased toward wildlife feeders. Conversely, some feeders may not have responded to the survey knowing that relevant agencies discourage wildlife feeding or because of the widespread controversy over the act of wildlife feeding. The response rate that we obtained here admits the possibility of non-response bias, but it is not an unusually low response rate (e.g., 27% in a questionnaire study by Pedersen et al. (2006) on attitudes towards Indigenous Australians). It is in any case generally held that surveys using self-completed questionnaires are not highly biased (Robson 2002). The survey results confirmed the household popularity of this activity both in suburban and rural environments. The present study also showed that bird feeding is a common activity (one in two households in both urban and rural environment have the experience), sustainable (most people who started feeding 17

8 G. ISHIGAME and G. S. BAXTER have continued) and intense (most households feed more than a few days a week). It also involves a wide range of bird species with in total 43 species reported. The number of fed species is more than twice the number reported by Rollinson et al. (2003). This may be due to the diverse environment the present study covered, with households in coastal, mountain foothill and inner suburbs, and rural areas, studied. This suggestion may be supported by the fact that the average number per unit was 24, similar to the figure of Rollinson et al. (2003). Another aspect of backyard feeding that we found is its casually conducted manner in that households spend less than AU$5 a week. Howard and Jones (2004) reported in their survey study that targeted residents in southeast Queensland that wildlife feeders spent on average AU$466 annually (approximately AU$9 per week) to purchase food for feeding, adding that the figure was skewed by a small number of respondents who reported spending a much larger amount of money. These figures therefore are even closer than they look. 2) Motivations and view of feeders Wildlife interaction-related reasons (e.g., attract birds, get closer to birds) and charity-inspired motivations (e.g., provide birds with more food, rescue birds) comprised most of the answers expressed by feeders for starting to feed birds in their backyard. The most common reason for not feeding birds was birds welfare-oriented, well exceeding the lack of interest option. This indicates that non-feeders are not necessarily detached from wildlife and related issues and many of them are actively not doing the act. Most feeders regard the effects of bird feeding either positive or none. What is characteristic about feeders perceptions, either positive, negative or none, is that most of them are subjective opinions that lack a concrete basis. As reflected by one of the common answers unaware of any changes in birds health or behaviours on which some feeders base their opinions, the effects of wildlife feeding are difficult, if possible, to assess. There were few households in the survey who presented examples of the biological and behavioural effects they observed. Additionally, the most frequent answer to the question on the sources of information on the effects of bird feeding (not included in this report) was nowhere, which confirmed the concerns that without information based on scientific studies feeders will likely to continue depending on ambiguous information on the biological effects of bird feeding derived from their own experiences and other sources if any. 3) Geographical trends Interestingly, there were no distinctive differences observed in terms of rural vs. urban households; however, more non-feeding households in RU said they do not feed birds because they were not interested although the difference was not statistically insignificant. One possible explanation for this is that more households in rural areas take wild birds (and wildlife in general) for granted and find them less special compared with their urban counterparts. There may also be difference between urban and rural dwellers in the role that pure interest and psychological need that play in taking up wildlife feeding. It may also be that urban dwellers have more disposable income and discretionary time to devote to the practice. Also, few geographic differences were found among the three categories in the urban area. 4) Conclusions Our survey did not have a replicate rural location, but our results clearly showed that backyard bird feeding is equally practiced in suburban environments and the rural environment that we examined. If the rural result is representative of all rural settings then our survey suggests that backyard feeding is one of the common ways for Australian households to interact with wild birds. With realistic data that confirms that backyard feeding is popular throughout the nation, concerns for the possible effects on recipient animals may be valid, considering the frequency and sustainability of the activity and the widespread use of artificial food confirmed in this study and others (Rollinson et al. 2003; Howard & Jones 2004). Despite much literature (Boutin 1990) that indicates clearly that food addition by humans almost always affects many aspects of the population ecology of the recipient animals, research aimed at identifying biological effects of wildlife feeding has only just emerged in Australia; O Leary and Jones (2006) reported that Australian Magpies extensively used suburban feeders and fed magpies started breeding activities significantly earlier than unfed ones, although the fed birds did not depend on artificial food in feeding their chicks, and Ishigame et al. (2006) reported that the blood chemistry of free-ranging Australian Magpies, particularly plasma cholesterol, were readily influenced by the daily provision of artificial food. Further research in this area would 18

