Previous Article in Journal
Wild Boar Management and Environmental Degradation: A Matter of Ecophysiology—The Italian Case
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Conservation
Volume 6
Issue 1
10.3390/conservation6010010
conservation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Admiration to Action: How Charisma Orientations Towards Waterbirds Influence Their Conservation

by
Abigail Meeks
1,
Christopher Serenari
1,*,
Elena Rubino
2,
David Newstead
3,
Trey Barron
4 and
S. Anthony Deringer
5
1
Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA
2
Arkansas Forest Resources Center, College of Forestry, Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Arkansas at Monticello, Monticello, AR 71656, USA
3
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program, Corpus Christi, TX 78401, USA
4
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Austin, TX 78744, USA
5
Department of Heath and Human Performance, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Conservation 2026, 6(1), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation6010010
Submission received: 30 August 2025 / Revised: 9 December 2025 / Accepted: 30 December 2025 / Published: 12 January 2026
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Insufficient investment in wildlife that lacks strong aesthetic or emotional appeal to humans poses a significant obstacle to achieving broader conservation goals. Species that are not considered charismatic are nonetheless vital to ecosystems and deserve attention from conservationists, researchers, and the public. However, effective strategies for bridging the gap between these species and traditionally charismatic ones remain underexplored. Our exploratory study introduced the concept of charisma orientations to examine their influence on pro-bird behaviors, such as following guidelines, reporting disturbances, and participating in community advocacy. We identified six relational and socially negotiated orientations—ecological importance, intrinsic right to exist, protection support, affective meaning, and perceived decline—that together represent key perspectives through which waterbirds are understood. A survey of 615 Texas coastal recreationists revealed that relying solely on positive charisma diminishes the appeal of waterbirds for participants. The species likeability frame was relevant only in the context of reporting disturbances, while a moral policy stance (the belief that waterbirds need protection) was significant in predicting advocacy. Younger males and individuals who felt current regulations were adequate were less likely to engage in waterbird conservation behaviors. Our findings suggest that examining the intersection of contested charismatic species and various charisma orientations can uncover subtle nuances often overlooked due to an overemphasis on positive charisma and emotional resonance, which may only partially apply or not apply at all.

1. Introduction

What constitutes a meaningful wildlife experience is a social construction and varies from culture to culture [1], and thus, there is some variation in how to capture the resonance of wildlife to humans. The term charismatic species has been applied to the animal kingdom to characterize the uneven distribution of attention and energy humans (i.e., emotional resonance) give to animals [2]. Charismatic animals are typically described as large, exotic, terrestrial mammals regarded as beautiful, impressive, or endangered [3,4]. Large carnivores, mega-herbivores, and some omnivores [5,6] fit this portrayal, such as lions, elephants, and bears.
To explore the nature of charisma is to consider the role animals play in constructing memorable encounters for people [7] and how they connect with and negotiate non-human animals [4]. There are two prevailing sociological models attempting to illustrate charisma. The first is an emotional resonance model. Research indicates that social constructions of what is appealing or beautiful are potent drivers of human behavior and preferences, especially when discussing the natural world [8,9]. Charismatic animals trigger an emotive response (e.g., sense of wonder, affinity, mystery [7]; e.g., bald eagle [Haliaeetus leucocephalus]) in people due to their aesthetics (e.g., features), origins, behavior, rarity, size, or cultural familiarity [10,11,12]. Positively charismatic animals are often liked by the public [9] and exhibit impressive or notable qualities [13]. Negative or dark charisma also exists, giving charisma at least a dual nature, in that an animal can be both charismatic in one instance and noncharismatic in another, depending on audience, perspective, and context [14]. Emotions evoked are generally negative (e.g., disgust, scary [9]) and associated with unappealing traits (e.g., ugliness, e.g., bats). Media portrayal helps reinforce some brands of charisma [15] or deficient research attention [16]. Researchers most often measure charisma in ways that align with the emotional resonance model, focusing on how aesthetic, emotional, and symbolic variables influence intention, attitudes, or behavior, particularly willingness to pay for conservation [17,18,19,20,21,22], support for conservation efforts [23,24], or where people prefer to recreate [25].
Fordahl (2024) [2] claimed that the emotive resonance model’s tautological nature (charisma begets charisma) can be tempered by an alternative, complementary, understudied reputational management model. In this sociological model, the strategic curation of species reputation by humans mediates, operationalizes, and legitimizes charisma over long periods of time through direct and indirect encounters. We assert that under this model, concepts such as place attachment and thoughts of species population status or regulation sufficiency become relevant to charisma and its orientations. A third type of charisma is argued to exist because charisma may be variable or nuanced. Contested charisma captures when a species falls somewhere in between positive and negative [14], and charisma becomes a spectrum, not a binary. Many birds, such as waterbird species, serve as an example of embodying contested charisma, whereby they are not, for example, iconic or awe-inspiring, may be viewed as dull [17], or ignored by the public [18], yet, because they are ecologically valuable or endangered, they may be charismatic (e.g., flagship [19]).
Understanding the sociology of the charisma concept helps further understandings of asymmetries in wildlife conservation when it comes to resource allocation [20,21], planning [22] and management [23,24], or awareness of and support for species conservation [5,25,26,27]. For instance, large mammals tend to receive most of the conservation funding and attention despite being less numerous than the equally system-critical and more numerous bird, reptile, fish, or invertebrate species and their habitats [10,12,28]. Thus, charisma’s downstream effects, such as performance of conservation behaviors, are critical aspects of achieving wildlife conservation goals. Organizational and other studies suggest that forms of charisma can affect rule compliance [29,30,31]. However, charisma’s abstract or variable nature and its relationship with conservation behaviors have thus far been unsatisfactorily studied in contexts where wildlife are contestably charismatic. This trend is problematic because many contested, ambivalent, and noncharismatic species are not just more numerous but also ecologically important (e.g., vulture (Cathartidae) [32], dwarf cassowary (Casuarius bennetti) [33]), indicator [34], or essential [35] species.
To address this research gap, we treat charisma as a relational and socially negotiated orientation rather than a single positive or negative attitude. Specifically, our study asked: how do charisma orientations influence recreationists’ waterbird conservation behavior? We explored the extent to which survey respondents (a) endorse ecological justifications for waterbirds, (b) extend normative and moral standing to them, (c) experience affective/liking of waterbird species and place-based attachment, and (d) support policy or management actions—which comprise the empirical signature of contested charisma. We then modeled how these elements cohere into distinct charisma orientations and then discerned how they influence past and future recreationists’ behavior towards waterbirds in Texas.

1.1. Conceptual Model

Because waterbirds do not fit the archetype of charismatic species (e.g., awe-inspiring, majestic, or totemic), we wanted to capture the idea that charisma is not just about liking an animal—it includes its contested or dual nature and how that particular essence prompts concern, meaning-making, and action on behalf of the species. Thus, we do not assume that charisma is uniformly positive. We hypothesized that contested charisma is a patterned alignment or misalignment of human response to and interpretation of waterbirds. Hence, operationalizing waterbirds as a contested charismatic species involves accounting for relational and socially negotiated orientations rather than employing single positive measures [2,17]. Our approach draws upon the charisma literature to assess this variation and to explore how participants ecologically justify, morally value, emotionally connect, and politically support waterbirds and measure each with social, political, and ecological framings that capture waterbird orientations. The proposed six domains (ecological importance, intrinsic right to exist, protection support, affective meaning, and perceived decline) collectively indicate salient frames through which waterbirds are understood (Figure 1). From these domains, our independent variables of interest emerge (Table 1).

1.2. Independent Variables

Necessary for healthy coastal ecosystems: Watson (1975) [36] highlighted that valuing something will lead to increased importance assigned to what is being valued, and what is valued holds some form of charisma [4]. Waterbirds are ecologically valuable or inherent to the ecosystems they inhabit.
Value stance: Acknowledging species’ “right to exist” is not just taking liking them into account but waterbirds possessing attributes that inspire, for example, appreciation and political support. Inspired by Ake (1966) [37], we assert that to help ensure they continue to exist, enhanced charismatic legitimacy of waterbirds is required.
Moral stance: Those loyal to non-human animals tend to attribute moral qualities to entities they find charismatic (not that they necessarily like). As a result, it can lead to the promotion of moral action, such as a policy that protects species from harm [38,39].
Likeability: How much a person likes an animal often leads to heightened perceived value and support for species survival [40]. Theoretically, increases of this nature should increase pro-environmental behavior regarding that species [41,42]. Likewise, places imbued with affective meaning and harboring species that symbolize these places generate protection-oriented feelings and behaviors among recreationists [43].
Threat recognition: For charisma to translate to legitimacy, people must establish relational connections [14,44]. Perceiving a threat to waterbirds is important for waterbirds to move from embodying passive (no action required, detachment) to active charisma (mobilized concern, sympathy, care, and action) and conservation momentum [22,45].
Sufficiency of Waterbird Regulations: Relatedly, perceptions of regulation sufficiency are an indirect and context-dependent assessment of charisma that highlights problem recognition, which includes other aspects such as sense of urgency and personal responsibility. We reasoned that when a person appreciates waterbirds to some degree, they also believe regulations should exist to safeguard waterbird populations. A corollary to this presumption is that holding these beliefs will contribute to a higher likelihood of performing waterbird conservation behaviors [14].
Recreationist Characteristics: Attributes such as time spent recreating in an area and age are included in the model as they are mitigating factors with demonstrated impacts on stated compliance in previous studies [46,47,48]. Moreover, Jorgensen and Brown (2015) [49] found that those who had been using an area for a longer time were less likely to abide by new management actions. Mixed results on the influence of respondent characteristics compel us to explore their influence in this study. Additionally, including demographics in the model allows us to control for sample variability and ensure that sample demographics do not unduly impact the model.

