Exploring the relevance of the multidimensionality of wildlife recreationists to conservation behaviors: A case study in Virginia

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.

The Relationship between Wildlife Recreationists' Familiarity with State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Recreation Identity, and Future Financial Contributions

“…Both respondents and nonrespondents were primarily male, white, and non‐Hispanic and had a moderate to low level of familiarity with the Virginia DWR (familiarity ~2.2 on a scale of 1 to 5; Grooms et al. 2020). Compared to respondents, nonrespondents were slightly older (average age = 63.8 years [nonrespondents] versus 59.2 years [respondents]; t 1,007 = −2.9, P = 0.003, Cohen's d = −0.3), and a smaller percentage reported annually earning at least $125,000 per year (= 0.1, N = 934, P = 0.013, Ф [effect size] = 0.1) or having a bachelor's degree or higher education attainment.…”

“…2019), our respondents had sociodemographics similar to those of Virginia's population (Grooms et al. 2020) and Virginia wildlife recreationists (Rockville Institute 2020). However, nonrespondents notably identified more, on average, as anglers, which may be an artifact of the survey's wildlife viewing focus not immediately appealing to their interests.…”

“…Future research could also examine the strategies that agencies can use to enhance the usage of WMAs among recreationists beyond consumptive recreationists, such as building awareness of where to access WMA lands and when and how to do so safely (Grooms et al. 2020).…”

“…Anecdotal evidence suggests that nonconsumptive recreationists are less familiar with agencies and agency services than consumptive recreationists (Watkins 2000;Decker et al 2015;AFWA and WMI 2019), likely because consumptive recreationists are required to purchase agency licenses and permits to participate in their activities, whereas nonconsumptive recreationists are not. Recent research also suggests that nonconsumptive recreationists may not perceive agencies as prioritizing or supporting their recreation activities (Grooms 2021). Additionally, few studies have empirically investigated the extent to which current funding mechanisms available to wildlife recreationists are attractive to nonconsumptive recreationists.…”

Birds are not the only ones impacted by guidance to cease bird feeding

“…Promisingly, people who feed birds are willing to mitigate potential negative effects of feeding through feeder cleaning and other management actions (Dayer et al., 2019). More broadly, bird feeding may have positive effects on conservation action, as previous research shows a strong connection between wildlife viewing and conservation behaviours such as habitat management (Cooper et al., 2015; Grooms et al., 2023; Sinkular et al., 2022). Banning feeding may therefore disrupt the opportunity for positive bird‐friendly actions and therefore could ultimately negatively affect wildlife.…”