Research

INTRODUCTION

Urban and suburban areas require different biodiversity management strategies from conventional approaches used in rural and uninhabited protected areas (Grove and Pickett 2019). Land is fragmented with diverse use and ownership, so management requires cooperation from multiple stakeholders. Engaging residents in conservation volunteering is one approach to include residents in conservation practices (Takase et al. 2019, Taylor et al. 2022). Globally, conservation volunteerism has increased in the last decade, as has public awareness of environmental issues (United Nations Volunteers Programme 2021, ISSP Research Group 2022). However, there are growing concerns that urban residents are disconnected from nature because of the intensification of the built environment (Soga and Gaston 2016), and their motivations to participate in conservation likely differ from those of rural residents, as their environments and social needs differ (Paarlberg et al. 2022). Improving urban residents’ connection to nature may translate into increased conservation actions (Whitburn et al. 2019).

Motivations for volunteering have been identified by the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI; see Clary et al. 1998). This is a reliable way to measure motivations (Chacón et al. 2017) and has been used in many studies on volunteer motivations (Ryan et al. 2001, Bruyere and Rappe 2007, Asah and Blahna 2012, Heimann and Medvecky 2022). Motivations are broadly around career, learning, meeting social needs, values, reducing feelings of guilt, and building self-esteem (Clary et al. 1998). For conservation volunteering specifically, studies have recognized additional motivations, such as helping the environment (Ryan et al. 2001) and getting outside (Bruyere and Rappe 2007). Heimann and Medvecky (2022) adapted reducing feelings of guilt to responsibility, which highlights the need to understand current and evolving attitudes and motivations (Jacobson et al. 2012).

Research shows that volunteering in a group benefits participants, but most biodiversity conservation volunteering research has focused on tree planting, citizen science, monitoring, and garden groups (Morrow-Howell et al. 2009, Ohmer et al. 2009, Dearborn and Kark 2010, Asah et al. 2014). Over the last few decades, globalization has resulted in an increasing number of invasive species requiring management to reduce economic, health, or biodiversity impacts (Pysek et al. 2020). Alongside this, there are numerous examples of public participation in invasive species management through monitoring and early detection (Pawson et al. 2020, Epanchin-Niell et al. 2021), and control/removal of invasive species (Bailey et al. 2020). For example, groups help to control invasive weeds in Hawaii (Friday et al. 2015) and South Africa (Jubase et al. 2021). Research exists on the biodiversity outcomes for community-led vertebrate pest control groups (e.g., Common Myna, Acridotheres tristis, in Australia, Grarock et al. 2014; native and endemic birds in New Zealand, Gerolemou et al. 2024; American mink, Neogale vison, in Scotland, Bryce et al. 2011). However, little research exists on the perceived benefits for volunteers who participate in vertebrate pest control (Anđelković et al. 2022). Because participating in these groups requires direct or indirect lethal control, the motivations and barriers likely differ from those relating to plant revegetation. Mammalian and avian species are often considered charismatic, and their control, as pests, can be viewed unfavorably by the public (e.g., with European hedgehogs on the Scottish island of South Uist, Crowley et al. 2017), and for pest management programs to be successful in general, public support is required (Estévez et al. 2015).

We used Aotearoa-New Zealand as a case study for assessing public attitudes toward volunteer-based pest control. In New Zealand, invasive mammalian predators (e.g., Rattus spp.) have driven the extinction of native (including endemic) birds and threaten many of the remaining species (Innes et al. 2010, Robertson et al. 2017; Appendix 1). We focused our research on Auckland, the largest city, which has more than 250 community conservation groups conducting pest control (Predator Free New Zealand 2022).

Research that compares attitudes between people who undertake conservation actions to those who do not is scarce. We aimed to investigate (1) whether environmental attitudes differ between those who do and do not participate in conservation actions (conservation group members and/or controls mammalian pests), and (2) the motivations and barriers to participating in conservation actions as identified by conservation group leaders, members of conservation groups, and people who do not undertake conservation actions. We used a mixed method approach to (1) interview leaders of conservation groups about what influences participation in conservation and (2) survey both conservation group members and members of the public about their environmental attitudes and participation (or lack thereof) in conservation actions.

METHODS

Interview procedure for leaders of conservation groups

Leaders of Auckland urban conservation groups were targeted for interviews because they typically have a good understanding of conservation issues since they have collective knowledge of their group members (Morris 2009). All interviewees were over 18 years old and were not employees of our main funders (Auckland Council). We sought interviewees by asking Auckland Council to email all group leaders in their database of conservation groups with an invite to participate and we interviewed all leaders that responded to the invitation, except those that were part of more than one group.

Owing to restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted using the video conferencing platform Zoom or via a telephone call. The discussions lasted between 30 and 75 minutes and followed a semi-structured format to allow interviewees to go into detail when they wanted. Discussions centered around the logistics of running a group, social activities of the groups and communities, and the advantages and disadvantages of working in a group, based on a series of initial questions (Appendix 2). With the participants’ consent, we audio-recorded the interviews and took notes. The recordings were sent to a third-party transcriber. After interviewees reviewed their transcripts, we used qualitative data analysis software, NVivo v.12 (QSR International Pty Ltd 2020), to perform a thematic analysis (Appendix 3). The software facilitates the assignment of words and phrases inductively from the interview transcripts to codes specified by the researcher. This allows the researcher to identify common themes among the transcripts.

Questionnaire constructs for conservation group members and members of the public

Using constructs from existing socio-environmental research, we created a questionnaire to measure environmental attitudes. The constructs included; pest management attitude (PMA; Aley et al. 2020); civic place attachment (CPA) and natural place attachment (NPA; Scannell and Gifford 2010); and altruistic environmental concern (AEC), biological environmental concern (BEC), and egoistic environmental concern (EEC; Schultz 2001). These scales were selected for their combined ability to effectively gauge multiple aspects of environmental attitudes.

The PMA scale measures how favorable people feel toward pest species and control methods. Based on the new ecological paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap et al. 2000), the scale was developed in New Zealand to aid pest management planning (Aley et al. 2020). CPA describes the bond that individuals may feel toward their environment. It has three components: person (who is attached and whether it is from an individually or collectively held belief), psychological process (how one shows attachment, for example, the emotions they express toward a place and behaviors they exhibit to stay proximal), and place dimensions (the spatial scale of the attachment, as well as any physical or social features associated with the place; Scannell and Gifford 2010). NPA concerns attachment to natural features, such as forests, whereas CPA concerns attachment to the social aspects, such as the bonds between neighbors. Environmental concern measures three types of environmental concerns: concern for other people and communities (AEC), concern for biodiversity (BEC), and concern for oneself (EEC; Schultz 2001).

Questionnaire procedure for conservation group members and members of the public

Participants were asked to select how much they agreed or disagreed with statements within each of the six environmental attitude scales. These were assessed through Likert scales (ranging from 1 to 7 for AEC, BEC, and EEC; 1 to 5 for CPA, NPA, and PMA; Likert 1932). The scales and factor analyses were taken from the original studies. For each scale, the statement scores were totaled to give an overall summed score. Scores for PMA scale statements where a higher score indicated more opposition to pest management (statements 2, 4, 6, and 8) were reversed. This meant a higher score represented a more positive pest management attitude and was consistent with the directionality scoring for all environmental attitude scales.

Participants were also asked about their involvement in community groups (conservation, cultural, educational, hobby, sports, and or religious), pest management on their property, and demographic questions (Appendix 4 for full questionnaire). Demographic questions were from the New Zealand census (Stats NZ 2018) and helped identify any sample bias. Conservation group members were asked additional questions about their group involvement based on an existing question set for this purpose (North-West Wildlink 2019). The questionnaire was piloted on a small sample of the public (n = 20) to ensure the terminology was clear.

We used two approaches to recruit participants. We targeted participants who are not part of conservation groups by disseminating the questionnaire to the Auckland public via a market research company (Survey A). Participants were all Auckland region residents (with an Auckland postcode) and were at least 15 years old. We aimed for 1000 responses and used quotas for gender and age (based on Auckland census data; Stats NZ 2019), so our survey sample was demographically representative. A random survey of the public was unlikely to produce an adequate number of responses from current conservation group members (~3% of Aucklanders; North-West Wildlink 2019). Therefore, we targeted conservation groups directly through our networks (i.e., asking Auckland Council to forward an invitation to participate to their extensive email database of conservation groups) and social media to ensure enough responses from group members (Survey B). We did not contact any groups directly to help preserve participants’ anonymity as per our Human Ethics approval requirements. The questionnaire was available via the platform SurveyMonkey for four weeks in August 2020, and the average completion time was 22 minutes.

Questionnaire analysis

We screened the data to check for duplicates (n = 0) and to remove non-Auckland postcodes (n = 19) and incomplete responses (n = 39). We classified participants by their conservation actions: conservation group member, controls pest mammals on property, both conservation group member and controls pest mammals, or neither action. Participants were classified as managing pest mammals on their property if they controlled one or more species targeted by the Predator Free initiative (see Department of Conservation 2020). Open responses were coded using NVivo to identify themes. Responses were coded with up to four individually identified themes (i.e., the most themes derived from one participant’s response), which were then reported as percentages of the total responses (e.g., if 100 conservation group members answered the question and a theme was identified in 10 responses, the resulting percentage response would be 10%).

All analyses were undertaken in R v.4.0.3 (R Core Team 2020). We used Pearson’s chi-squared (χ²) tests or Fisher’s exact tests where five or fewer participants gave a particular answer to compare responses based on participants’ conservation actions (i.e., comparing participants who control mammals to those who do not for Qu.7–8 and comparing conservation group members and non-members for Qu.14–15).

We investigated if participants engaged in conservation actions (managing mammalian pests on property and/or member of conservation group) scored differently on the environmental attitude scales by performing a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on each of the six different environmental attitude scales. Interaction plots were used to visualize any differences in scores for each statement. This research was approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (18 May 2020 for three years; reference number 024511).

RESULTS

Conservation group leaders interviews

Sixteen leaders of Auckland community conservation groups were interviewed. The roles of leaders included practical work, administration, and education. Some of the leadership positions were paid, and others were volunteer, with or without expenses covered.

Motivations to participate in a conservation group

All 16 leaders reported the primary motivation for becoming involved in their conservation group was to help the environment, for example, interviewees mentioned “wanting the native birds to come back” or “to give native biodiversity a chance.” Many leaders wanted to escape and get exercise, such as “going for a walk” and “being outside.” Or, as one interviewee noted, “some people really like trapping.” All but one leader referred to being motivated by personal values, for example, the importance of “doing their bit” or “doing something for the greater good.” One interviewee said, “It’s about putting into the community ... I like to feel part of a community [that’s] thriving.” Some motivations were more self-interested, such as “to keep their property rat-free.”

Although all the leaders started their groups for environmental reasons, they believed that most of their volunteers joined for social interactions, such as “to make friends in the neighborhood.” Several leaders noticed a surge in volunteer numbers during the Covid-19 pandemic once outdoor activities could resume. For some groups, the social aspect was important for keeping momentum going. Interviewees talked about how “the social thing is very much a part ... that’s what they really enjoy” and “people ... come for the social aspect, as much as for helping.” Another spoke about the importance of community, as volunteers wanted “to do something useful in their local area” and the groups meant “neighbors banded together with a common goal.” Although social reasons were not a primary motivator for any of the leaders, one did observe that “there’s definitely some social benefits from the trapping groups.”

To ensure volunteers continued to participate, conservation group leaders had various ways of maintaining motivation. The most cited method was to keep in regular contact with volunteers by sending them reminders to participate or sharing the group’s results. Interviewees mentioned “good news stories about [native] birds” and “reminding [volunteers] why” they participated helped to keep volunteers engaged. Other leaders said that it was important to delegate tasks to volunteers, so they felt their input was worthwhile. For example, “introduce ways of keeping them interested.” Many interviewees felt volunteers wanted to see improvements in the environment, such as fewer invasive mammals or more native species. Interviewees said, “a high point will be when we don’t catch anything” and “we started seeing more birdlife.” One interviewee spoke about the motivation that came from others participating when they said: “It’s exciting when others want to join.” Face-to-face contact was regarded as the most effective approach to keep volunteers motivated, especially “one-on-one interactions.” Some interviewees provided equipment or resources to their volunteers, like “giving out free rat traps.”

Barriers to conservation volunteers

All group leaders spoke about issues that negatively impacted group activities. The most common was a lack of time for proposed activities or having other commitments. One interview remarked that “there are many other things after [volunteers’] attention.” Another said, “As we’ve stretched our goals, the time commitment is starting to get tricky.”

A recurrent issue was volunteers dropping out when they became demotivated by the lack of visible results. Interviewees said, “there isn’t a huge amount of payback” and “[volunteers] get discouraged easily.” Some interviewees felt that demotivation contributed to the lack of communication from volunteers. One remarked, “We had such little feedback ... We don’t know whether we need to motivate them or not.” Another spoke about how volunteers reacted to the online monitoring system their group used to record what was found in the rat traps: “They just go, ‘Oh, too hard, can’t be bothered.’”

Group leaders found it difficult to motivate volunteers to conduct pest and biodiversity monitoring, meaning that for many groups, any outcomes delivered by the groups’ activities were anecdotal. For example, one interviewee said, “I thought there was an ... increase in birdlife ... but I’ve got no evidence.” One interviewee noted the importance of not overwhelming volunteers with work when they said, “You can’t download [everything onto] people too early - it overwhelms them. But, as people get engaged, you know the time to take it up another level.”

Other leaders found that, while paid workers were often necessary for groups’ success, the mix of volunteers and paid workers could be “a tricky dynamic.” One interviewee observed, “When you have a volunteer leading a group, and then someone puts in a paid person ... it always seems a bit messy.” This was more prevalent if volunteers felt undervalued when paid positions are introduced. As one interviewee commented, “You want to feel valued, and that you have input into what’s happening.”

Barriers to running a conservation group

Many leaders struggled with the logistics of running the group, such as “not having a clue how to start” or worrying that “a lot of pressure can fall on one person.” There were concerns with regulatory issues, as some interviewees perceived “so many hurdles.” Additional barriers emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic when groups could not conduct activities and became frustrated that their work removing invasive species was “being undone.” Although less common, participant safety was a concern for several leaders, who noted that “only fit and able people are safe on [some] sites.” Concerns over a lack of funding, or government funding for conservation groups being withdrawn, were common, as interviewees believed that “cuts are being made and that’s harder for us.” These fears were worsened by the Covid-19 pandemic. Inter- and intra-group conflict was a worry for some leaders, with one noting that “dominant people can drive others away.”

There were several issues raised around communicating with non-members, particularly people who believe invasive species are not a problem in New Zealand. Interviewees stated that “there are people who don’t like what we’re doing” and “[pet] cat owners are hard to engage.” Other members of the wider community were disinterested because “some people just don’t like handling dead rats” or they had concerns that the traps might not be “safe for their pets and children.” Connecting with people of different demographics was an issue for interviewees. As one interviewee stated, “We could do with more education in Asian languages.”

Questionnaire: Auckland residents vs. conservation group members

In total, 1217 Auckland residents completed the questionnaire. The survey received responses from 1007 members of the public (Survey A; 111 unique postcodes) and 210 conservation group members (Survey B; 80 unique postcodes). Of those respondents, 41.2% (n = 415) of residents and 75.2% (n = 158) of conservation group members managed mammalian pests at their property (Appendix 5 for survey demographics).

Motivations and barriers to conservation actions

Motivations for conducting pest control on participants’ properties differed significantly between the two groups (Qu.7; Fig. 1). The participants controlling mammalian pests were more likely than participants who only controlled other pests (e.g., weeds, invertebrates) to select statements related to helping native biodiversity (χ² = 27.8, df = 1, p < 0.001).

We identified 13 reasons from participants’ responses to the question, “What are your reasons for not trapping more often than you do (or at all)...?” (Qu.8; Fig. 2). Respondents who stated that they did not have pests, or it was not their responsibility, were significantly more likely to be participants who controlled non-mammalian pests than participants who controlled mammalian pests (Fishers exact, p < 0.001). Those who controlled mammals gave more barriers around having other commitments, such as time constraints (χ² = 22.4, df = 1, p < 0.001) or stated they already do enough for conservation (χ² = 18.0, df = 1, p < 0.001) compared to participants who controlled non-mammalian pests.

Only 23% (n = 48) of conservation group members (Survey B) answered the open-ended question “What motivated you to join or start your environmental group?” (Qu.12). Around half of these respondents (n = 26) gave answers relating to protecting biodiversity, and 10 were motivated by wanting to remove invasive species. The second most common answer was socially motivated (n = 14). Ten respondents wanted to “give back,” (presumably to nature) and a minority were motivated by conservation education or because they enjoyed being outside (n = 6 for both).

Community group participation

Six general responses about the advantages of participating in a community group were identified (Qu.14; Fig. 3), with both groups stating their main reason to participate was friendship, although conservation group members found group work more motivating (χ² = 9.02, df = 1, p < 0.01) and productive than working alone (χ² = 6.19, df = 1, p < 0.05) compared to other community group types. Conservation group members were significantly less likely to join a group to make friends (χ² = 5.00, df = 1, p < 0.05) than members of other types of community group.

The question, “What do you think are the disadvantages for you, if any, of participating in a community group?” (Qu.15), had the lowest response rate, with 21.4% (n = 45) of conservation group members and 4.7% (n = 47) of non-members providing answers. Seven general reasons were given (Fig. 4). There were no significant differences between the responses of the two groups (Fishers exact, p > 0.05). Most disadvantages were related to opportunity (see Ipsos 2016), such as not having enough time or having other commitments. Disadvantages regarding motivation, such as feeling like less progress was made than anticipated, or capability, such as participation impacting health, were the least common reasons.

The effect of pro-conservation attitudes on behavior

Participants undertaking conservation actions (managing pests on their property and conservation group membership) were more likely to be in favor of pest control and had significantly increased pest management attitude (PMA), natural place attachment (NPA), and biospheric environmental concern (BEC) mean scores compared to participants who did not undertake conservation actions (Fig. 5, Appendix 6). The mean scores for NPA were higher than civic place attachment (CPA; Appendix 6). Being a member of a conservation group was associated with an overall increase in mean CPA scores when participants did not control mammals on their property. There were no significant differences in participants’ scores for altruistic environmental concern (AEC) and egoistic environmental concern (EEC; Fig. 5, Appendix 6).

DISCUSSION

Motivations to participate in conservation groups

Protection or concern for the environment is a common motivator for conservation volunteering (Ryan et al. 2001, Bruyere and Rappe 2007, Asah and Blahna 2012, Heimann and Medvecky 2022). The motivations we identified were consistent with previous studies around the world. Social benefits, personal values, and getting outside were previously identified by Clary et al. (1998) and Bruyere and Rappe (2007), and community duty and responsibility were also identified by Asah and Blahna (2012), Woolley et al. (2021), and Heimann and Medvecky (2022). Unlike some previous studies (Clary et al., 1998, Bruyere and Rappe 2007, Asah and Blahna 2012, Heimann and Medvecky 2022), our results did not find career to be a motivator for participatory conservation. We attribute this to the demographics of volunteers being skewed older (55–74 years old). Likewise, learning was not a strong motivator, perhaps because of volunteers participating more for social reasons (Ryan et al. 2001). The theme of project organization as a motivator (Ryan et al. 2001, Jacobson et al. 2012) was also absent from our participants. However, the leaders interviewed were concerned that logistical issues could impact how well their groups run, and how this might impact volunteer retention.

The theme of responsibility was most commonly expressed by the phrase “to do my part.” Heimann and Medvecky (2022) suggested that this concept was New Zealand-centric and linked to participants’ feelings about the impacts of invasive species as a consequence of (relatively recent) human colonization. They also linked responsibility to the Māori concept of kaitiakitanga (environmental guardianship), a term mentioned by participants elsewhere in our questionnaire, although other cultures also have similar values regarding a duty to protect the environment (Fujii 2006, Ihemezie et al. 2021).

Motivations to control pest mammals

For pest control participation specifically, we found that people are often motivated by self-interest, such as protecting their property or preventing damage from pests. Pests, such as rodent species, are a growing global environmental and public health issue, meaning their control is vital (Capizzi et al. 2014). Highlighting the personal benefits of pest control could encourage more people to participate, creating ancillary benefits for the environment. This motivation was not identified by previous research in New Zealand specifically looking at motivations for pest control, which found the biggest motivator was environmental (Woolley et al. 2021). We attribute this difference to our study’s larger sample size and different populations sampled (Auckland vs. all New Zealand cities; random vs. snowball sampling). The difference could also be due to pooling of pest species in surveys, as people may have different reasons for controlling different pests (Hughey et al. 2019).

In our study, environmental reasons, such as protecting biodiversity, were less likely to motivate people unless participants were already part of conservation groups. Mean biospheric environmental concern (BEC) and natural place attachment (NPA) scores of questionnaire participants who controlled mammalian pests were, although significantly so, only marginally higher than participants with neither conservation action, suggesting that people who are not conservation group members may not see controlling pest mammals as a conservation action. Because most participants we surveyed had pro-environmental values, people may be more inclined to control pest mammals if they are made aware that it is a conservation action and they may receive conservation benefits, such as more native birds in their garden. Additionally, an increase in birdlife could result in improvements in their mental well-being (Soga and Gaston 2020) and help to combat the global mental health crisis (Ferrari et al. 2022).

Opportunity barriers were more common than motivational or capability barriers, suggesting that people are willing to volunteer. The pest management attitude (PMA) scores indicate that very few participants are opposed to mammalian pest control, unlike people surveyed in other countries, such as Japan and the UK (Akiba et al. 2012, Dunn et al. 2018). Previous surveys have found the New Zealand public overwhelmingly in favor of trapping and (non-aerial) poisoning of pest mammals (Ipsos 2016, Aley and Russell 2019, Hughey et al. 2019, Heimann and Medvecky 2022). However, our results suggest there are many people unable to do the work themselves or who perceive pest management as someone else’s (e.g., government) responsibility. Successful pest control programs involve collaboration between scientists, governments, and local communities (Fisher et al. 2012, Parkes et al. 2017, Crowley et al. 2018), so the public should be encouraged to participate. Future public engagement could highlight the different type of volunteer opportunities available, especially for time-poor people (Dunn et al. 2021). Although not identified by previous pest control social research in New Zealand (Woolley et al. 2021), there is a perception in other countries that pest control, when accepted by the public, should be government-led (Doherty et al. 2017, Dunn et al. 2018). Encouraging people to see pest control as a social responsibility and endeavor could change this perception.

Attitudes to conservation

Most people will state they have conservation values (Haerpfer et al. 2022). This is especially true in New Zealand, where people value native biodiversity highly (Ipsos 2016, Hughey et al. 2019, Heimann and Medvecky 2022). However, people do not necessarily act on these values (Schultz 2011), and environmental concerns are unlikely to motivate pro-environmental behaviors in everyone (Fujii 2006). In our study, mean BEC scores were negatively skewed, indicating that, in the population we measured, the scale was not sensitive enough to distinguish people with attitudes at the upper end of the scale. A more sensitive measure will be required to discriminate people who practice their conservation values.

Volunteer retention

Although environmental reasons were the primary motive for leaders to start conservation groups, our questionnaire, like Alena (2018), found volunteers continue to participate in conservation groups for social benefits, such as friendship. Members of conservation groups had significantly higher civic place attachment (CPA) scores compared to other questionnaire participants. These scores were likely a result of the sense of community values, rather than conservation values, as more individualistic conservation actions (controlling mammalian pests on property) made no difference to CPA scores. Conservation group members who control pest mammals had lower scores than members who did not control pest mammals. Several interviewees noted that some conservation groups focused on backyard trapping offer no social activities, meaning these members were not getting the social benefits that more social groups receive (Maseyk et al. 2021, Gerolemou et al. 2022). Investigating what specific attributes of a group lead to success has not been well-studied, but participation in pest control may increase if the activity was made more social.

Conservation groups can struggle to retain volunteers (Jubase et al. 2021). Other studies also found the sense of community in groups to be a reason to continue to volunteer (Asah and Blahna 2012, Ipsos 2016, Heimann and Medvecky 2022), and environmental motivations were not good indicators of continued participation (Ryan et al. 2001, Asah and Blahna 2012). Volunteers will keep coming back if their needs are met (Ryan et al. 2001) and they enjoy tasks (Jacobson et al. 2012), which emphasizes the importance of social activities in conservation groups and not to see volunteers as free labor (Leyshon et al. 2021). Volunteer recruitment drives focused on the social benefits of conservation volunteering could be highly effective (Asah and Blahna 2012). Further research is needed into what motivates people to continue to volunteer and whether conservation groups with high volunteer retention offer more social activities, as this could be key for conservation outcomes.

Management implications

We have several recommendations to increase participation in conservation activities of this type. Outcome monitoring (e.g., biodiversity metrics) to highlight improvements in the environment may encourage demotivated volunteers (Ryan et al. 2001) and reduce volunteer dropout (Woolley et al. 2021). However, this could be difficult, because many leaders expressed concerns over a lack of resources to conduct monitoring, itself dependent on additional volunteer commitment. A coordinated monitoring program and database with long-term funding could facilitate collaborative outcome monitoring across groups (Peters et al. 2016). Encouraging the public to participate in citizen science projects, such as the NZ Garden Bird Survey, the Aussie (Australian) Bird Count, or the UK Big Garden Birdwatch, may help to increase participation in conservation volunteering by observing the tangible benefits of pest control, and with sufficient participation, could offer insights into changes to bird populations.

Because time was the largest barrier for existing volunteers in this study and others (Hobbs and White 2012, Ipsos 2016, Heimann and Medvecky 2022), communications could elaborate on the time needed to undertake specific tasks, emphasizing that conservation actions do not have to be a large commitment. Explaining how to participate could also reduce uncertainty because a lack of knowledge is frequently reported as a barrier to participation (Hobbs and White 2012, Woolley et al. 2021).

