Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 345–363 | Cite as

The culture of bird conservation: Australian stakeholder values regarding iconic, flagship and rare birds

  • Gillian B. AinsworthEmail author
  • James A. Fitzsimons
  • Michael A. Weston
  • Stephen T. Garnett
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity appreciation and engagement


Iconic, flagship and rare threatened bird taxa attract disproportionate amounts of public attention, and are often used to enable broader conservation strategies. Yet, little is known about why certain taxa achieve iconic or flagship status. Also unclear is whether the perception of rarity among those acting to conserve threatened birds is sufficient to influence attitudes and behaviour that lead to effective conservation action and, if so, which characteristics of rare birds are important to their conservation. We interviewed 74 threatened bird conservation stakeholders to explore perceptions about iconic, flagship and rare threatened birds and classified their attitudes using a new typology of avifaunal attitudes. There was a relationship between societal interest and conservation effort for threatened species characterised as iconic, flagship and rare. Iconic species tended to arouse interest or emotion in people due to being appealing and readily encountered, thereby attracting conservation interest that can benefit other biodiversity. Flagships tended to have distinguishing physical or cultural characteristics and were used to convey conservation messages about associated biodiversity. Attitudes about rarity mostly related to a taxon’s threatened status and small population size. Rarity was important for threatened bird conservation but not always associated with attitudes and behaviour that lead to effective conservation action. We conclude that conservation action for individual threatened bird taxa is biased and directly influenced by the ways taxa are socially constructed by stakeholders, which is specific to prevailing culture and stakeholder knowledge.


Knowledge Preference Prioritisation Socio-ecological Attitude 



The authors thank all of the informants and other correspondents, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their improvements to this article, and G. Ehmke (BirdLife Australia) and Tim Schinkel for help with Fig. 1. G.B.A. was supported by a Commonwealth Government Australian Postgraduate Award scholarship and Charles Darwin University’s Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods.

Supplementary material

10531_2017_1438_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)
10531_2017_1438_MOESM2_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 28 kb)


