Recreation specialization is a framework that can be used to explain the variation among outdoor recreationists' preferences, attitudes, and behaviors. Recreation specialization has been operationalized using several approaches, including summative indices, cluster analysis, and self-classification categorical measures. Although these approaches measure the multiple dimensions of the framework, they may not reflect the relative contribution of the dimensions to individuals' degree of engagement. We illustrate an approach that uses secondorder confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) factor scores as weights to determine a person's degree of recreation specialization and compares the CFA-based results to those derived from cluster analysis. This approach permits the use of a broader set of statistical tests when compared to categorical specialization measures and provides information about the distribution of responses. Data were collected from an online survey of eBird registrants from the United States.

Contributory citizen science projects (hereafter “contributory projects”) are a powerful tool for avian conservation science. Large-scale projects such as eBird have produced data that have advanced science and contributed to many conservation applications. These projects also provide a means to engage the public in scientific data collection. A common challenge across contributory projects like eBird is to maintain participation, as some volunteers contribute just a few times before disengaging. To maximize contributions and manage an effective program that has broad appeal, it is useful to better understand factors that influence contribution rates. For projects capitalizing on recreation activities (e.g., birding), differences in contribution levels might be explained by the recreation specialization framework, which describes how recreationists vary in skill, behavior, and motives. We paired data from a survey of birders across the United States and Canada with data on their eBird contributions (n = 28,926) to test whether those who contributed most are more specialized birders. We assigned participants to 4 contribution groups based on eBird checklist submissions and compared groups’ specialization levels and motivations. More active contribution groups had higher specialization, yet some specialized birders were not active participants. The most distinguishing feature among groups was the behavioral dimension of specialization, with active eBird participants owning specialized equipment and taking frequent trips away from home to bird. Active participants had the strongest achievement motivations for birding (e.g., keeping a life list), whereas all groups had strong appreciation motivations (e.g., enjoying the sights and sounds of birding). Using recreation specialization to characterize eBird participants can help explain why some do not regularly contribute data. Project managers may be able to promote participation, particularly by those who are specialized but not contributing, by appealing to a broader suite of motivations that includes both appreciation and achievement motivations, and thereby increase data for conservation.

No abstract

Wildlife recreationists' participation in conservation behaviors could provide key support to the conservation efforts of state fish and wildlife agencies. However, little is known about how identifying with multiple forms of wildlife recreation (i.e., hunters, anglers, birders, wildlife viewers) may influence participation in conservation behaviors, specifically for supporting state fish and wildlife agencies and their conservation goals. Using a mixed‐mode survey of Virginia wildlife recreationists, we explored the hypothesized relationship between individuals' participation in conservation behaviors and their identification with multiple forms of consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation. We found wildlife recreation identity is multidimensional, with many individuals identifying with consumptive and nonconsumptive identities simultaneously. Further, consumptive‐only recreationists (i.e., hunters and/or anglers) participated in conservation behaviors less often than nonconsumptive‐only recreationists (i.e., birders and/or wildlife viewers) and recreationists with both consumptive and nonconsumptive identities were less likely to support a state fish and wildlife agency in the future. Our findings underscore the importance of all types of wildlife recreationists, especially those with intersecting identities, as state fish and wildlife agencies work to advance conservation. Hence, developing multi‐faceted engagement strategies may enhance support for state fish and wildlife agencies among their growing wildlife recreation constituency.

North American fish and wildlife management has long been supported by the financial contributions of anglers and hunters to state fish and wildlife agencies; however, stagnation in angling participation and declines in hunting participation threaten the stability of this user‐pay support system. While engaging recreationists beyond those with consumptive interests may assist in addressing limitations of the current user‐pay benefit approach, anecdotal evidence suggests differences in recreationists' familiarity with agencies, and perceived benefits of financial contributions may dissuade certain wildlife recreationists from providing agency support. Using focus groups (n = 83) and a survey (n = 1,016) of Virginia residents, we explored how recreationists' familiarity with an agency differed among three categories of wildlife recreationists (i.e., recreation groups)—consumptive (anglers and hunters), nonconsumptive (birders and other wildlife viewers), and multi‐recreationists (those who participate in both consumptive and nonconsumptive activities)—relative to non‐wildlife recreationists (those who do not participate in fish and wildlife recreation). We further examined whether familiarity with an agency and recreation group influenced the future likelihood of financial contributions across voluntary (not required for access or use of natural resources) and user‐pay (required for access or use of natural resources) funding mechanisms. We found that consumptive recreationists and multi‐recreationists had greater familiarity with the agency than nonconsumptive recreationists. Approximately 40% of nonconsumptive recreationists were likely to support the agency through either user‐pay or voluntary mechanisms, while approximately 80% of consumptive recreationists preferred user‐pay mechanisms. Further, all recreationists expected tangible outcomes from their contributions and transparency about how their contributions would benefit their activities (e.g., newsletters detailing angling access funded by their support). We recommend that agencies build familiarity among wildlife recreationists, especially within their nonconsumptive constituency, and demonstrate how current funding mechanisms benefit and are derived from multiple recreation groups.