Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Information needed for coastal management: perceptions of research and protection of shorebirds on a coastal beach are influenced by visitor type, age and gender

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Protection of shorebirds along coasts where they congregate during migration is an important conservation goal, yet little is known about the reasons that attract people to beaches. Data on perceptions can be used to develop and implement educational and conservation programs, enhancing both visitor experiences and shorebird survival. Urbanization is encroaching on many beaches and estuaries that are necessary stopover sites for migrant birds. This study examines perceptions of visitors at 9 Delaware Bay beaches during the critical northward shorebird migration using semi-structured interviews (N = 279). We test three hypotheses that: (1) visitors come to Delaware Bay beaches mainly to see the shorebirds (including red knots, Calidris canutus rufa) and the crabs whose eggs sustain the shorebirds, (2) there are no age differences in reasons participants come to the beach and (3) there are no differences in visitation rates as a function of visitor type. Only 60% of visitors came to Delaware Bay primarily to see the shorebirds and crabs, the rest were there for the scenery, tranquility, fishing, or other recreation activities, despite access restrictions. Even when asked what makes the beach attractive, from 17% (people who came to see birds) to 62% (people who came to see crabs) listed tranquility and scenery. Older people rated the importance of research and protection of shorebirds (and crabs) higher than younger people. Over 40% did not want to see any changes to beaches, while 28% wanted to see improvements, and 24% wanted to see more restoration and conservation. Nearly 60% said these beaches would be less attractive if there were more people. These perceptions can aid managers, conservationists and communities improve beaches for both migratory shorebirds and human use by providing data that can be targeted to specific user groups, and to different age groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The original data are available upon request from the senior author (Rutgers University).

References

  • Andres BA, Smith PA, Morrison RG, Gratto-Trevor CL, Brown SC, Population estimates of North American shorebirds (2012) Wader Study Group Bull 119:178–194

  • Antos MJ, Weston MA, Priest B (2006) Factors influencing awareness of community-based shorebird conservation projects in Australia. Appl Environ Educ Commun 5:63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) (1998) Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Horseshoe Crab. ASMFC, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (2009) A Framework for Adaptive Management of Horseshoe Crab Harvest in the Delaware Bay Constrained by Red Knot Conservation. November 2009, 46 pgs

  • Auspurg K, Jackle A (2017) First Equals Most Important? Order Effects in Vignette-Based Measurement. Sociol Methods Res 46:490–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115591016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker AJ, Gonzalez PM, Piersma T, Niles LJ, deLima I, Nascimento S, Atkinson PW, Collins P, Clark N, Minton CDT, Peck MK, Page S (2004) Rapid population decline in red knots: fitness consequences of refuelling rates and late arrival in Delaware Bay. Proceed Royal Soc London 271:875–882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker A, Gonzalez P, Morrison RIG, Harrington BA(2013) Red Knot (Calidris canutus) In The Birds of North America Online Cornell Lab of Ornithology, ed. A. Poole. Ithaca, NY: America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/563. Accessed January 3, 2020

  • Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K (2009) Tourists’ support for conservation messages and sustainable management practice in wildlife tourism experiences. Tour Manage 30:658–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ban NC, Picard CR, Vincent ACJ (2009) Comparing and Integrating Community-Based and Science-Based Approaches to Prioritizing Marine Areas for Protection. Conserv Biol 23:899–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01185.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett NJ (2016) Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 30:582–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beyerl K, Putz O, Breckwoldt A (2016) The Role of Perceptions for Community-Based Marine Resource Management. Front Mar Sci 3:17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnee G, Mathews JP, Pinkham J, Stanfill J (2011) Nez Perce involvement with solving environmental problems: history, perspectives, Treaty rights, and obligations. In: Burger J (ed) Stakeholders and Scientists: achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer, New York, NY, pp 149–184

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd AD, Furgal CM (2019) Communicating environmental health risks with Indigenous populations: A systematic literature review of current research and recommendations for future studies. Health Commun 34:1564–1574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradburn NM (2016) Surveys as Social Interactions. J Surv Stat Methdol 4:94–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smv037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown S, Hickey C, Harrington B, Gill R (eds) (2001) The U.S. shorebird conservation Plan. 2nd edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Manomet, MA, USA

  • Brown SC, Tratto-Trevor R, Porter EL, Weiser D, Mizrahi R, Bentzen M, Boldernow R, Clay S, Freeman M, Ciroux C, Kwon E, Lank DB et al (2017) Migratory connectivity of Semipalmated Sandpipers and implications for conservation. Condor 119:207–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brulle RJ, Pellow DN (2006) Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequities. Annu Rev Public Health 27:103–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (1986) The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in Northeastern United States. Environ Conserv 13:123–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Gochfeld M (2016) Habitat, population dynamics and metal levels in colonial waterbirds: A food chain approach. CRC Press, NY, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Niles L (2013a) Shorebirds and stakeholders: Effects of beach closure and human activities on shorebirds at a New Jersey coastal beach. Urban Ecosys 16:657–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Niles L (2013b) Closure versus voluntary avoidance as a method of protecting migratory shorebirds on beaches in New Jersey. Wader Study Group Bull 120:20–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Niles L (2014) Effects on five species of shorebirds of experimental closure of a beach in New Jersey: implications for severe storms and sea-level rise. J Toxicol Environ Health 77:11102–11113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Niles L (2017) Shorebirds, stakeholders, and competing claims to the beach and intertidal habitat in Delaware Bay, New Jersey, USA. Nat Sci 9:181–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Tsipoura N (2019) Resident status influences perceptions about beach resources, valuation, and restoration. Urban Ecosys 22:785–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Gochfeld M, Pletnikoff K, Snigaroff R, Snigaroff D, Stamm T (2008) Ecocultural attributes: evaluating, ecological degradation in terms of ecological goods and services versus subsistence and tribal values. Risk Anal 28:1261–1271

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cebrian-Piqueras MA, Filyushkina A, Johnson DN et al (2020) Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 35:2549–2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01107-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CL, Teng N (2016) Management priorities and carrying capacity at a high-use beach from tourists’ perspectives: A way towards sustainable beach tourism. Mar Pol 74:213–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhry KZ, Coles R, Qureshi S et al (2015) A review of methodologies used in studies investigating human behaviour as determinant of outcome for exposure to “naturalistic and urban environments. Urban For Urban Green 14:527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell MA (2010) Shorebird ecology, conservation and management. University of California Press, Los Angeles

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad FG, Broome JS, Benki JR et al (2013) Interviewer speech and the success of survey invitations. J R Stat Soc Ser A-Stat Soc 176:191–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01064.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad FG, Schober MF (2021) Clarifying question meaning in standardized interviews can improve data quality even though wording may change: a review of the evidence. Int J Soc Res Methodol 24:203–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1824627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crandall SG, Ohayon JL, de Wit LA et al (2018) Best practices: social research methods to inform biological conservation. Australas J Environ Manag 25:6–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2017.1420499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey AD, Niles LJ, Smith JAM, Siyters HP, Morrison G (2020) Update to the status for the Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) in the Western Hemisphere. NJ Department of Environmental Protection. 17 pgs. Trenton, NJ

  • Drury R, Homewood K, Randall S (2011) Less is more: the potential of qualitative approaches in conservation research. Anim Conserv 14:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00375.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duijins S, Niles LJ, Dey A, Aubry Y, Friis C, Koch S, Anderson A, Smith PA (2017) Body condition explains migratory performance of a long-distance migrant. Proc R Soc B 284:20171374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwell TL, Gelcich S, Gaines SD, Lopez-Carr D (2018) Using people’s perceptions of ecosystem services to guide modeling and management efforts. Sci Total Environ 637:1014–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.052

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2007) Northeast National Estuary Program Coastal Condition. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009) Environmental justice: compliance and environment. Environmental Protection Agency Washington DC