1.3. Dependent Variables

Waterbird Conservation Behaviors: We evaluated past adherence to guidelines and rules, and the likelihood of reporting disturbance and participating in local/community conservation activities, if available [50]. The variables help articulate how the contexts involving contested charismatic species may influence human behavior.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Texas wetlands and coastlines serve as vital stopovers or breeding habitats for approximately 139 species of waterbirds [51,52]. In 2001, it was reported that Texas had experienced a roughly 70% decline in coastal waterbirds such as black skimmers (Rynchops niger) because of beach driving, wetland loss, and climate change (e.g., sea level rise and increased storm frequency and intensity) [53]. The decrease in waterbirds in Texas can have ramifications for tourism, biodiversity, and other impacts on ecological function, which makes reducing potential disturbances important for their continued presence in the region [54]. Additionally, Texas’s Open Beaches Act was codified in 1959, stating that the public has the free and unrestricted right to access Texas beaches. As such, driving on most mainland beaches has resulted in unsuitable nesting habitats for shorebirds and waterbirds [55]. Rookery islands off the mainland now serve as primary nesting grounds for these birds and are inhabited by colonial nesting waterbirds in Texas, either in the bay or just off the coast [53]. As such, waterbird populations cannot afford additional disturbances or habitat loss in these remote locations. Current management strategies include posted signage on rookery islands, no wake zones, patrolling staff, informational pamphlets, fishing line receptacle stations, and areas closed during the nesting season. However, waterbirds are still experiencing a noticeable decline. These islands’ remote nature makes it challenging to patrol and enforce management actions through law enforcement, resulting in a heavy reliance on recreationists abiding by guidelines without direct enforcement.

2.2. Survey Administration

The design of the survey instrument was approved by the Texas State University Institutional Review Board on 27 January 2022 (#7782) and informed by qualitative interviews with key informants between March and September 2022. The research team iteratively developed the questionnaire from March to August 2022. It was then pre-tested with and reviewed by colleagues and stakeholders until October 2022. Data resulted from a combination of random and convenience sampling to reach a balanced respondent profile with staked interest in recreation on the Texas Coast [56,57]. Data collection occurred via postal mail and email between October 2022 and September 2023. It addressed three primary user groups, anglers, non-motorized recreationists, and boaters, following guidelines established by Dillman et al. (2014) [58] with multiple modes of contact to ensure the highest number of usable responses were collected. We mailed 5751 postcards to a list of registered Texas saltwater anglers from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), each with a unique passcode, link to the web survey, and information about the study and for contacting researchers in the case of questions or needing to take the survey via phone. We supplemented postcards with 3760 emails containing the same information as the postcard. Approximately 500 postcards and 900 emails were rejected due to incomplete or inaccurate addresses. We sent reminder postcards and emails approximately 3–5 weeks later to those who had not completed the survey, with third and final reminders to anglers following two weeks later. Organizations representing non-motorized recreationists were a second group of interest, and consenting organizations received a survey invitation with reminders approximately two weeks apart to distribute to their members [58]. The exact number of organization members was not shared with the research team.
Boat ramp users were a third group of interest, partially identified via the saltwater angler survey. To enhance this sample, we conducted intercept surveys at selected sites based on information from TPWD and the Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program (CBBEP). A minimum of three boat ramps in four high-traffic locations in Galveston, Corpus Christi, Port O’Connor, and Lower Laguna Madre were selected with a convenience sample design because traffic at these ramps was considerably lower than expected. We conducted intercept surveys in October 2022 at five ramps in Galveston, four in Corpus Christi, three in Port O’Connor, and three in the Lower Laguna Madre in May and June 2023. Contact with boaters commenced as boaters left the water and moved safely away from the ramp, with the researcher’s discretion determining which boats to approach when more boats were leaving the ramp than data collectors present. If prospective study participants could not complete the survey at the ramp, we asked for their email and sent the survey invitation later that day.

2.3. Operationalizing the Model

2.3.1. Independent Variables

We used a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree): (1) ecological role (“Waterbirds are necessary for healthy coastal ecosystems”), (2) value stance (“Waterbirds have a right to exist”), (3) moral stance (“Waterbirds should be protected”), and (4) problem/threat recognition (“Waterbird species are on the decline”) (Table 1). We measured likeability using a 5-point importance scale (1 = very important in not supporting action, 5 = very important for supporting action). The items were preceded by the following prompt: “Please assign the level of importance to the following when deciding whether or not to support a management action designed to protect waterbirds from recreational disturbance.” Decision items were as follows: 1. “It is protecting an area I like” and 2. “It is protecting a species I like.” We did not measure support for a management action, which is usually modeled as a function of attitudes (degree of favor) toward the object being protected (e.g., place attachment, species liking) and toward the intervention in question. In our questionnaire, “Areas I like” and “Species I like” captured respondents’ affective evaluations of the places and taxa targeted by the action, which are classic “liking” constructs. Thus, our likability measures are antecedents of support and not support measures per se; analyzing whether higher liking predicts higher stated support lets us test how likability shapes support.

2.3.2. Dependent Variables

We assessed four dependent variables. We measured adherence to guidelines and rules with the following items and a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = always, with an “I don’t know” option): “If you are being honest, how often do you believe you follow guidelines specifically focused on protecting waterbirds from recreational disturbance?” and “If you are being honest, how often do you believe you follow regulations specifically focused on protecting waterbirds from recreational disturbance?”. We measured likelihood of reporting “recreational (waterbird) disturbance to a wildlife officer/warden” and “engage in waterbird conservation in your community” using a 5-point scale (1 = extremely unlikely to 5 = extremely likely; the latter with “I don’t know” and “I do not have this activity available to me in my community” options). We removed “I don’t know” and not an option responses from analyses.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data for the questions was downloaded from Qualtrics software and cleaned by removing those below the age of 18 or unreliable answers, ensuring accurate data quality before analysis. We analyzed data using Stata version 17 [59] and SPSS version 30 [60] to assess the relationship between our variables. We did not pursue missing data imputation because the results would have overrepresented certain recreational groups, such as anglers, and underrepresented others [61,62], and we did not have a data set from which to compare imputed data [63].
We examined variable normality to assess whether to pursue linear or ordinal regression. Five independent variable items and three dependent variables demonstrated expected but moderate-to-severe skew (skewness > +/−1; kurtosis > +/−10) beyond acceptable ranges for parametric and certain factor analyses. As the variables were non-normally distributed and the underlying constructs were expected to correlate [64,65], we, therefore, assessed dimensionality of the waterbird orientation items using exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring and direct oblimin rotation. Factor retention was guided by eigenvalues >1 and inspection of the scree plot [65]. Results revealed that though items were worded uniquely, they all measured a shared underlying positive orientation toward waterbirds. This finding is consistent with the idea that cognitions such as attitudes toward wildlife are multidimensional in expression but often unify under a single latent value-based construct [66]. However, this factor diverged from the threat severity measure, which loaded on its own factor.
We created a summed composite independent variable to capture the strength of waterbird orientation. We combined standardized z scores for ecological value, value stance, moral stance, and likeability (two items) to create a waterbird orientation variable. Raw scores would have ranged from 5 (strong negative) to 25 (strong positive). We also created a summed composite variable from the four behavioral measures—following guidelines, following regulation, reporting someone, engaging in waterbird conservation. Raw scores would have ranged from 4 (strong negative) to 16 (strong positive). Linear and multiple regressions employed the composite dependent variable, while we used ordinal logistic regressions to address skewness in four raw unstandardized dependent variables. We conducted regressions to explore the influence of waterbird orientation items (all five items simultaneously (1) and composite (1) × 5 = 10), threat severity (1 × 5 = 5), regulation sufficiency (1 × 5 = 5), and demographics (all four items simultaneously (1) × 5; 5) on each of the raw dependent variables separately and also the composite variable for a total of at least 25 regressions conducted. Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level.