  1. Ainsworth GB (2014) Valuing birds: understanding the relationship between social values and the conservation of Australian threatened avifauna. PhD thesis, Charles Darwin UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth GB, Aslin HJ, Weston MA, Garnett ST (2016a) Do social values influence levels of conservation effort in threatened species? The case of two Australian chats. Oryx 50:636–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth GB, Aslin HJ, Weston MA, Garnett ST (2016b) Social values and species conservation: the case of Baudin’s and Carnaby’s black-cockatoos. Environ Conserv 43:294–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allchin R, Kirkpatrick J, Kriwoken L (2013) On not protecting the parrot: impact of conservation and planning legislation on an endangered species in Tasmania. J Int Wildl Law Policy 16:81–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin S, Douglas T (2008) Wielangta and the forest wars. Green Left. Accessed 14 Feb 2013
  6. Australian Government (2015) Threatened species strategy. Department of the Environment and Energy, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  7. Barua M, Root-Bernstein M, Ladle R, Jepson P (2011) Defining flagship uses is critical for flagship selection: a critique of the IUCN climate change flagship fleet. AMBIO 40:431–435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Birds Australia (2003) Carnaby's Black-cockatoo future directions symposium: proceedings from a conservation symposium. Carnaby's Black-cockatoo future directions symposium, Perth, Australia, Birds AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  9. BirdLife Australia (2016) South-west black-cockatoo recovery program. BirdLife Australia. Accessed 23 Aug 2016
  10. Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, Bode M, Cook C, Game ET, Grantham H, Kark S, Linke S, McDonald-Madden E, Pressey RL, Walker S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (2008) Is conservation triage just smart decision making? TREE 23:649–654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowen-Jones E, Entwistle A (2002) Identifying appropriate flagship species: the importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breckheimer I, Haddad NM, Morris WF, Trainor AM, Fields WR, Jobe RT, Hudgens BR, Moody A, Walters JR (2014) Defining and evaluating the umbrella species concept for conserving and restoring landscape connectivity. Conserv Biol 28:1584–1593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Caro T, Engilis A, Fitzherbert E, Gardner T (2004) Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Anim Conserv 7:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapman T (2008) Forest black cockatoo (Baudin’s cockatoo Calyptorhynchus baudinii and forest red-tailed black cockatoo Calyptorhynchus banksii naso) recovery plan 2007–2016. Department of Environment and Conservation, PerthGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiweshe N (2007) Black eagles and hyraxes—the two flagship species in the conservation of wildlife in the Matobo Hills, Zimbabwe. Ostrich 78:381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dallimer M, Melo M, Collar NJ, Jones PJ (2010) The Príncipe thrush Turdus xanthorhynchus: a newly split, ‘Critically Endangered’, forest flagship species. Bird Conserv Int 20:375–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Damodaran A (2007) The project tiger crisis in India: moving away from the policy and economics of selectivity. Environ Values 16:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2016) Back on Track species prioritisation framework criteria. Queensland Government. Accessed 15 June 2016
  19. Department of Environment and Resource Management [DERM] (2010) Building nature’s resilience. A draft biodiversity strategy for Queensland. Department of Environment and Resource Management, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  20. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):335–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Difficult Bird Research Group (2017) Difficult Bird Research Group. Accessed 19 Aug 2017
  22. DSEWPaC (2013a) Epthianura crocea tunneyi in Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, Australia. Accessed 1 Mar 2013
  23. DSEWPaC (2013b) Epthianura crocea macgregori in Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Accessed 1 Mar 2013
  24. DSEWPaC (2013c) Neophema chrysogaster in Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, Australia. Accessed 31 Jan 2013
  25. DSEWPaC (2013d) Lathamus discolor in Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, Australia. Accessed 30 Jan 2013
  26. Department of the Environment (2014a) Calyptorhynchus baudinii — Baudin's Black-Cockatoo, Long-billed Black-Cockatoo Australian Government, Canberra, Australia. Accessed 26 Sept 2014
  27. Department of the Environment (2014b) Calyptorhynchus latirostris — Carnaby's Black-Cockatoo, Short-billed Black-Cockatoo. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia. Accessed 26 Sept 2014
  28. Ehmke G, Tzaros C, Menkhorst P, Holdsworth M (2008) Trumped up corella indeed! The orange-bellied parrot should be a conservation ambassador not a political football. Wingspan 18(3):18–24Google Scholar
  29. Ehmke G, Fitzsimons JA, Garnett ST (2017) Standardising English names for Australian bird subspecies as a conservation tool. Bird Conserv Int. doi: 10.1017/S0959270916000538 Google Scholar
  30. Entwistle A (2000) Flagships for the future? Oryx 34:239–240Google Scholar
  31. Garnett ST, Ainsworth GB, Zander KK (In revision) Are we choosing the right flagships? An assessment of the birds Australians find most attractive. Hum Dimen WildlGoogle Scholar
  32. Garnett ST, Crowley GM, Balmford A (2003) The costs and effectiveness of funding the conservation of Australian threatened birds. Bioscience 53:658–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Garnett ST, Szabo J, Dutson G (2011) The action plan for Australian birds 2010. CSIRO Publishing, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  34. Garnett ST, Zander KK, Hagerman S, Satterfield TA, Meyerhoff J (2017a) Social preferences for adaptation measures to conserve Australian birds threatened by climate change. Oryx 1–11. doi: 10.1017/S0030605316001058 Google Scholar
  35. Garnett ST, Woinarski J, Lindenmayer D, Latch P (eds) (2017b) Recovering Australian threatened species: a book of hope. CSIRO Publishing, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  36. Global Tiger Initiative (2016) Who we are. Global tiger initiative. Accessed 01 Sept 2016
  37. Hausmann A, Slotow R, Fraser I, Di Minin E (2016) Ecotourism marketing alternative to charismatic megafauna can also support biodiversity conservation. Anim Conserv. doi: 10.1111/acv.12292 Google Scholar
  38. Head BW (2007) Community engagement: participation on whose terms? Aust J Polit Sci 42:441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Heneberg P (2012) Flagship bird species habitat management supports the presence of ground-nesting aculeate hymenopterans. J Insect Conserv 16:899–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heywood VH (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Holmes TQ, Head BW, Possingham HP, Garnett ST (2017) Strengths and vulnerabilities of Australian networks for conservation of threatened birds. Oryx. doi: 10.1017/S0030605316000454 Google Scholar