  • Flood JP, McAvoy LH (2007) Voices of my ancestors, their bones talk to me: How to balance US Forest Service rules and regulations with traditional values and culture of American Indians. Res Hum Ecol 14:76–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster NM, Hudson MD, Bray S, Nicholls RJ (2013) Intertidal mudflat and saltmarsh conservation and sustainable use in the UK: a review. J Environ Manage 126:96–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith H, Jones R, Park R, Clough J, Herod-Julius S, Harrington B, Page G (2002) Global climate change and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 25:173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith H, DesRochers DW, Brown S, Reed JM (2014) Predicting vulnerabilities of North American shorebirds to climate change. PloSOne 9:e108899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell GD, Wright DB, Omuircheartaigh C (1995) Context effects in the measurement of attitudes: A comparison of the consistency and framing explanations. Br J Soc Psychol 34:383–393

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gochfeld M, Burger J (2011) Disproportionate exposures in environmental justice and other populations: ouliers matter. Am J Publ Health 1:S53–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goss-Custard JD, Triplet P, Sueur M, West AD (2006) Critical thresholds of disturbance by people and raptors in foraging wading birds. Biol Conser 127:88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadler P (2021) Question Order Effects in Cross-Cultural Web Probing: Pretesting Behavior and Attitude Questions. Soc Sci Comput Rev 39:1292–1312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439321992779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock JL (2001) Gender differences in risk perception: broadening the contexts. Risk: Health Safety Environ 179:179–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc/ch/report/ar5/wg2

  • Koch SL, Paton PWC (2014) Assessing anthropogenic disturbances to develop buffer zones for shorebirds using a stopover site. J Wildl Manage 78:58–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondo MC, Fluehr JM, McKeon T, Branas CC (2018) Urban green space and its impact on human health. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 15:445–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriksciuniene D, Sakalauskas V, Lewandowski R (2019) Evaluating the Interdependent Effect for Likert Scale Items. Springer International Publishing Ag, CHAM, pp 26–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Labib SM, Lindley S, Huck JJ (2020) Spatial dimensions of the influence of urban blue-green spaces on human health: a systematic review. Environ Res 180:10889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagana F, Elcheroth G, Penic S et al (2013) National minorities and their representation in social surveys: which practices make a difference? Qual Quant 47:1287–1314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9591-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieske DJ, Wade T, Roness LA (2014) Climate change awareness and strategies for communicating the risk of coastal flooding: a Canadian maritime case example. Estuar Coastal Shelf Sci 140:83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loubier S, Rinaudo JD, Garin P, Boutet A (2005) Preparing public participation at the catchment level: comparison of three methodologies applied to the Herault river basin. Water Sci Technol 52:33–41. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2005.0422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lucrezi S (2021) Stakeholders’ perceptions of coastal development in relation to marine protected areas. J Coast Conserv 25:18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-021-00834-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin B, Delgado S, de la Cruz A, Tirado S, Ferrer M (2015) Effects of human presence on the long-term trends of migrant and resident shorebirds: evidence of local population declines. Anim Conserv 18:73–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGowan CP, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Lyons JE, Smith DR, Kalasz KK, Niles LJ, Dey A, Clark NJ, Atkinson JPW, Minton CDT, Kendall W (2011) Demographic consequences of migratory stopover: linking red knot survival to horseshoe crab spawning abundance. Ecosphere 2:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Blackman DA, Adams VM et al (2019) Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. Methods Ecol Evol 10:294–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison RIG, Aubrey Y, Butler RW, Beyersbergen GW, Donaldson GM, Gratto-Trevor CL, Hicklin PW, Johnson VH, Ross RK (2001) Declines in North American shorebird populations. Wader Study Group Bull 94:37–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison RIG, Davidson NC, Wilson JR (2007) Survival of the fittest: body stores on migration and survival in Red Knots, Calidris canutus islandica. J Field Ornith 38:479–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Niles LJ, Sitters HP, Dey AD, Atkinson PW, Baker AJ, Bennett KA, Carmona R, Clark KE, Clark NE, Espoz CM, Gonzalez PM, Harrington BA, Hernandez DE, Kalasz KS, Lathrop RG, Matus RM, Minton CDT, Morrison RIG, Peck MK, Pitts W, Robinson RA, Serrano IL (2008) Status of the Red Knot, Calidris canutus rufa, in the Western Hemisphere. Stud Avian Biol 36:1–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Niles LJ, Bart J, Sitters HP, Dey AD, Clark EE, Atkinson PW, Gillings S, Gates AS, Gonzalez PM, Hernandez DE, Minton CDT, Morrison RIG, Porter RR, Ross RD, Veitch R (2009) Effects of horseshoe crab harvest in Delaware Bay on Red Knots: are harvest restrictions working? BioSci 59:153–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schober MF, Conrad FG (1997) Does conversational interviewing reduce survey measurement error? Public Opin Q 61:576–602. https://doi.org/10.1086/297818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheaffer AL, Beaman J, O’Leary JT et al (2000) Weighting issues in recreation research and in identifying support for resource conservation management alternatives. Us Dept Agr, Forest Serv Ne Exptl Stn, RADNOR, pp 183–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS) (2020) Cary, NC

