Content uploaded by Gillian B Ainsworth
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gillian B Ainsworth on Oct 24, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Do social values influence levels of conservation
effort in threatened species? The case of two
Australian chats
GILLIAN B. AINSWORTH,HEATHER J. ASLIN
MICHAEL A. WESTON and S TEPHEN T. GARNETT
Abstract This research aims to understand why one of two
almost identical subspecies of the Australian yellow chat
Ephthianura crocea has received significantly higher levels
of local and institutional support than the other despite
both havingthe same conservation status and taxonomic dis-
tinctiveness, factors commonly thought to influence conser-
vation effort. Using a qualitative multiple case study
approach we explored how a range of social factors, including
stakeholder attitudes and institutional, policy and operational
aspects, might have affected conservation efforts for the two
taxa. Our results suggest that the conservation trajectories of
these two subspecies have diverged since their identification
as threatened species in because of differences in the so-
cial landscapes within which they persist. For one subspecies
local advocacy was kindled initially by the small number of
local endemic bird species but developed into a strong emo-
tional engagement, resulting in increased local awareness,
government funding, and effectiveness of conservation ac-
tion. The other subspecies has had to compete for attention
with approximately other threatened taxa occurring in its
region. No individual advocate has accorded this subspecies a
high priority for action, and none of those responsible for its
conservation have seen it or acknowledged an emotional at-
tachment to it. Our findings confirm that initiation of conser-
vation effort is strongly tied to the social values of individuals
with power to take action, regardless of legislation.
Keywords Attitudes, birds, champions, conservation effort,
social construction, threatened species, values
Introduction
Over the last few decades substantial funding has been
made available for bird conservation, to try to reverse
species decline and extinction trends (Garnett et al., ;
McCarthy et al., ). Most research on threatened birds
and their conservation has been ecological, and tends not
to consider the social processes and the prevailing values
of human societies that affect threatened birds. Adopting
a biocultural perspective on extinction could have positive
implications for conservation practice (Ladle & Jepson,
). Understanding human values and how they influ-
ence conservation of threatened birds is essential if conser-
vation success is to be realized.
Values, ‘enduring belief[s] that a specific mode of con-
duct or end-state of existence is personally or socially pref-
erable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or
end-state of existence’(Rokeach, ,p.), can be held at
the level of individuals, groups, societies and cultures.
Where values are shared across levels they are sometimes re-
ferred to as social values, ‘...sets of ideals and beliefs to
which people individually and collectively aspire and
which they desire to uphold’(Jepson & Canney, ).
Such values are constructed, and what is regarded as the
truth and as valuable may be thought of as no more than
the currently accepted ways of understanding and appreci-
ating the world (Burr, ). Thus, shared knowledge, be-
liefs and values concerning wildlife are based on ‘a range
of assumptions about wildlife and expectations about na-
ture’(Hytten & Burns, ) that are specific to the social
and cultural context in which they have been constructed.
At an individual level, identity, knowledge and beliefs are
constructed through complex processes of socialization and
acculturation (Berger & Luckmann, ) that affect an in-
dividual’s ability to conform to the expectations of the social
groups to which they belong. Individuals who are involved
in wildlife management are thus likely to hold a shared sub-
set of the values of the society from which they are drawn.
These may be overlain with, and sometimes in conflict with,
the values espoused by the organizations they represent.
Multiple stakeholders representing various sectors of
society may participate in conservation strategies and
may have varying importance in conservation networks
(Jepson et al., ). Non-human factors, including species
or devices such as IUCN Red Lists, can also contribute sig-
nificantly (Jepson et al., ).
Within Australia, national (Commonwealth), state and
territory governments have legislative responsibility for pro-
tection of the environment. Usually one department in each
jurisdiction has primary responsibility for the environment.
GILLIAN B. AINSWORTH (Corresponding author), HEATHER J. ASLIN and STEPHEN
T. GARNETT Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles
Darwin University, Northern Territory 0909, Australia
E-mail gill.ainsworth@cdu.edu.au
MICHAEL A. WESTON School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of
Science, Engineering and the Built Environment, Deakin University,
Melbourne, Australia
Received January . Revision requested February .
Accepted April . First published online September .
Oryx
, 2016, 50(4), 636–645 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000538
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Charles Darwin University, on 01 Oct 2016 at 06:11:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Within such departments, responsibility for decisions about
threatened species often falls to individual managers, some
of whom may be experts in the field. For threatened wildlife,
such experts are usually biologists and, partly as a result, the
issues are typically framed in ecological terms rather than
being seen as social problems, although this is changing.
Beyond government scientists, other stakeholder groups
involved in conserving threatened species include the pri-
vate sector, representing business and industry that may
be affected by conservation efforts, and environmental
NGOs, which advocate for, or otherwise facilitate, conserva-
tion effort. In Australia as in many other countries, birds are
often highly valued by society (Zander et al., ) and have
unsolicited political power held for them in trust by interest
groups (Czech et al., ) such as BirdLife Australia, which
may in part advocate values that are shared by wider society.
Directing and maintaining the public’s attention to threa-
tened species typically falls to organizations such as
BirdLife Australia. In each case the values of the individuals
and organizations in these sectors are likely to influence out-
comes for threatened species conservation.
Whereas the wider public, who may be expected either to
finance a strategy via government spending or otherwise tol-
erate the restrictions that are frequently associated with con-
servation interventions (Hunter & Rinner, ), are also
stakeholders, individual members of the public who become
involved in conservation are commonly associated with one
of the stakeholder groups already mentioned.
Decisions about setting funding priorities for threatened
species are generally made by experts, and conservation re-
search often focuses on threatened species listed in legisla-
tion rather than on common or non-threatened species, and
on mammals and birds rather than plants and invertebrates
(Seddon et al., ; Trimble & Van Aarde, ). Certain
types of biodiversity tend to attract disproportionate
amounts of public attention, such as tigers Panthera tigris
and elephants (Elephantidae spp.; Smith et al., ), or a
species may develop a high public profile as a result of
being the subject of political controversy. Flagship species
are one of several potential framings for wildlife-related
work focusing on single species. Some flagship species
could be described as actors, as their engagement produces
agency, which can effect change in the status quo (Jepson
et al., ). Selection of a flagship species often depends
on the values and goals of the agency conducting the con-
servation effort, and their intuition about public interests in
the area where those efforts are being conducted (Home
et al., ; Smith et al., ). Aesthetic appeal is often
prioritized over threat status, resulting in many overlooked
Cinderella species (Home et al., ; Smith et al., ).
We hypothesize that the type and strength of the values
held by individuals involved in the management of threa-
tened species are likely to have a profound effect on the
level of human, financial and other resources allocated to
the task relative to need and the outcome of that funding.
We ask how the values of key stakeholders involved with
the conservation of two closely related threatened birds
have affected their conservation management. This work,
part of a growing body of social research on ‘what motivates
people to engage in activities that harm or promote the con-
servation of biodiversity’(Sandbrook et al., ), aims to
understand why one of the study subspecies has received
high levels of local and institutional support while the
other has had very little, despite both having similar conser-
vation status and taxonomic distinctiveness, factors com-
monly thought to influence conservation effort (Restani &
Marzluff, ; Garnett et al., ). Understanding the
values of people influential in making decisions and imple-
menting conservation measures for these threatened birds
can help drive more effective conservation action in the fu-
ture, as in other fields (Carlos et al., ).
Methods
This research drew predominantly from the discipline of
social psychology, the theory of social constructionism
and the human dimensions of wildlife research. Using a
qualitative multiple case study approach (Yin, )weex-
plored how a range of social factors, including stakeholder
attitudes and institutional, policy and operational
aspects may affect conservation efforts for threatened
bird taxa. We focused on two Endangered subspecies of a
small (c. g) endemic Australian passerine: the Alligator
Rivers yellow chat Epthianura crocea tunneyi and the
Capricorn yellow chat Epthianura crocea macgregori.
This matched pair was selected because the taxa had con-
trasting societal support (e.g. funding, recovery plans, re-
covery actions, voluntary actions) despite being similar
in biology and appearance, thus controlling for the influ-
ence of aesthetic or behavioural attributes of a taxon that
might have masked other social drivers of conservation re-
sponse (Ainsworth, ).
The adult male yellow chat has bright yellow breeding
plumage, with a black band across the chest, which is absent
in the pale lemon females and non-breeding males (Schodde
& Mason, ; Woinarski & Armstrong, ; DSEWPaC,
a,b). Both subspecies have highly restricted ranges:
E. crocea tunneyi occurs only on the floodplains of two
rivers east of Darwin in the Northern Territory, and E. crocea
macgregori is restricted to the Capricorn region on the east
coast of Queensland. Both subspecies inhabit coastal salt-
pans and use shallow drainage channels and depressions
supporting a mosaic of wetland vegetation such as samphire
shrublands (Woinarski & Armstrong, ; DSEWPaC,
a,b; Houston et al., ).
The context for each taxon was established through a
desktop analysis of peer-reviewed scientific literature,
Social values and conservation effort 637
Oryx
, 2016, 50(4), 636–645 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000538
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Charles Darwin University, on 01 Oct 2016 at 06:11:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
gathering data about the biology and ecology, conservation
status and governance, levels of conservation effort, and so-
cial and economic considerations for the two taxa. A stake-
holder analysis identified the major stakeholders and their
institutional affiliations.
Itwasimportanttoidentifywhichindividualswithina
cross-section of society were deemed to hold appropriate
knowledge and experience of the conservation of each
taxon so that their particular attitudes could be analysed.
Thus, key informants were invited to participate in the
study because they were considered to be sufficiently
knowledgeable regarding the conservation of the case
study taxa and were anticipated to hold a diverse range
of values for them. All except two of those invited agreed
to participate in the study. The small number of stake-
holders deemed sufficiently knowledgeable to contribute
to the research is a potential limitation of this study but
was unavoidable given the small scale of the conservation
effort.
GA conducted semi-structured interviews with key in-
formants during April–May . Informants were provided
with a statement in plain language that guaranteed their
anonymity and asked for their consent prior to being inter-
viewed (Ainsworth, ). Four informants represented the
Alligator Rivers yellow chat (a birdwatcher, a business/in-
dustry representative, a national park management agency
representative, and a state/territory government scientist),
and seven represented the Capricorn yellow chat (two aca-
demics, one business/industry representative, a birding
NGO representative, a landholder, a natural resource man-
agement agency representative, and a state/territory govern-
ment scientist).
Interviews lasted approximately hour and the questions
focused on the informants’values and attitudes towards the
case study taxa. We generally avoided direct questions re-
garding participant values because of the difficulty with
identifying or articulating values that are deeply held, pri-
vately defended, ethically charged or not available to con-
sciousness at a moment’s notice, and to avoid participants
potentially overstating the strength of their views in a pos-
sible desire to conform socially (Satterfield, ). Questions
were asked in a way that was intended to be meaningful to
participants and to allow for subsequent qualitative content
analysis (Minichiello et al., ). The term ‘value’was used
minimally and always in a common language sense that par-
ticipants were expected to understand in general terms
(Ainsworth, ).
All interviews were recorded and transcriptions were im-
ported into NVivo v. (QSR International Pty Ltd,
Doncaster, Australia). Attitudes were coded manually ac-
cording to a new typology of attitudes to avifauna, devel-
oped in GA’s PhD research to describe the various ways
Australians value birds (Ainsworth, ). The attitude
categories reflect aesthetic, biophysical, conservation,
ecological, experiential, humanistic, mastery, moral, nega-
tive, spiritual, symbolic and utilitarian values held by
Australians for birds (Ainsworth, ). Individual coding
nodes were created in NVivo for each of the categories
and text was coded under one or more nodes, depending
on the attitude(s) expressed. The following comment, for
example, discusses the ecological relationship between a
species and its habitat and was primarily coded under the
ecological node: ‘There’s no other bird living in that particu-
lar exact habitat in the region.’
Results
Conservation status and governance
Legislative responsibility for the two subspecies lies
with both the Commonwealth and the relevant state or
territory governments. The Alligator Rivers subspecies is
listed as Endangered under both the Commonwealth’s
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act and the Northern Territory’s Territory Parks and
Wildlife Conservation Act (DSEWPaC, a;
DLRM, ). The Capricorn subspecies is listed as
Critically Endangered under the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act and Endangered
under Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act
(Houston & Melzer, ; DSEWPaC, b). Both subspe-
cies face some common threats, such as damage to habitat by
grazing and feral animals, invasive exotic grasses, climate
change, fire, and impacts on water quality from saltwater in-
trusion or altered water flows (Woinarski & Armstrong,
; Houston et al., ; DSEWPaC, a,b; Kyne &
Jackson, ).
The Alligator Rivers subspecies was first identified as
Endangered by Garnett & Crowley () on the basis of
its small range and extent of suitable habitat. At the time
the population was estimated to comprise, with low cer-
tainty, c. individuals and to be a single, declining popu-
lation. A systematic assessment of its status in found
individuals (Armstrong, ), but none were found
during a monitoring programme in Kakadu National Park
during – (Woinarski et al., ). The population
was recently estimated to be , individuals (Garnett
et al., ) and a systematic survey for the subspecies con-
ducted in Kakadu in found only individuals at a sin-
gle location, suggesting a substantial decline over a -year
period (Kyne & Jackson, ).
The Northern Territory Government produced a
two-page Threatened Species Information Sheet in
describing the status of the Alligator Rivers subspecies, and
its conservation and management priorities (Woinarski &
Armstrong, ). Although Commonwealth Conservation
Advice was approved in by the Commonwealth
638 G. B. Ainsworth et al.
Oryx
, 2016, 50(4), 636–645 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000538
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Charles Darwin University, on 01 Oct 2016 at 06:11:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Environment Minister (Threatened Species Scientific
Committee, ), there was no recovery plan or team in
place at the time of this research.
Most records of the Alligator Rivers subspecies have been
from three conservation reserves: Kakadu and Mary River
National Parks and Harrison Dam Reserve (Woinarski &
Armstrong, ), all within a few hours’drive of Darwin,
the regional administrative centre. Although both park
management plans listed this subspecies, among many, as
being in need of protection within the parks, management
activities aimed specifically at conserving chats were not
being undertaken in either park (Director of National
Parks, ; PWSNT, ).
The Capricorn subspecies was also first identified as
threatened by Garnett & Crowley (). It is restricted to
Capricornia, an area of the central Queensland coast, near
the Fitzroy River and within a few hours’drive of the region-
al city of Rockhampton. It has been recorded at sites but
only regularly at five locations, including Torilla Plain,
where it is most abundant (Garnett et al., ). The subspe-
cies was once believed to be extinct but was rediscovered on
the marine plain on Curtis Island in , having not been
seen for years (Houston et al., ; FBA, ). It was
first listed as Critically Endangered in on the basis that
the habitat of this single population was thought to be de-
creasing in area and quality. The population at the time
was thought to comprise as few as mature individuals
in winter (Garnett & Crowley, ). In two additional
populations were found at sites where the birds were previ-
ously thought to be extinct (Houston et al., ).
Populations are now thought to fluctuate, with a mean
population of c. mature individuals. Management
documentation includes a national recovery plan, and recov-
ery efforts have been managed by an informal recovery team
(FBA, ; Houston & Melzer, ;BirdsAustralia,).
Conservation effort
Of the two yellow chat subspecies the Alligator Rivers was
less well studied and had been the focus of less conservation
effort (Table ). It also had fewer and less diverse stake-
holders involved in its conservation.
The Capricorn subspecies had been reasonably well sur-
veyed compared with its Northern Territory counterpart; it
was a high priority for conservation under Queensland’s
Back on Track species prioritization framework (DEHP,
). It was the focus of a Birds Australia (now BirdLife
Australia) conservation project (Birds Australia, ) and
was promoted as a flagship species by local environmental
groups, partly because of its aesthetic appeal and partly be-
cause of its status as the only endemic bird in the Capricorn
region ( ABC Brisbane, ; Capricorn Conservation
Council, ).
Social and economic considerations
The Alligator Rivers subspecies has been recorded in na-
tional parks managed by the Commonwealth (Kakadu)
and Northern Territory Governments (Mary River) but nei-
ther government has provided dedicated funding to manage
the subspecies, even though Kakadu is one of the best-
funded national parks in Australia. In a record
TABLE 1 Examples of support for the conservation of the Alligator Rivers Epthianura crocea tunneyi and Capricorn Epthianura crocea
macgregori yellow chat subspecies (Armstrong, ; Woinarski & Armstrong, ; Houston & Melzer, ; Kyne & Dostine, ;
DEHP, ; DERM, ; DSEWPaC, a,b).
Type of support Alligator Rivers yellow chat Capricorn yellow chat
Recovery programme None Informal recovery team
Expert groups None BirdLife Australia conservation project
Back on Track; high priority for conservation
Research Distribution & abundance within
Kakadu National Park
3 major studies on incidence, ecology & rediscovery
Publications 0 species profile references
(SPRAT*)
1 book chapter
29 species profile references (SPRAT*)
Funding None AUD 535,150: estimated cost to implement 5-year recovery
programme
AUD 22,816: Threatened Species Network Grants received
(2003–2005)
Stakeholder
involvement
Department of Land Resource
Management, Kakadu & Mary
River National Parks; Aboriginal
Land Trusts
BirdLife Australia, including BirdLife Capricornia; Department of
Environment Heritage Protection, state government agencies &
shire councils; Environment Protection Agency; Australian
universities; pastoral leaseholders & freeholders; Fitzroy Basin
Authority & other natural resource management agencies;
Australian Defence Department; indigenous groups
*Australian Commonwealth Government Species Profile and Threats Database
Social values and conservation effort 639
Oryx
, 2016, 50(4), 636–645 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000538
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Charles Darwin University, on 01 Oct 2016 at 06:11:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
, people visited Shady Camp, one of the few places
where the Alligator Rivers subspecies has been seen recently
and a popular and nationally known recreational fishing
spot in Mary River National Park. However, park manage-
ment did not mention the chats being present in the vicinity
(PWSNT, ). There is no coordinated bird conservation
group in the Northern Territory region to draw attention to
the subspecies.
The Capricorn subspecies’habitat occurs across a range of
tenure types, including freehold, leasehold (special, mineral
and grazing) and protected areas (Curtis Island marine
plain; Houston et al., ;McCabe&James,). Most of
the known breeding habitat, at Twelve Mile Creek (Fitzroy
Delta), lies within the upper extent of leasehold land used for
salt extraction (Houston & Melzer, ). Applications for
development that had the potential to affect the habitat of
the Capricorn subspecies, such as infrastructure development
in the Port of Gladstone (BirdLife Capricornia, ), had to be
referred to the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities (since
Department of the Environment) under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to deter-
mine if the developments were likely to have a deleterious
effect on the subspecies (Houston & Melzer, ). There
was a requirement to monitor grazing practices on freehold
grazing properties and grazing lease areas in Curtis Island
Conservation Park (Houston & Melzer, ).
Funding of recovery efforts in Queensland has come mainly
from the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments,
but Central Queensland University, the Fitzroy Basin
Authority, BirdLife Capricornia and the Threatened
Species Network have also contributed funds (Threatened
Species Network, ; FBA, ; Houston & Melzer,
; Birds Australia, ;Table ). Important habitat
was managed by those with an interest in the affected
land, such as staff of Curtis Island National Park, workers
at a salt refinery, and pastoralists and graziers. The bird-
watching and fishing communities accessed some areas of
habitat at Twelve Mile Creek for recreational purposes
(Houston & Melzer, ).
Which values are held for each subspecies?
Attitudes towards the two yellow chat subspecies were re-
vealed through the answers of key informants to a set of
questions used to initiate conversations. These attitudes
are compared in Table , according to the categories in
the avifaunal attitudes typology.
How did you get involved with the yellow chat? At the time
interviews were conducted none of the key informants for
the Alligator Rivers subspecies had seen the bird in the
wild, and they implied that interest in the taxon was limited
to a few local people. They perceived the bird to be rare, given
its small population and limited distribution. It was not
known to be under immediate threat and therefore was not
a priority for conservation effort. It was said that a small gov-
ernment team was responsible for conserving the chat, along
with c. other threatened species (many of which are en-
demic to the Kakadu region). A similar situation was de-
scribed in Kakadu National Park, where conservation of the
main population was led by an individual with a broad re-
search and monitoring remit but no particular role regarding
the birds. Both key informants from the government
and national park agencies responsible said they were in-
volved in the conservation effort as part of their role rather
than having any specific personal interest in it:
It’s a listed threatened species and therefore I had to address it as I have
to every other threatened species. (Northern Territory government
informant)
One key informant described how his birding tour business
could contribute to conservation efforts for the taxon by
TABLE 2 Comparison of attitudes expressed by key informants about the Alligator Rivers and Capricorn yellow chat subspecies, according
to the avifaunal attitude categories.
Attitude
Alligator Rivers yellow chat
(n = 4)
Capricorn yellow chat
(n = 7) Example
Aesthetic ✓Appreciation of physical characteristics of birds
Biophysical ✓Physical attributes & biological functioning of birds
Conservation ✓✓Relating to conservation of threatened birds
Ecological ✓✓Interrelationships between birds & natural habitats
Experiential ✓Experiences with birds in their natural habitat
Humanistic ✓Affection or concern for, symbolic meaning of, birds
Mastery ✓✓Literal or metaphorical mastery & control of birds
Moral ✓✓Responsibility for conserving bird taxa
Negative Dislike of birds, or conflict between birds & people through
competition for resources
Spiritual Birds possessing spiritual significance
Symbolic ✓Birds as flagship species
Utilitarian Material benefit of birds or bird habitat to human society
640 G. B. Ainsworth et al.
Oryx
, 2016, 50(4), 636–645 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000538
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Charles Darwin University, on 01 Oct 2016 at 06:11:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
recording sightings and generating an interest in the bird
among his local, national and international tour guests if
he had more accurate information about where it could be
found. Another key informant, a local birdwatcher, had
published a summary of current knowledge about the
taxon. He said that he appreciated the symbolic role it
played in highlighting the efforts required to conserve
what was generally considered to be a pristine wetland land-
scape, but also intimated how keen he was to add this
difficult-to-see bird to his list of Top End sightings:
I found it difficult to find information on, so my quest to see one hasn’t
succeeded yet. (Birdwatcher)
In contrast, most of the key informants for the Capricorn
subspecies stated they saw the bird on a regular basis, or
knew where the birds could be sighted. One key informant
explained that he got involved when Birds Queensland
funded the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service to investi-
gate the conservation status of the Curtis Island population in
. A second key informant said he became involved when
two mainland populations were discovered at Torilla Plain
and the Fitzroy Delta in , and that this acted as a catalyst
for much of the conservation effort for the taxon:
We really had the opportunity to study a bird that was little known in
the whole of Australia, more easily than anyone else...I don’t think I
knew enough about the significance of them at the time...it was a bird
I’d never seen ... I devoured everything about them after we did.
(Academic)
Key informants mentioned that after this rediscovery a
range of opportunities arose, resulting in several new re-
search partnerships with individuals and local organiza-
tions. They also pointed out how individuals could
influence conservation efforts significantly; for example, in
one key informant started working at a salt refinery
within key habitat of the Capricorn subspecies and, because
he had a general interest in birds and in conservation of
threatened birds in particular, he granted permission to
Central Queensland University to survey the salt pans. He
explained how this decision resulted in a personal affection
for the birds and an interest in their survival. Conversely,
another key informant had replaced a local staff member
of a natural resource management agency in and, as
a result of an administrative oversight, ceased annual fund-
ing to conduct population surveys and monitoring. A key
informant who owned a pastoral property where the
Torilla Plain population was discovered described how a
scientist found it during a routine wetland bird survey on
his property:
I just said to him I’d been here all my life and I see them on a regular
basis. He was kinda knocked over when I told him that and .. . that’s
how they started coming up here and counting them. (Pastoralist)
Another key informant got involved with the subspecies
through BirdLife Capricornia, which promotes it as the re-
gion’s only endemic bird, thereby creating demand among
birdwatching tourists to see what has become an iconic
taxon for the region.
What is most important to you about conservation of the yel-
low chat? Key informants identified the collection of biophys-
ical and threat impact data as most important to the
conservation of the Alligator Rivers subspecies. The partner-
ship between the Northern Territory Government and the
Commonwealth Government-managed Kakadu National
Park was described as sometimes facilitating this flow of in-
formation and sometimes blocking it. Improved community
engagement was also raised as an important issue. However,
this was perceived by some key informants as being neither
supported by the authorities nor desired by the community:
I know that places like Shady Camp are somewhere birders will go to
try and see the species because they want to tick another species off.To
be honest, I don’t see that as a big imperative. What I want to know is
that the species is relatively secure and those sorts of things. (Northern
Territory government informant)
Discussion about the importance of conserving the
Capricorn subspecies focused more on its inherent right to
exist and society’s responsibility for preventing its disappear-
ance. Reasons given included the bird’s attractive appearance,
its engaging behaviour and its specialized role in a fascinating
landscape. Protecting its habitat and managing threats were
identified as key actions that could be implemented.
Do you personally believe that conservation efforts for the yel-
low chat will succeed or fail? There were no actions being
undertaken with the aim of conserving the Alligator
Rivers subspecies at the time of this research. Population
monitoring was infrequent and had not been conducted
since , as the population was not perceived to be declin-
ing significantly. Climate change was perceived as being a
significant unknown factor, with the potential to affect the
taxon’s habitat either positively or negatively. Key informant
opinions about the success of conservation efforts for the
Capricorn subspecies were more positive. However, in
part this was attributed to finding additional populations ra-
ther than the efficacy of conservation efforts. The ongoing
preservation of suitable habitat was identified as a concern,
as it was thought to rely in the short term on the precarious
support of landholders and government in the face of eco-
nomic pressure, and to be vulnerable to climate change in
the longer term. It was suggested that the local university’s
survey and monitoring efforts could provide justification for
protecting key habitat.
Is it important to you that a population of the yellow chat
exists in the wild? The existence of a wild population of
the Alligator Rivers subspecies meant various things to the
individuals involved, including protecting the important
ecological function the birds play in their wetlands habitat
and as an indicator of the system’s health, respecting the
Social values and conservation effort 641
Oryx
, 2016, 50(4), 636–645 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000538
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Charles Darwin University, on 01 Oct 2016 at 06:11:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
birds’intrinsic right to persist where they belong, and main-
taining their psychological or other contribution to human-
ity. The subspecies was not described in emotional terms,
which is perhaps unsurprising given that none of the key in-
formants had seen it in the wild and it had no public cham-
pion to encourage interest. The connection of the Capricorn
subspecies to its habitat, its intrinsic right to exist and the
benefit it provided to people as an interesting, unique and
attractive bird were all given as reasons for preserving a
wild population of this taxon, especially in light of conflict-
ing social values:
These species have got a huge financial benefit for the community. If
we just take tourism as an example, people are prepared to spend a lot
of money to go to where there are threatened species or endemic spe-
cies that can’t be seen anywhere else, and that kind of thing is totally
ignored as compared to having a new coalmine or some other infra-
structure built. (Birding NGO informant)
Discussion
The two yellow chat subspecies exist in different human so-
cial contexts, as indicated by the attitudes expressed about
them (Table ), and they were socially constructed by key
informants in different ways. Few people were known to
have seen the Alligator Rivers subspecies in the wild, not
even those who manage conservation effort for it, and this
lack of experience with the taxon contributed to its ongoing
obscurity. Only conservation, ecological, mastery and moral
attitudes were expressed about it. In contrast, key infor-
mants had opportunities to engage directly with the
Capricorn subspecies because of its proximity to human
habitation, and the resulting knowledge, affection and sup-
port meant this subspecies was valued more highly and
more diversely across a broader cross-section of society
than the Alligator Rivers subspecies. It therefore appeared
better placed to receive support, and thus persist, in the
face of future conservation challenges.
In retrospect both subspecies had the potential to follow
identical conservation trajectories. Both were confirmed as
distinct subspecies in (Schodde & Mason, )and
their rarity was acknowledged, and both were listed as threa-
tened species in (Garnett & Crowley, ). Their
conservation trajectories first started to diverge in
when the Capricorn subspecies was categorized as Critically
Endangered under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act ;theAlligatorRiverssub-
species was not categorized as Endangered until .This
divergence was already being influenced by the contrasting so-
cial landscapes within which the birds existed.
One could argue that a lack of general awareness of, and
knowledge about, the Alligator Rivers yellow chat had ham-
pered social interest and stakeholder involvement in recov-
ery efforts, but this was also true for the Capricorn
subspecies when both were listed as threatened in .
Similarly, both locations where the birds live are relatively
remote but are nevertheless within a few hours’drive of
similar-sized regional cities, both of which have universities
conducting environmental research.
Critically, the Alligator Rivers subspecies never had a
champion to encourage interest or empathy. It was not de-
scribed by any key informant in humanistic terms and ap-
peared to be given low financial, organizational and
emotional priority among the c. other threatened spe-
cies in the Northern Territory (many of which are endemic
to the Kakadu region). That neither of the two key infor-
mants identified as responsible for the conservation of the
bird had allocated time to see the taxon, and the other
two key informants could not find information on where
to see it, is indicative of the low level of local interest.
Potential interest groups, such as birdwatchers and recre-
ational fishers, also showed little interest in the taxon, pos-
sibly because of the wealth of other distinctive local bird
species and the taxon’s remote and inhospitable geograph-
ical location, or because there was no local birding NGO to
stimulate interest.
Although the taxon was listed under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act it was
not perceived to warrant a recovery team or recovery plan,
and therefore no funding was forthcoming from the
Commonwealth Government to conduct formal recovery
efforts under this Act. The few individuals within the
Department of Land Resource Management responsible
for the management of the subspecies had neither the evi-
dence required on which to base any increased support
for its recovery, nor the capacity to develop strategies to
gather such evidence. Consequently, it has not been estab-
lished whether or not threats to its survival are becoming
more serious.
In contrast, for the Capricorn subspecies a correlation
was found between experiential, humanistic and conserva-
tion attitudes expressed by key informants about this sub-
species (i.e. personal encounters with it, and concern
about its plight, led key informants to engage proactively
in recovery efforts).
Listing of the subspecies as a high priority under the
Queensland Government’s Back on Track species prioritiza-
tion framework (DEHP, ) meant it was prioritized
for further analysis under the programme. Additionally, a
national recovery plan facilitated the management of the
subspecies by an informal recovery team. These two policy
frameworks were thus part of the conservation network and
effected positive management action for the Capricorn
yellow chat.
The Capricorn subspecies had the advantage of having
two champions representing the scientific and birdwatching
communities. Champions can lend credibility to conserva-
tion initiatives and improve levels of participation and com-
mitment by other stakeholders (Knight et al., ). In this
case the champions created an informal recovery team,
642 G. B. Ainsworth et al.
Oryx
, 2016, 50(4), 636–645 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000538
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Charles Darwin University, on 01 Oct 2016 at 06:11:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
developed a recovery plan in association with the relevant
government agency, conducted specialist research, secured
funding and raised public awareness of the subspecies.
Additionally, because it existed on a variety of land tenure
types, a diverse range of key stakeholders became engaged
in managing critical habitat for the Capricorn yellow chat,
there was increased awareness about its plight, and demand
was created for it to be protected.
Although the government management agency with legis-
lative responsibility for conservation of the Capricorn yellow
chat responded to societal interest, it was the champions’
emotional connection to the species, derived from their per-
sonal experiences with it, that distinguished these interviews
from those related to the Alligator River subspecies.
A possible additional reason why the Capricorn subspe-
cies has been the focus of greater conservation effort is the
publicity generated by the discovery, in , of two small
populations on the mainland, where it was previously
thought to be extinct (Houston et al., ). This is an ex-
ample of a Wallacean extinction, whereby inadequate bio-
geographical knowledge about the taxon appears to have
resulted in a good news story that inspired conservation ac-
tion (Ladle & Jepson, ). Even though, ironically, this
discovery meant the subspecies was less threatened than
previously thought, it also made the subspecies more access-
ible; more people could see the birds and become involved
in their conservation, widening the range of stakeholder
support (Conaghan, ).This discovery altered how the
subspecies was socially constructed, prompting action that
led to increased interest in its conservation.
Further publicity was generated when critical habitat was
potentially threatened by expansion of a local harbour
(Eberhard, ; BirdLife Capricornia, ; Jacques, )
and when BirdLife Capricornia highlighted the subspecies
in a campaign before an election, calling for all political par-
ties to protect Australia’s most threatened birds (Gladstone
Observer, ).
The Alligator Rivers yellow chat has not attracted much at-
tention in the media. It exists entirely within protected areas,
so is probably thought by the public to be well cared for, and
the threats it faces are diffuse and difficult to ameliorate (Kyne
& Dostine, ). This subspecies has similar aesthetic appeal
and threat status to the flagship Capricorn yellow chat, yet
it remains a Cinderella species with flagship potential but
no NGO support to promote it. That neither Northern
Territory nor Commonwealth government environmental
agency staff recognized the potential agency of the Alligator
Rivers yellow chat to attract interest from the local fishing
and birdwatching communities highlights a missed oppor-
tunity to develop conservation effort for the subspecies and
its habitats, and adopt a more enlightened conservation man-
agement and policy approach (Jepson et al., ).
Neither the Alligator Rivers yellow chat nor its habitat is
threatened directly by human intervention, and therefore
rather than benefiting from a controversial or transforma-
tive event it has remained in relative obscurity to face an un-
certain fate. Possibly because of this, and despite its listing
under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act , it has never been considered to war-
rant a national recovery plan. Consequently, this subspecies
has received less conservation funding and support than the
Capricorn yellow chat (Table ) and has had a less diverse
range of stakeholders involved in its conservation.
Local lobbying, partly as a consequence of this study, re-
sulted in a dedicated survey for the Alligator Rivers subspe-
cies in Kakadu National Park in September . Only
individuals were found and most locations of previous sight-
ings had been uprooted by feral pigs Sus scrofa (Kyne &
Jackson, ). It remains to be seen if this assessment will
prompt conservation interest in the subspecies, as happened
with the rediscovered Capricorn subspecies.
This research supports the idea that human preferences
bias research and conservation effort regardless of legislative
responsibilities; it suggests how and why particularly closely
related threatened bird taxa are valued differently, and how
this may be linked to overall levels of conservation funding
and social interest in them. Few previous attempts have been
made to engage diverse stakeholders in priority setting (but
see Miller & Weston, ). These findings are consistent
with the notion that decisions about which taxa to prioritize
for conservation effort are often influenced by political de-
cision making, significant events or social attitudes, which
propel certain species into the limelight and engender
some societal response. The factors most influential in
these two case studies appear to be the presence of cham-
pions, and current social constructions of competing species
and the profile of threats and threatening processes.
The contrasting networks of human and non-human ac-
tors involved in the conservation of the two subspecies were
also significant. Our findings suggest that the initiation of
conservation actions for threatened bird taxa are influenced
directly by the unique networks of people engaged in specif-
ic conservation strategies and the ways they socially con-
struct various taxa, which is probably related to the
attitudes and experiences of key individuals, their sphere
of expertise and influence, and associated institutional
norms (Berger & Luckmann, ). It was also evident
that particular contemporary social factors played a signifi-
cant role in catalysing conservation action for the Capricorn
subspecies, including the current social construction of the
subspecies itself, its rediscovery, and the policy frameworks
triggered by its current conservation status.
Our findings thus demonstrate the important role that
cultural and social framings of conservation issues, and
the values and priorities of local conservation actors, play
in conservation success (Ladle & Jepson, ).
Accordingly, this study confirms that social values can
have a significant influence on conservation effort,
Social values and conservation effort 643
Oryx
, 2016, 50(4), 636–645 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000538
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Charles Darwin University, on 01 Oct 2016 at 06:11:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
particularly when key individuals become committed to
conserving particular taxa and effectively mobilize others
who share their values.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all the key informants for contributing to
this study. The research was supported financially by GA’s
Commonwealth Government Australian Postgraduate
Award scholarship and Charles Darwin University’s
Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods.
We sincerely thank two anonymous reviewers whose valu-
able insights improved the article.
References
AINSWORTH, G.B. ()Valuing birds: understanding the relationship
between social values and the conservation of Australian threatened
avifauna. PhD thesis. Charles Darwin University, Darwin,
Australia.
ARMSTRONG,M.()The Yellow Chat Epthianura crocea tunneyi in
Kakadu National Park. Unpublished report. Northern Territory
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Darwin,
Australia.
BERGER,P.&LUCKMANN,T.()The Social Construction of Reality:
A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Open Road, New York,
USA.
BIRDLIFE CAPRICORNIA ()Submission to the Independent Review
of the Port of Gladstone. Unpublished report. BirdLife Capricornia,
Coowonga, Australia.
BIRDS AUSTRALIA ()Yellow Chat Management. Unpublished
report. Birds Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
BURR,V.()Social Constructionism. Taylor & Francis, London,
UK.
CAPRICORN CONSERVATION COUNCIL () Threatened species of
Capricornia: the endangered Capricorn yellow chat. Http://www.
cccqld.org.au/thr_chat.html [accessed August ].
CARLOS, E.H., GIBSON,M.&WESTON, M.A. () Weeds and
wildlife: perceptions and practices of weed managers. Conservation
& Society,,–.
CONAGHAN,R.() Rare Capricorn yellow chat bird draws a crowd.
Tweed Daily News.Http://www.tweeddailynews.com.au/news/
Rare-Capricorn-Yellow-Chat-bird-draws-a-crowd//
[accessed August ].
CZECH, B., KRAUSMAN, P.R. & BORKHATARIA,R.() Social
construction, political power and the allocation of benefits to
endangered species. Conservation Biology,,–.
DEHP (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE
PROTECTION)() Back on Track species prioritisation
framework approach. Http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/
prioritisation-framework/back_on_track_species_prioritisation_
framework_approach.html [accessed October ].
DERM (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT)() Recovery Actions Database. Https://www.
ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/species-recovery/ [accessed September
].
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL PARKS ()Kakadu National Park Plan of
Management –. Unpublished report. Parks Australia
North, Darwin, Australia.
DLRM (DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)()
Threatened species list. Http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/plants-and-animals/
threatened-species/specieslist#.VAFzrvmSyuI [accessed August
].
DSEWPAC(DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY,ENVIRONMENT,
WATER,POPULATION AN D COMMUNITIES)(a) Epthianura
crocea tunneyi—yellow chat (Alligator Rivers). Http://www.
environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_
id= [accessed March ].
DSEWPAC(b) Epthianura crocea macgregori−Yellow chat
(Dawson). Http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/
publicspecies.pl?taxon_id= [accessed March ].
EBERHARD,R.()Fitzroy River Estuary Development Proposals: A
Review of Issues. Unpublished report. Fitzroy Basin Authority,
Rockhampton, Australia.
FBA (FITZROY BASIN AUTHORITY)()Yellow Chats in Central
Coast Queensland. Unpublished report. Fitzroy Basin Association,
Rockhampton, Australia.
GARNETT, S.T. & CROWLEY, G.M. ()The Action Plan for
Australian Birds . Environment Australia, Canberra, Australia.
GARNETT, S.T., CROWLEY, G.M. & B ALMFORD,A.() The costs
and effectiveness of funding the conservation of Australian
threatened birds. BioScience,,–.
GARNETT, S.T., SZABO,J.&DUTSON,G.()The Action Plan for
Australian Birds . CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.
GLADSTONE OBSERVER () Bird lovers appeal for political parties to
save species. Http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/yellow-
chat-worth-having-election-discussion-about//[accessed
August ].
HOME, R., KELLER, C., NAGEL, P., BAUER,N.&HUNZIKER,M.()
Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations.
Environmental Conservation,,–.
HOUSTON, W., BLACK, R.L. & ELDER, R.J. () Distribution and
habitat of the critically endangered Capricorn yellow chat
Epthianura crocea macgregori.Pacific Conservation Biology,,
–.
HOUSTON, W., JAENSCH, R., B LACK, R., ELDER,R.&BLACK,L.
() Further discoveries extend the range of Capricorn
yellow chat in coastal Central Queensland. The Sunbird,,
–.
HOUSTON,W.&MELZER,A.()Yellow Chat (Capricorn
Subspecies) Epthianura crocea macgregori Recovery Plan.
Unpublished report. Department of Environment and Resource
Management, Brisbane, Australia.
HOUSTON, W., PORTER, G., O’NEILL,P.&ELDER,R.() The
ecology of the critically endangered yellow chat Epthianura crocea
macgregori on Curtis Island. The Sunbird,,–.
HUNTER,L.&RINNER,L.() The association between
environmental perspective and knowledge and concern with species
diversity. Society & Natural Resources,,–.
HYTTEN, K.F. & BURNS, G.L. () Deconstructing dingo
management on Fraser Island, Queensland: the significance of social
constructionism for effective wildlife management. Australasian
Journal of Environmental Management,,–.
JACQUES,O.() Dumping of Balaclava Island port casts doubt over
Wandoan. Sunshine Coast Daily.Http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.
com.au/news/xstrata-stops-work-proposed-balaclava-island-coal-/
/[accessed August ].
JEPSON, P., BARUA,M.&BUCKINGHAM,K.() What is a
conservation actor? Conservation & Society,,–.
JEPSON,P.&CANNEY,S.() Values-led conservation. Global
Ecology & Biogeography,,–.
KNIGHT, A.T., COWLING, R.M., D IFFORD,M.&CAMPBELL, B.M.
() Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation
644 G. B. Ainsworth et al.
Oryx
, 2016, 50(4), 636–645 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000538
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Charles Darwin University, on 01 Oct 2016 at 06:11:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private
land. Conservation Biology,,–.
KYNE,P.&DOSTINE,P.() Birds. In Aquatic Biodiversity
in Northern Australia: Patterns, Threats and Future
(ed. B. Pusey), pp. –. Charles Darwin University Press,
Darwin, Australia.
KYNE, P.M. & JACK SON, M.V. ()Surveys for Yellow Chat
Epthianura crocea tunneyi on the South Alligator River Floodplain,
Kakadu National Park, . A report to Parks Australia, Darwin,
Australia.
LADLE, R.J. & JEPSON,P.() Toward a biocultural theory of
avoided extinction. Conservation Letters,,–.
MCCABE,J.&JAMES,C.()Natural, Cultural and World
Heritage Values of Curtis Island, Queensland. Unpublished
report. Capricorn Conservation Council, Rockhampton, Australia.
MCCARTHY, M.A., THOMPSON, C.J. & G ARNETT, S.T. () Optimal
investment in conservation of species. Journal of Applied Ecology,,
–.
MILLER, K.K. & WESTON, M.A. () Towards a set of priorities for
bird conservation and research in Australia: the perceptions of
ornithologists. Emu,,–.
MINICHIELLO, V., ARONI,R.&HAYS,T.()In-depth Interviewing:
Principles, Techniques, Analysis. Pearson Education Australia,
Melbourne, Australia.
PWSNT (PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OF THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY)()Mary River National Park Draft Joint
Management Plan. Department of Natural Resources, Environment,
the Arts and Sport, Darwin, Australia.
RESTANI,M.&MARZLUFF, J.M. () Funding extinction? Biological
needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to
endangered species recovery. BioScience,,–.
ROKEACH,M.()The Nature of Human Values. The Free Press,
New York, USA.
SANDBROOK, C., ADAMS, W.M., BÜSCHER,B.&VIRA,B.() Social
research and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology,,
–.
SATTERFIELD,T.() In search of value literacy: suggestions for
the elicitation of environmental values. Environmental Values,,
–.
SCHODDE,R.&MASON, I.J. ()Directory of Australian Birds:
Passerines. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.
SEDDON, P.J., SOORAE, P.S. & LAUNAY,F.() Taxonomic bias in
reintroduction projects. Animal Conservation,,–.
ABC BRISBANE () Chatting about the yellow chat. Http://
blogs.abc.net.au/queensland///chatting-about-the-yellow-
chat.html [accessed August ].
SMITH, R.J., VERÍSSIMO, D., I SAAC, N.J.B. & JONES, K.E. ()
Identifying Cinderella species: uncovering mammals with
conservation flagship appeal. Conservation Letters,,–.
THREATENED SPECIES NETWORK ()Management of Yellow Chat
(Capricorn Subspecies): Habitat and Identification of Range on the
Mainland. WWF—Australia, Sydney, Australia.
THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ()
Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Epthianura crocea tunneyi.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra, Australia.
TRIMBLE, M.J. & VAN AARDE, R.J. () Species inequality in
scientific study. Conservation Biology,,–.
WOINARSKI, J.C.Z. & A RMSTRONG, M.D. ()Yellow Chat
(Alligator Rivers Subspecies) Epthianura crocea tunneyi. Threatened
Species Information Sheet. Department of Natural Resources,
Environment and the Arts, Darwin, Australia.
WOINARSKI, J.C.Z., F ISHER, A., ARMSTRONG, M., BRENNAN, K.,
GRIFFITHS, A.D., HILL, B. et al. () Monitoring indicates greater
resilience for birds than for mammals in Kakadu National Park,
northern Australia. Wildlife Research,,–.
YIN, R.K. ()Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.
ZANDER, K.K., AINSWORTH, G., M EYERHOFF,J.&GARNETT, S.T.
() Threatened bird valuation in Australia. PLoS ONE,(),
e.
Biographical sketches
GILLIAN AINSWORTH has spent years working in the environmen-
tal not-for-profit and academic sectors. Her PhD examined the rela-
tionship between social values and conservation of Australian
threatened birds. HEATHER ASLIN began her career as a wildlife
biologist, and has worked as a social scientist for more than years.
Her main interests are in human−nature relationships. MICHAEL
WESTON has worked on recovery efforts for threatened birds, includ-
ing coordinating related citizen science contributions, for over
years. STEPHEN GARNETT has worked on threatened Australian
birds for years, initially as a biologist, now more broadly. He has ex-
perience in field research on individual species and reviews of threats
and processes, including many of the social processes that create the
most difficult threats to manage.
Social values and conservation effort 645
Oryx
, 2016, 50(4), 636–645 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000538
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Charles Darwin University, on 01 Oct 2016 at 06:11:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