  42. Home R, Keller C, Nagel P, Bauer N, Hunziker M (2009) Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations. Environ Conserv 36:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Houston W, Black RL, Elder RJ (2013) Distribution and habitat of the critically endangered Capricorn yellow chat Epthianura crocea macgregori. Pac Conserv Biol 19:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hull V, Liu J (2016) A global icon for nature in the human-dominated world. In: Liu J, Hull V, Yang W, Viña A, Chen X, Ouyang Z, Zhang H (eds) Pandas and people. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johnstone RE, Kirkby T (2008) Distribution, status, social organisation, movements and conservation of Baudin's Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus baudinii) in South-west Western Australia. Rec West Aust Mus 25(1):107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnstone K, Miller KK, Antos MJ (2015) Grassland conservation and the plains-wanderer: a small brown bird makes an effective local flagship. Conserv Soc 13:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Joseph LN, Maloney RF, Possingham HP (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conserv Biol 23:328–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kyne PM, Jackson MV (2016) Status of the endangered yellow chat Epthianura crocea tunneyi on the western South Alligator River floodplain, Kakadu National Park. Aust Field Ornithol 33:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv Biol 11:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Landres PB, Verner J, Thomas JW (1988) Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. Conserv Biol 2:316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lawson J, Miller K, Weston M, Ehmke G (2010) Conservation of orange-bellied parrot habitat: a study of landholder views of wetlands and birds, and their management, on the Bellarine Peninsula, Victoria 2009 Melbourne. Birds Australia and Deakin University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  52. Lorimer J (2006) Nonhuman charisma: which species trigger our emotions and why? Ecos 1(27):20–27Google Scholar
  53. Marks K (2012) Australian developers see red as rare bird foils plans. Abu Dhabi Media. Accessed 01 Oct 2016
  54. Martin T, Nally S, Burbidge AA, Arnall S, Garnett ST, Hayward MW, Lumsden LF, Menkhorst P, McDonald-Madden E (2012) Acting fast helps avoid extinction. Conserv Lett 5:274–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martín-López B, Montes C, Ramirez L, Benayas J (2009) What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biol Conserv 142:1370–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mynott J (2009) Birdscapes: birds in our imagination and experience. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  57. Niemi GJ, Hanowski JM, Lima AR, Nicholls T, Weiland N (1997) A critical analysis on the use of indicator species in management. J Wildl Manag 61:1240–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Noble I (2010) From iconic species to iconic case studies. The World Bank Group. Accessed 23 Aug 2016
  59. OBPRT (2006a) National recovery plan for the orange-bellied parrot (Neophema chrysogaster). Department of Primary Industries and Water, HobartGoogle Scholar
  60. OBPRT (2006b) Background and implementation information for the orange-bellied parrot recovery plan. Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW), HobartGoogle Scholar
  61. Paine R (1969) A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am Nat 103:91–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  63. Possingham H (2001) The business of biodiversity: applying decision theory principles to nature conservation. Australian Conservation Foundation, Earthwatch Institute, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  64. Pritt JJ, Frimpong EA (2010) Quantitative determination of rarity of freshwater fishes and implications for imperilled-species designations. Conserv Biol 24:1249–1258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Roberge J-M, Angelstam PER (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol 18:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sandbrook C, Scales IR, Vira B, Adams WM (2011) Value plurality among conservation professionals. Conserv Biol 25:285–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Seddon PJ, Soorae PS, Launay F (2005) Taxonomic bias in reintroduction projects. Anim Conserv 8:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Small E (2012) The new Noah’s Ark: beautiful and useful species only. Part 2. The chosen species. Biodiversity 13:37–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stake RE (2006) Multiple case study analysis. The Guildford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. Tisdell C, Wilson C, Swarna Nantha H (2006) Public choice of species for the ‘Ark’: phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival. J Nat Conserv 14:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trimble MJ, Van Aarde RJ (2010) Species inequality in scientific study. Conserv Biol 24:886–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Tzaros C, Ingwersen D (2011) Update on swift parrot and regent honeyeater surveys in 2011. BirdLife Australia, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  73. Tzaros C, Ingwersen D (2012) Swift parrot and regent honeyeater survey update—July 2012. BirdLife Australia, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  74. Veríssimo D (2007) What makes a flagship species? A case study on the birds of Seychelles. MSc, University of KentGoogle Scholar
  75. Veríssimo D, Fraser I, Groombridge J, Bristol R, MacMillan DC (2009) Birds as tourism flagship species: a case study of tropical islands. Anim Conserv 12:549–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Veríssimo D, Pongiluppi T, Santos MCM, Develey PF, Fraser I Smith RJ, Macmilan DC (2014) Using a systematic approach to select flagship species for bird conservation. Conserv Biol 28:269–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Walpole MJ, Leader-Williams N (2002) Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodiv Conserv 11:543–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Watson JE, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:67–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Weston MA (2006) Are we neglecting the non-migratory shorebirds of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway? Stilt 50:215–223Google Scholar
  80. Weston M, Miller K, Lawson J, Ehmke GC (2012) Hope for resurrecting a functionally extinct parrot or squandered social capital? Landholder attitudes towards the orange-bellied parrot (Neophema chrysogaster) in Victoria, Australia. Conserv Soc 10:381–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wilson C, Tisdell C (2005) Knowledge of birds and willingness to support their conservation: an Australian case study. Bird Conserv Int 15:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilson JRU, Procheş Ş, Braschler B, Dixon ES, Richardson DM (2007) The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Front Ecol Environ 5:409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. WWF-Australia (2008) Proceedings of the Carnaby’s black-cockatoo symposium. WWF-Australia, Birds Australia Western Australia Inc, Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation, KensingtonGoogle Scholar
  84. Yarwood MR, Weston MA, Garnett ST (2014) From little things, big things grow; trends and fads in 110 years of Australian ornithology. Scientometrics 98:2235–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  86. Zander KK, Ainsworth GB, Meyerhoff J, Garnett ST (2014) Threatened bird valuation in Australia. PLoS ONE 9:e100411CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute for the Environment and LivelihoodsCharles Darwin UniversityDarwinAustralia
  2. 2.Coastal Seas Ecology GroupCentre for Ecology and HydrologyPenicuikUK
  3. 3.The Nature ConservancyCarltonAustralia
  4. 4.School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  5. 5.Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations