Participant emotion in a knowledge gap: managing native and non-native songbirds in a residential landscape

Ordinary people make management decisions for songbirds across the United States. Citizen science has the potential to coordinate such public stewardship and “backyard” management for a positive cumulative impact. There is... [ view full abstract ]

Ordinary people make management decisions for songbirds across the United States. Citizen science has the potential to coordinate such public stewardship and “backyard” management for a positive cumulative impact. There is scarcity of research, both ecological and social, to guide the design of participatory adaptive management of songbirds by land-owners. We focused on a study system involving bluebird and house sparrow management. Bluebirds are a native species for which people provide nestboxes. House sparrows are a non-native species that competes with native songbirds for nestboxes and that people try to limit. Given insufficient data to directly assess the efficacy of management options, and the reliance of citizen science participation to fill the data gap, we created The House Sparrow Project to begin to assess the decision-making process of citizen scientists. Using pre- and post-surveys and observations of participant engagement in the project, we investigated two questions: (1) What are the primary factors influencing the choice of management actions? (2) Does citizen science participation alter the balance of science-based and emotion-based drivers of management actions? We found that personal experience and emotions matter tremendously in this system. In pre-survey, the best predictors of management orientations were (a) firsthand experience with house sparrow damage and (b) emotional dispositions towards house sparrows. Lethal management (killing adult sparrows) was perceived as having the highest efficacy, but also the most controversial. Non-lethal management (removing nests) was perceived as more acceptable than no intentional management. Comparing pre- and post-surveys, participants who engaged in the project at high levels (submitted data) showed a decrease in support for experience-based management and stable support for science-based management. Participants who engaged at low and moderate levels did not change their views about science versus experience in decision-making.