Household Factors Influencing Participation in Bird Feeding Activity: A National Scale Analysis

Abstract

Ameliorating pressures on the ecological condition of the wider landscape outside of protected areas is a key focus of conservation initiatives in the developed world. In highly urbanized nations, domestic gardens can play a significant role in maintaining biodiversity and facilitating human-wildlife interactions, which benefit personal and societal health and well-being. The extent to which sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors are associated with engagement in wildlife gardening activities remain largely unresolved. Using two household-level survey datasets gathered from across Britain, we determine whether and how the socioeconomic background of a household influences participation in food provision for wild birds, the most popular and widespread form of human-wildlife interaction. A majority of households feed birds (64% across rural and urban areas in England, and 53% within five British study cities). House type, household size and the age of the head of the household were all important predictors of bird feeding, whereas gross annual household income, the occupation of the head of the household, and whether the house is owned or rented were not. In both surveys, the prevalence of bird feeding rose as house type became more detached and as the age of the head of the household increased. A clear, consistent pattern between households of varying size was less evident. When regularity of food provision was examined in the study cities, just 29% of households provided food at least once a week. The proportion of households regularly feeding birds was positively related to the age of the head of the household, but declined with gross annual income. As concerns grow about the lack of engagement between people and the natural environment, such findings are important if conservation organizations are successfully to promote public participation in wildlife gardening specifically and environmentally beneficial behaviour in society more generally.

Garden Bird Feeding: Insights and Prospects from a North-South Comparison of This Global Urban Phenomenon

“…For example, Lepczyk et al (2004) found almost twice as many feeders in suburban as in rural areas of Michigan in the US. In the UK, Davies et al (2012) attempted to discern patterns of participation in feeding at a national scale and found considerable variation, although the prevalence increased with the more detached house types and participant age. In a more detailed investigation within the city of Sheffield in the UK, Fuller et al (2008) found a clear negative relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and the proportion of households participating in feeding.…”

“…This pastime is increasingly becoming the subject of scientific and societal scrutiny (Jones and Reynolds, 2008;Robb et al, 2008a). Bird feeding is variously advocated as an essential conservation activity, a simple way for people to connect with nature in an urbanizing world, and a means for enhancing environmental awareness and psychological wellbeing (Schoech et al, 2008;Davies et al, 2012;Cox and Gaston, 2016). However, it has also been implicated in the spread of catastrophic avian diseases (e.g., Dhondt et al, 2007;Robinson et al, 2010), altering ecosystem structure (Galbraith et al, 2015), benefiting invasive species (Galbraith et al, 2015), changing predator-prey dynamics (Malpass et al, 2017), and even contributing to rapid evolutionary change (Bearhop et al, 2005).…”

Full Issue

“…Second, are residents' perceptions of biodiversity related to the actual bird diversity in their neighborhoods? Recent studies in Europe have suggested that urban residents are unaware of the biodiversity around them (Dallimer et al 2012, Shwartz et al 2014, which supports the ''extinction of experience'' hypothesis with regard to city dwellers and their relationships with nature (Pyle 2003, Miller 2005. Third, are residents' perceptions of the benefits and annoyances of birds influenced by the characteristics of local bird communities or by characteristics of the residents themselves?…”

“…Our findings join a growing body of research in suggesting that people link cultural services with their perceptions of biodiversity rather than with actual biodiversity. For example, Dallimer et al (2012) found that psychological well-being of visitors to urban parks was more strongly influenced by the perception of biodiversity than by the actual biodiversity observed during ecological surveys. Likewise, Shwartz et al (2014) found that people related their well-being to species diversity in public gardens, but they did not actually notice species richness in those gardens, even when it was experimentally enhanced.…”

“…Cities are precisely where ecosystem services, including those in the ''cultural'' category, are especially relevant because they can enhance the health and quality-of-life of large populations of people. Intriguing studies in urban ecosystems have recently suggested a link between bird richness (either real or perceived) and benefits like psychological well-being and neighborhood satisfaction (Fuller et al 2007, Luck et al 2011, Dallimer et al 2012, Shwartz et al 2014. Despite their importance, the ecosystem services provided in urban areas remain relatively unexplored, especially those related to urban birds.…”