Perceived constraints to participating in wildlife-related recreation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildlife-related recreationists play an important role in conservation. Understanding constraints to wildlife-related activities is critical for maintaining or increasing participation in activities like birdwatching and hunting. A mail-out survey was administered to a generalized sample representative of U.S. residents (i.e., not specific to birdwatching or hunting) in early 2017 to determine what would limit them from participating in birdwatching and hunting (n = 1030). We employed a concurrent nested mixed-methods design: open-ended responses were thematically coded qualitatively in two distinct cycles (i.e., inductive, and then mixed inductive-deductive coding), and then the probability of expressing the second cycle codes was quantitatively modeled using multinomial logit models for the respective activities. Doing so empirically determined various groups’ constraints that are important to recruitment, retention, and reactivation (R3) efforts for birdwatching and hunting. We found that the likelihood of experiencing unique constraints varied based on sociodemographic characteristics, and these relationships differed between birdwatching and hunting. Gender had a limited effect on constraints to birdwatching but was a strong indicator of intrapersonal constraints and limitations to involvement in hunting. The likelihood of expressing structural constraints decreased with age for both activities. Possessing strong social ties to the activities tended to reduce the likelihood of expressing constraints overall but this was especially true for hunting. Our findings inform R3 efforts for wildlife-related recreation and provide direct results that organizations can apply in seeking to help Americans negotiate constraints and increase and diversify participation in wildlife-related recreation and conservation behavior. Our results have implications for recruitment, retention, and reactivation (R3) efforts to increase participation in birdwatching and hunting. Those seeking to increase participation in birdwatching should prioritize younger segments of the population because they expressed more constraints than older segments except for limited capacity to participate. For hunting, gender was a key variable in determining expressed constraints; identifying as female increased the likelihood of expressing intrapersonal constraints and limitations in involvement. For both activities, possessing strong social ties (i.e., family, and close friends) to both activities were effective in decreasing the likelihood of expressing many constraints. Organizations seeking to recruit new participants to birdwatching or hunting should develop programs that encourage existing participants to involve friends and family with the activities and foster interest in the activities among non-participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".