A major reason why questionnaire participants did not control pests was the belief that they did not have pests or that it was not their responsibility to control them. This differed from what group leaders perceived as the main barrier: people disliking the idea of killing pests. Invasive species control is often coordinated by government authorities (Kapitza et al. 2019, Mill et al. 2020), and the public may expect incentives to participate (Santo et al. 2015, van Wilgen and Wannenburgh 2016). Without education about the prevalence of invasive species and their impacts on native biodiversity, public opinion can be biased toward charismatic invasive animals (Akiba et al. 2012, Dunn et al. 2018). Highlighting the property damage pest mammals can cause (Wilson et al. 2018), or that pest mammals can be present whilst evading detection (Byers et al. 2019), may motivate people to control pests. A different outreach strategy would be required for apartment dwellers, with an emphasis on the mental health benefits of “nature doses” (Shanahan et al. 2015), and targeted information on opportunities to participate in conservation besides backyard pest control, for example, controlling pests in local reserves. This study, like others (Asah and Blahna 2012, Ipsos 2016, Heimann and Medvecky 2022), found people want to volunteer in their neighborhood, so having opportunities in the local area can help meet this need. This could offer additional benefits, such as increasing neighborhood social capital (Maseyk et al. 2021, Gerolemou et al. 2022). Making pest control a more social activity could help, but further research into effective strategies to increase participation in volunteer pest control is needed.

Our study found that volunteers are typically older (55–74 years old) and with a higher level of education (tertiary degree) than the average person. People with European ethnicity are over-represented in conservation groups in New Zealand (North-West Wildlink 2019, Woolley et al. 2021, Heimann and Medvecky 2022), although to a lesser extent in Auckland, which is more diverse than other parts of the country (Stats NZ 2018). Motivations may differ among ethnicities, therefore future research on conservation volunteering should consider this factor.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents were supportive of conservation and pest management. Although most people in Auckland have environmental values, these values may not be strong enough in everyone to motivate their participation in conservation. Given the range of different motivations and barriers to participation, targeted messaging to different demographics could increase participation in conservation. Communications should explain the commitment involved and be ongoing with volunteers to maintain motivation. Our findings suggest that there is potential to increase participation in conservation, and encouraging participation would be beneficial for urban residents.

LITERATURE CITED

Akiba, H., C. A. Miller, and H. Matsuda. 2012. Factor influencing public preference for raccoon eradication plan in Kanagawa, Japan. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17(3):207-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2012.653516

Alena, H. 2018. What motivates conservation volunteering? A case study of community conservation on Herald Island, New Zealand. Thesis. University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Aley, J. P., T. L. Milfont, and J. C. Russell. 2020. The pest-management attitude (PMA) scale: a unidimensional and versatile assessment tool. Wildlife Research 47(2):166-176. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR19094

Aley, J. P., and J. Russell. 2019. A survey of environmental and pest management attitudes on inhabited Hauraki Gulf Islands. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Anđelković, A., L. Lawson Handley, E. Marchante, T. Adriaens, P. Brown, E. Tricario, and L. Verbrugge. 2022. A review of volunteers’ motivations to monitor and control invasive alien species. NeoBiota 73:153-175. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.73.79636

Asah, S. T., and D. J. Blahna. 2012. Motivational functionalism and urban conservation stewardship: implications for volunteer involvement. Conservation Letters 5(6):470-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00263.x

Asah, S. T., M. M. Lenentine, and D. J. Blahna. 2014. Benefits of urban landscape eco-volunteerism: mixed methods segmentation analysis and implications for volunteer retention. Landscape and Urban Planning 123:108-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.011

Bailey, R. L., H. A. Faulkner-Grant, V. Y. Martin, T. B. Phillips, and D. N. Bonter. 2020. Nest usurpation by non-native birds and the role of people in nest box management. Conservation Science and Practice 2(5):e185 https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.185

Bruyere, B., and S. Rappe. 2007. Identifying the motivations of environmental volunteers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50(4):503-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701402034

Bryce, R., M. K. Oliver, L. Davies, H. Gray, J. Urquhart, and X. Lambin. 2011. Turning back the tide of American mink invasion at an unprecedented scale through community participation and adaptive management. Biological Conservation 144(1):575-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.013

Byers, K. A., M. J. Lee, D. M. Patrick, and C. G. Himsworth. 2019. Rats about town: a systematic review of rat movement in urban ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00013

Capizzi, D., S. Bertolino, and A. Mortelliti. 2014. Rating the rat: global patterns and research priorities in impacts and management of rodent pests. Mammal Review 44(2):148-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12019

Chacón, F., G. Gutiérrez, V. Sauto, M. L. Vecina, and A. Pérez. 2017. Volunteer functions inventory: a systematic review. Psicothema 29(3):306-316.

Clary, E. G., M. Snyder, R. D. Ridge, J. Copeland, A. A. Stukas, J. Haugen, and P. Miene. 1998. Volunteer functions inventory. APA PsycTests Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/t04582-000

Crowley, S. L., S. Hinchliffe, and R. A. McDonald. 2018. Killing squirrels: exploring motivations and practices of lethal wildlife management. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 1(1-2):120-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848617747831

Crowley, S. L., S. Hinchliffe, and R. A. McDonald. 2017. Conflict in invasive species management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15(3):133-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1471

Dearborn, D. C., and S. Kark. 2010. Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conservation Biology 24:432-440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01328.x

Department of Conservation. 2020. Towards a predator free New Zealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Doherty, T. S., C. R. Dickman, C. N. Johnson, S. M. Legge, E. G. Ritchie, and J. C. Z. Woinarski. 2017. Impacts and management of feral cats Felis catus in Australia. Mammal Review 47(2):83-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12080

Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. New trends in measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):425-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176

Dunn, M., M. Marzano, and J. Forster. 2021. The red zone: attitudes towards squirrels and their management where it matters most. Biological Conservation 253:108869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108869

Dunn, M., M. Marzano, J. Forster, and R. M. A. Gill. 2018. Public attitudes towards “pest” management: perceptions on squirrel management strategies in the UK. Biological Conservation 222:52-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.020

Epanchin-Niell, R., A. L. Thompson, and T. Treakle. 2021. Public contributions to early detection of new invasive pests. Conservation Science and Practice 3(6):e422 https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.422

Estévez, R. A., C. B. Anderson, J. C. Pizarro, and M. A. Burgman. 2015. Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conservation Biology 29(1):19-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12359

Ferrari, A. J., D. F. Santomauro, A. M. M. Herrera, J. Shadid, C. Ashbaugh, H. E. Erskine, F. J. Charlson, M. Naghavi, S. I. Hay, T. Vos, and H. A. Whiteford. 2022. Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Psychiatry 9(2):137-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00395-3

Fisher, N., A. Lee, and J. Cribb. 2012. Will the community accept our science? Monitoring the community’s view about managing pest animals in Australia. Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.

Friday, J. B., S. Cordell, C. P. Giardina, F. Inman-Narahari, N. Koch, J. J. K. Leary, C. M. Litton, and C. Trauernicht. 2015. Future directions for forest restoration in Hawaiʻi. New Forests 46(5-6):733-746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-015-9507-3

Fujii, S. 2006. Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26:262-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.003

Gerolemou, R. V., J. C. Russell, and M. C. Stanley. 2022. Social capital in the context of volunteer conservation initiatives. Conservation Science and Practice 4:e12765. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12765

Gerolemou, R. V., J. C. Russell, and M. C. Stanley. 2024. Outcomes of community-led urban rat control on avifauna. Biological Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-024-03401-7

Grarock, K., C. R. Tidemann, J. T. Wood, and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2014. Understanding basic species population dynamics for effective control: a case study on community-led culling of the common myna (Acridotheres tristis). Biological Invasions 16:1427-1440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0580-2

Grove, J. M., and S. T. A. Pickett. 2019. From transdisciplinary projects to platforms: expanding capacity and impact of land systems knowledge and decision making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 38:7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.001

Haerpfer, C., R. Inglehart, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, D.-M. J., M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin, and B. Puranen, editors. 2022. World values survey: round seven - country-pooled datafile version. Fifth edition. JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat, Madrid, Spain and Vienna, Austria.

Heimann, A., and F. Medvecky. 2022. Attitudes and motivations of New Zealand conservation volunteers. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 46(1):3464. https://doi.org/10.20417/nzjecol.46.18

Hobbs, S. J., and P. C. L. White. 2012. Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. Journal for Nature Conservation 20(6):364-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.08.002

Hughey, K. F. D., G. N. Kerr, and R. Cullen. 2019. Public perceptions of New Zealand’s environment: 2019. EOS Ecology. Christchurch, New Zealand.

Ihemezie, E. J., M. Nawrath, L. Strauß, L. C. Stringer, and M. Dallimer. 2021. The influence of human values on attitudes and behaviours towards forest conservation. Journal of Environmental Management 292:112857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112857

Innes, J., D. Kelly, J. M. C. Overton, and C. Gillies. 2010. Predation and other factors currently limiting New Zealand forest birds. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34(1):86-114.

International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) Research Group. 2022. International Social Survey Programme: Environment IV - ISSP 2020. ZA7650 V.1. GESIS, Cologne, France.

Ipsos. 2016. Survey of New Zealanders. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Jacobson, S. K., J. S. Carlton, and M. C. Monroe. 2012. Motivation and satisfaction of volunteers at a Florida Natural Resource Agency. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 30(1):55-67.

Jubase, N., R. T. Shackleton, and J. Measey. 2021. Motivations and contributions of volunteer groups in the management of invasive alien plants in South Africa’s Western Cape Province. Bothalia 51(2):a3. https://doi.org/10.38201/btha.abc.v51.i2.3

Kapitza, K., H. Zimmermann, B. Martín-López, and H. von Wehrden. 2019. Research on the social perception of invasive species: a systematic literature review. NeoBiota 43:47-68. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.43.31619

Leyshon, M., C. Leyshon, T. Walker, and R. Fish. 2021. More than sweat equity: young people as volunteers in conservation work. Journal of Rural Studies 81:78-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.025

Likert, R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Scientific Psychology 22:5-55.

Maseyk, F., M. Doole, D. F. Shanahan, and G. Johnston. 2021. Social and ecological outcomes from community-led conservation. Collaborative research project prepared for Predator Free 2050 Ltd. The Catalyst Group Contract Report No. 2021/160. Wellington, New Zealand.

Mill, A. C., S. L. Crowley, X. Lambin, C. McKinney, G. Maggs, P. Robertson, N. J. Robinson, A. I. Ward, and M. Marzano. 2020. The challenges of long‐term invasive mammal management lessons from the UK. Mammal Review 50(2):136-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12186

Morris, Z. S. 2009. The truth about interviewing elites. Politics 29(3):209-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2009.01357.x

Morrow-Howell, N., S. I. Hong, and F. Tang. 2009. Who benefits from volunteering? Variations in perceived benefits. Gerontologist 49(1):91-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnp007

North-West Wildlink. 2019. Auckland’s environment and conservation survey full results. North-West Wildlink, Auckland, New Zealand.

Ohmer, M. L., P. Meadowcroft, K. Freed, and E. Lewis. 2009. Community gardening and community development: individual, social and community benefits of a community conservation program. Journal of Community Practice 17(4):377-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705420903299961

Paarlberg, L. E., R. Nesbit, S. Y. Choi, and R. Moss. 2022. The rural/urban volunteering divide. Voluntas 33(1):107-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00401-2

Parkes, J., G. Nugent, D. M. Forsyth, A. E. Byrom, R. P. Pech, B. Warburton, and D. Choquenot. 2017. Past, present and two potential futures for managing New Zealand’s mammalian pests. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 41(1):151-161. https://doi.org/10.20417/nzjecol.41.1

Pawson, S. M., J. J. Sullivan, and A. Grant. 2020. Expanding general surveillance of invasive species by integrating citizens as both observers and identifiers. Journal of Pest Science 93(4):1155-1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-020-01259-x

Peters, M. A., D. Hamilton, C. Eames, J. Innes, and N. W. H. Mason. 2016. The current state of community-based environmental monitoring in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 40(3):279-288. https://doi.org/10.20417/nzjecol.40.37

Predator Free New Zealand. 2022. Find a group. Predator Free New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. https://predatorfreenz.org/big-picture/national-map/find-a-group/

Pysek, P., P. E. Hulme, D. Simberloff, S. Bacher, T. M. Blackburn, J. T. Carlton, W. Dawson, F. Essl, L. C. Foxcroft, P. Genovesi, et al. 2020. Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biological Reviews 95(6):1511-1534. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12627

QSR International Pty Ltd. 2020. NVivo. Chadstone, Australia.

R Core Team. 2020. RStudio: integrated development for R. R Core Team, Vienna, Austria.

Robertson, H., J. Dowding, G. Elliott, R. Hitchmough, C. Miskelly, C. O’Donnell, R. G. Powlesland, P. Sagar, R. Scofield, and G. Taylor. 2017. Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2016. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Ryan, R. L., R. Kaplan, and R. E. Grese. 2001. Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(5):629-648. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560120079948

Santo, A. R., M. G. Sorice, C. J. Donlan, C. T. Franck, and C. B. Anderson. 2015. A human-centered approach to designing invasive species eradication programs on human-inhabited islands. Global Environmental Change 35:289-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.012

Scannell, L., and R. Gifford. 2010. The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(3):289-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.010

Schultz, P. W. 2011. Conservation means behavior. Conservation Biology 25(6):1080-1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x

Schultz, W. P. 2001. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(4):327-339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227

Shanahan, D. F., R. A. Fuller, R. Bush, B. B. Lin, and K. J. Gaston. 2015. The health benefits of urban nature: how much do we need? BioScience 65(5):476-485. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv032

Soga, M., and K. J. Gaston. 2016. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(2):94-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225

Soga, M., and K. J. Gaston. 2020. The ecology of human-nature interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 287:1918. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1882

Stats NZ. 2018. 2018 Census. Stats NZ, Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.stats.govt.nz/2018-census/

Stats NZ. 2019. Subnational population estimates: At 30 June 2019 (provisional). Stats NZ, Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/subnational-population-estimates-at-30-june-2019-provisional

Takase, Y., A. A. Hadi, and K. Furuya. 2019. The relationship between volunteer motivations and variation in frequency of participation in conservation activities. Environmental Management 63(1):32-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1106-6

Taylor, L., C. J. Maller, K. Soanes, C. E. Ramalho, A. Aiyer, K. M. Parris, and C. G. Threlfall. 2022. Enablers and challenges when engaging local communities for urban biodiversity conservation in Australian cities. Sustainability Science 17(3):779-792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01012-y

United Nations Volunteers Programme. 2021. 2022 State of the world’s volunteerism report. Building equal and inclusive societies. United Nations Volunteers Programme, Bonn, Germany.

van Wilgen, B. W., and A. Wannenburgh. 2016. Co-facilitating invasive species control, water conservation and poverty relief: achievements and challenges in South Africa’s Working for Water programme. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19:7-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.012

Whitburn, J., W. L. Linklater, and T. L. Milfont. 2019. Exposure to urban nature and tree planting are related to pro-environmental behavior via connection to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration, and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior 51(7):787-810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517751009

Wilson, N., M. McIntyre, P. Blaschke, P. Muellner, O. D. Mansoor, and M. G. Baker. 2018. Potential public health benefits from eradicating rats in New Zealand cities and a tentative research agenda. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 48(4):280-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2017.1343193

Woolley, C. K., S. Hartley, N. J. Nelson, and D. F. Shanahan. 2021. Public willingness to engage in backyard conservation in New Zealand: exploring motivations and barriers for participation. People and Nature 3(4):929-940. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10243