9 Attitudes to bird feeding in Queensland undoubtedly be useful for relevant agencies in countries where this activity is prevalent, including Japan, to develop more objective and effective policies and guidelines in relation to this complicated and rather controversial activity. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Ms. Sonya Fardell for distributing questionnaires to households and Ms. Patricia O Hara for entering most of the data. Mr. Allan Lisle provided statistical advice during the data-analysis stage. Ms. Anne Russell helped convert some of the survey data for analysis. We also thank Mr. Toru Ikeda of Hokkaido University for his feedbacks on the survey design. The NRSM Research Committee provided ethical clearance to use the survey questionnaire. REFERENCES Anderson T, Bitossi K, Berghammer L, Cahill D, Denning D, Lanham S, Lowe C, Muller A & Pinwell S (1997) Wildlife feeding: Is it a problem? Case Study Report. Univ Queensland Gatton College, Lawes. Boutin S (1990) Food supplementation experiments with terrestrial vertebrates: patterns, problems, and the future. Can J Zool 68: British Trust for Ornithology (2003) Garden birdwatch: feeding garden birds. Available at gbw/birds_feed. Brittingham MC (1991) Effect of winter feeding on wild birds. In: Adams LW & Leedy DL (eds) Wildlife conservation in metropolitan environments. pp National Institute for Urban Wildlife, Columbia. Brittingham MC & Temple SA (1988) Avian disease and winter bird feeding. Pass Pigeon 50: Burger E (1997) Wildlife feeding report. Industrial Placement Report. Univ Queensland Gatton College, Lawes. Cannon A (1999) The significance of private gardens for bird conservation. Bird Conservation International 9: Cannon A (2000) Garden birdwatch handbook. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford. Cowie RJ & Hinsley SA (1987) Breeding success of blue tits and great tits in suburban gardens. Ardea 75: Cowie RJ & Hinsley SA (1988) Feeding ecology of great tits (Parus major) and blue tits (Parus caeruleus), breeding in suburban gardens. J Anim Ecol 57: Deis R (1986) Is bird feeding a no-no? Defenders 54: Green RJ & Higginbottom K (2000) The effects of non-consumptive wildlife tourism on free-ranging wildlife: a review. Pac Cons Biol 6: Horneman LN, Beeton RJS. & Hockings M (2002) Monitoring visitors to natural areas: a manual with standard methodological guidelines. Univ Queensland Gatton College, Lawes. Howard P & Jones DN (2004) The meaning of feeding: a qualitative study of practices and reasons for feeding wildlife in urban South-East Queensland. In: Burgin SK & Lunney D (eds) Urban wildlife: more than meets the eye. pp Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney. Hunter J (2001) Urban antics: To feed or not to feed? Landscape 17: 54. Ishigame G, Baxter GS & Lisle AT (2006) Effects of artificial foods on the blood chemistry of the Australian Magpie. Aust Ecol 31: Jones DN & Howard P (2001) Feeding wildlife in urban areas: An indecent obsession? Wildl Aust 38: Mallick SA & Driessen MM (2003) Feeding of wildlife: How effective are the keep wildlife wild signs in Tasmania s national parks? Ecol Man Rest 4: McLees B (2001) Feeding wildlife right or wrong? Community attitudes toward wildlife feeding in Melbourne Australia, and implications for management, Honours thesis, School of Ecology and Environment, Deakin Univ, Melbourne. O Leary R & Jones DN (2006) The use of supplementary foods by Australian Magpies Gymnorhina tibicen: Implications for wildlife feeding in suburban environments. Aust Ecol 31: Orams MB (2002) Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: a review of issues and impacts. Tour Manage 23: Pedersen A, Dudgeon P, Watt S & Griffiths B (2006) Attitudes toward indigenous Australians: the issue of special treatment. Australian Psychologist 41: Platt S (1995) Encountering wildlife without feeding, land for wildlife note No. 35. November Land for Wildlife, Melbourne. Robson C (2002) Real world research. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Rollinson DJ, O Leary R & Jones DN (2003) The practice of wildlife feeding in suburban Brisbane. Corella 27: Royal Society for Protection of Birds (2002) The birds in your garden. RSPB, Sandy. Thomas L (2000) Wildlife and humans in a suburban setting: new approaches to the management of positive and negative interactions, PhD thesis, Australian School of Environmental Studies, Griffith Univ, Brisbane. 19