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2014a) Threatened species status for the Rufa red knot. 79 Federal Reg. 238 (2014 December 11):73706–73748

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2014b) Rufa red knot background information and threat assessment. Supplement to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Threatened Status for the Rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa). [Docket No. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pleasantville, New Jersey, USA, FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097; RIN AY17] U

    Google Scholar 

  • Yet M, Manuel P, DeVidi M, MacDonald BH (2022) Learning from Experience: Lessons from Community-based Engagement for Improving Participatory Marine Spatial Planning. Plan Pract Res 37:189–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2021.2017101

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the many people who we interviewed for this study, who provided extensive information on how to improve the experiences of visitors to the Delaware Bay beaches, and how to enhance conservation of both shorebirds and crabs. We particularly thank researchers and volunteers at Delaware Bay for monitoring and conserving shorebirds for decades. This study was partly funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Delaware Bay fund, the American Littoral Society, Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey, the New Jersey Natural Lands Trust, Rutgers Pinelands Field Station, and Rutgers University. The protocol was approved by the Rutgers University Institutional Review Board (E16-123).

Funding

This research was funding by a grant from the American Littoral Society through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and by the Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, 604 Allison Rd, 08854-8082, Piscataway, NJ, USA

    Joanna Burger, Stephanie Feigin & Kelly Ng

  2. Wildlife Restoration Partnerships, 109 Market Lane, 08232, Greenwich, New Jersey, USA

    Larry Niles & Stephanie Feigin

  3. Catonsville, Maryland, USA

    Grace Dillingham

  4. Endangered and NonGame Species Program, NJ department of Environmental Protection, 08625, Trenton, New Jersey, USA

    Amanda Dey

Authors
  1. Joanna Burger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry Niles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Grace Dillingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amanda Dey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephanie Feigin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kelly Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The senior author designed the study and participated in conducting the interviews. Grace Dilingham also conducted interviews.The senior author and Kelly Ng designed and conducted the data analysis. Burger wrote the first draft, and all authors contributed to editing the ms.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Burger.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author consent

All authors have edited and read the ms and consent to its publication.

Ethics approval

No individual identifiers or economic information was obtained from the participants. Appropriate introductory material was provided about the study objectives, the university involvement, that it was voluntary and no personal identifiers were being asked, and how they could obtain information if they so desired. The protocol was approved by the Rutgers University Institutional Review Board (Protocol E16-123).

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burger, J., Niles, L., Dillingham, G. et al. Information needed for coastal management: perceptions of research and protection of shorebirds on a coastal beach are influenced by visitor type, age and gender. Urban Ecosyst 26, 233–248 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01282-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01282-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation