Your place or mine? Exploring birdwatching tourists' behaviour disturbing birds in a nature reserve.

To manage for more sustainable wildlife viewing tourism, a better understanding of tourists' behaviour that might disturb and negatively affect wildlife such as birds is needed. We conducted a qualitative case study of visitors to Hornøya, a protected bird cliff in Northern Norway. Behaviours with the potential to disturb seabirds at the site were explored using the theory of planned behaviour as a guiding framework. In-depth interviews and observations were used to explore why some visitors perform illegal or unwanted, potentially harmful behaviours, and to understand attitudes, social norms, and perceived behaviour control as influencing factors. The tourists visited Hornøya to experience seabirds in their natural surroundings, without causing harm. They were emotionally affected by the bird encounters, which may lead to thoughts and reflections about environmental challenges and nature protection. Visitors generally did not intend to disturb birds during these encounters. However, many visitors interpreted the birds' behaviour as meaning that they were not easily disturbed. Poorly developed social norms among visitors, in combination with limited presence of surveillance/guide personnel, and strong behavioural control among some visitors (willingness and ability to engage in illegal behaviour) led to occasional breaching of formal rules as well as incidents of inappropriate, potentially disturbing behaviour towards birds. Experienced wildlife photographers tended to show willingness and ability to engage in illegal behaviour more often than the two other segments. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10344-023-01678-y.

Managing River Fish Biodiversity Generates Substantial Economic Benefits in Four European Countries.

Ecosystems and biodiversity produce benefits to society, but many of them are hard to quantify. For example, it is unclear whether European societies gain benefits from experiencing rivers that host high native biodiversity. Without such knowledge, monetary investments into ecologically oriented river management plans are difficult to justify. The objective of this study was to reveal how the public in four European countries values ecological characteristics of domestic rivers and the outcomes of hypothetical river basin management plans designed to improve river ecosystems, particularly fish biodiversity. We conducted a choice experiment among the populations in Norway, Sweden, Germany, and France. We found similar preference structures in all countries with high marginal willingness-to-pay for improvements of abiotic river attributes (increased accessiblity of the river banks, improved bathing water quality, decreased river fragmentation). Citizens also benefited from certain fish species occurring in a river with native salmonid species being more valued than nonnatives, particularly in Norway, and from the degree of a river's native biodiversity. Welfare measures calculated for selected river basin management plans (policy scenarios) revealed societal benefits that were primarily derived from ecological river management whereas a scenario focusing on hydroelectricity production generated the lowest utility. We conclude that ecological river management may produce high nonmarket economic benefits in all study countries, particularly through the management of abiotic river attributes and the restoration of declining or extinct fish species. Our results help to inform decisions on restoration efforts by showcasing the benefits that these measures have for the public.

Public perception of river fish biodiversity in four European countries.

Public support for biodiversity conservation is shaped by people's values and their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes toward the environment. We conducted the first multinational representative survey of the general public's perceptions of river fish biodiversity in France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. For the online survey, 1000 respondents per country were randomly selected from large panels following country-specific quotas set on age, gender, and educational level. Questions covered people's level of knowledge, beliefs, values, and attitudes toward river fish, environmental threats, and conservation measures. We found that the public had limited knowledge of freshwater fishes. Two non-native species, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), were widely perceived as native, whereas native Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) was mostly classified as native in Scandinavia and largely as non-native in central Europe. These results suggest an extinction of experience paralleling the extirpation or decline of salmon stocks in countries such as Germany and France. Respondents thought pollution was the dominant threat to riverine fish biodiversity. In reality, habitat loss, dams, and the spread of non-native fishes are equally important. Despite limited biological knowledge, respondents from all countries held an overwhelmingly proecological worldview, supported conservation stocking, and appreciated native fishes, although only a minority interacted with them directly. Differences among the 4 countries related to several conservation issues. For example, threats to biodiversity stemming from aquaculture were perceived as more prevalent in Norway compared with the other 3 countries. Promoting fish conservation based on charismatic species and use values of fishes may work well in countries with a strong economic and cultural link to the freshwater environment, such as Norway. In countries where people rather abstractly care for nature, focusing conservation messaging on broader ecosystem traits and non-use values of fishes is likely to win more support.