IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0263447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder perceptions of bird-window collisions

Author

Listed:
  • Georgia J Riggs
  • Omkar Joshi
  • Scott R Loss

Abstract

Bird-window collisions are a major source of human-caused avian mortality for which many mitigation and prevention options are available. However, because very little research has characterized human perspectives related to this issue, there is limited understanding about the most effective ways to engage the public in collision reduction efforts. To address this research need, we: (1) evaluated how two stakeholder groups, homeowners and conservation practitioners, prioritize potential benefits and obstacles related to bird-window collision management, (2) compared priorities between these groups, and (3) evaluated potential conflicts and collective strength of opinions within groups. We addressed these objectives by merging the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) survey approaches. Specifically, survey respondents made pairwise comparisons between strengths and weaknesses (respectively, direct outcomes and barriers related to management, such as fewer collisions and increased costs) and opportunities and threats (indirect outcomes and barriers, such as increased bird populations and fewer resources for other building-related expenses). Both homeowners and conservation practitioners ranked strengths and opportunities higher than weaknesses and threats, indicating they have an overall positive perception toward reducing bird-window collisions. However, key obstacles that were identified included costs of management and a lack of policy and guidelines to require or guide management. These results suggest that substantial advances can be made to reduce bird-window collisions because both homeowners and conservation practitioners had positive views, suggesting their receptivity toward collision management measures. However, because of more neutral views and conflicting responses within the homeowner group, results also highlight the importance of targeting homeowners with education materials that provide information about bird-window collisions and solutions that reduce them. Because bird-window collisions are a human-caused phenomenon, such information about human perspectives and priorities will be crucial to addressing this threat and thus benefitting bird populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgia J Riggs & Omkar Joshi & Scott R Loss, 2022. "Stakeholder perceptions of bird-window collisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0263447
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263447
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263447&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0263447?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    2. Omkar Joshi & Rajan Parajuli & Gehendra Kharel & Neelam C Poudyal & Eric Taylor, 2018. "Stakeholder opinions on scientific forest management policy implementation in Nepal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Starr, Morgan & Joshi, Omkar & Will, Rodney E. & Zou, Chris B., 2019. "Perceptions regarding active management of the Cross-timbers forest resources of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas: A SWOT-ANP analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 523-530.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maraseni, Tek & Poudyal, Bishnu Hari & Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna, 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 in the forestry sector: A case of lowland region of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna & Maraseni, Tek & Pathak, Bhoj Raj, 2022. "Navigating policy debates of and discourse coalitions on Nepal's Scientific Forest Management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    3. Shuyang Yu & Dan Wang, 2022. "Quantitative SWOT Analysis on Factors Influencing the Sustainable Development of Non-Academic Education in China’s Open Universities: A Case Study of Beijing Open University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Subroy, Vandana & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E., 2018. "To Bait or Not to Bait: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Public Preferences for Native Wildlife and Conservation Management in Western Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 114-122.
    5. Omkar Joshi & Rodney E. Will & Chris B. Zou & Gehendra Kharel, 2019. "Sustaining Cross-Timbers Forest Resources: Current Knowledge and Future Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-12, August.
    6. Mishra, Bijesh, 2022. "Economics and human dimension of active management of forest-grassland ecotone in South-central USA under changing climate," MPRA Paper 116200, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Jul 2022.
    7. Michail Tsangas & Mejdi Jeguirim & Lionel Limousy & Antonis Zorpas, 2019. "The Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process in Combination with PESTEL-SWOT Analysis to Assess the Hydrocarbons Sector in Cyprus," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Enrico Pomatto & Paola Gullino & Silvia Novelli & Marco Devecchi & Federica Larcher, 2023. "Landscape Strategies for Terraced Landscapes in the European Alpine Region Using a Mixed-Method Analysis Tool," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, June.
    9. Hishe, Hadgu & Giday, Kidane & Van Orshoven, Jos & Muys, Bart & Taheri, Fatemeh & Azadi, Hossein & Feng, Lei & Zamani, Omid & Mirzaei, Mohsen & Witlox, Frank, 2021. "Analysis of Land Use Land Cover Dynamics and Driving Factors in Desa’a Forest in Northern Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    10. Stacchini, Annalisa & Guizzardi, Andrea & Mariotti, Alessia, 2022. "Smoothing down arbitrariness in planning: From SWOT to participatory decision making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    11. Susaeta, Andres & Sancewich, Brian & Klizentyte, Kotryna & Soto, Jose & Joshi, Omkar, 2024. "Profit efficiency in the provision of ecosystem services in the Cross Timbers forests," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    12. Basnyat, Bijendra & Treue, Thorsten & Pokharel, Ridish Kumar & Baral, Srijana & Rumba, Yam Bahadur, 2020. "Re-centralisation through fake Scientificness: The case of community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    13. Paulina Harron & Omkar Joshi & Christopher B Edgar & Shishir Paudel & Arjun Adhikari, 2020. "Predicting Kudzu (Pueraria montana) spread and its economic impacts in timber industry: A case study from Oklahoma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-12, March.
    14. Silvia Novelli & Monica Vercelli & Chiara Ferracini, 2021. "An Easy Mixed-Method Analysis Tool to Support Rural Development Strategy Decision-Making for Beekeeping," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, June.
    15. Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta & Shrestha, Krishna Kumar & Acharya, Bishnu Prasad, 2021. "Contested forest management and the Nepalese Government’s forest policy," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 23(C).
    16. Parvaneh Sobhani & Hassan Esmaeilzadeh & Isabelle D. Wolf & Marina Viorela Marcu & Michael Lück & Seyed Mohammad Moein Sadeghi, 2023. "Strategies to Manage Ecotourism Sustainably: Insights from a SWOT-ANP Analysis and IUCN Guidelines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-23, July.
    17. Laudari, Hari Krishna & Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek, 2020. "A postmortem of forest policy dynamics of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    18. Ernest Baba Ali & Ephraim Bonah Agyekum & Parise Adadi, 2021. "Agriculture for Sustainable Development: A SWOT-AHP Assessment of Ghana’s Planting for Food and Jobs Initiative," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    19. Paudel, Ganesh & Bhusal, Prabin & Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon, 2021. "Determining the costs and benefits of Scientific Forest Management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    20. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0263447. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.