2.5. Analysis of Sample Attributes

We combined the convenience and random sample data in a mixed sampling design to ensure a balanced respondent profile with depth and breadth of coverage while accessing difficult-to-reach respondents, such as those approached during intercept surveys [57]. This technique enabled us to analyze and generate descriptives from the entire data set rather than a fraction at a time. We generated descriptive statistics from the survey data using Stata [59].

3. Results

3.1. Sample Characteristics

We received 615 valid responses from Texas recreationists using angler emails (n = 337), recreationist groups (n = 227), and intercept surveys (n = 51). The number of responses allowed us to provide reasonable estimates of potential disturbance and exploratory inferences about recreationists in Texas. Most study respondents indicated they primarily participated in fishing (n = 318), followed by bird watching (n = 111), other activities (n = 84), kayaking (n = 57), and boating (n = 43). Over one-fourth (n = 173) used a boat to reach to their fishing spot; the rest either fished off a dock (n = 90), used a kayak/canoe to reach their fishing spot (n = 24), or used another form of transportation to reach their fishing spot (n = 31). Respondent ages were 65 or above (n = 132), 55–64 (n = 109), 45–54 (n = 96), 35–44 (n = 69), 25–34 (n = 45), and 18–24 (n = 24). The gender of respondents was primarily male (n = 283), followed by female (n = 187) and other (n = 8). The remaining respondents (n = 137) elected not to respond. Respondents were primarily Caucasian (n = 352), followed by Hispanic (n = 73), African American (n = 12), Native American (n = 9), Asian (n = 5), Pacific Islander (n = 4), and other (n = 17). Education level achieved ranged from did not finish high school (n = 3), high school completed (n = 74), trade school (n = 23), associate degree (n = 56), bachelor’s degree (n = 167), master’s degree (n = 110), and doctoral degree (n = 42). When asked how long they had been recreating in Texas, the majority had been recreating on the Texas coast over 20 years (n = 270), followed by 1–5 years (n = 67), 11–20 years (n = 65), 6–10 years (n = 40), and less than one year (n = 32).

3.2. Statistical Model

Ordinal logistic regression revealed the following statistically significant results (Table 2 [also see Table 3]): 1. Liking a species of waterbird influenced the likelihood of reporting waterbird disturbance (3.89(1), p = 0.049); 2. Believing waterbirds should be protected influenced the likelihood to engage in waterbird conservation locally (4.88(1), p = 0.027); 3. Perceiving enough regulations to exist was associated with lower odds of reporting disturbance (4.28(1), p = 0.039) and advocacy (29.62(1), p < 0.001); 4. Gender was associated with higher odds of following guidelines (4290.84(1), p < 0.01); 5. Demographics influenced advocacy (50.33(10), p < 0.001). Completing trade school (4.86(1), p = 0.027), being male (638.19(1), p < 0.001), and being younger (9.91(1), p < 0.002) were associated with lower odds of engaging in advocacy.
Linear regressions revealed two main findings (Table 4, [also see Table 3]): 1. Strong positive waterbird orientations influenced the likelihood that study participants would perform waterbird conservation behaviors, F(1, 369) = 13.23, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.032, f2 = 03. In the most parsimonious model (orientations + demographics), orientations predicted conservation behavior (p = 0.049), sharing predictive power with gender (p = 0.028), and regulation sufficiency (p = 0.002), F(4, 305) = 56.11, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.110, f2 = 12.

4. Discussion

Our results suggest that past or future performance of waterbird conservation behavior is not necessarily underpinned by liking waterbirds. Our results suggest that relational and socially negotiated orientations towards waterbirds are positive among our sample and influence pro-waterbird behaviors, but some domains and frames play a more important role in catalyzing behavior than others, depending on the behavior in question. In sum, we find preliminary support for our contested charisma hypothesis. Specifically, orientations did not appear to factor into respondents’ self-reported adherence to guidelines and rules, though the likeability of waterbird species did have an impact in the case of reporting others and not regulating the self. Our results suggest that likeability, a traditional measure of positive charisma, operated primarily as a moral evaluative cue, influencing willingness to report violations committed by others, but not as a tool to regulate one’s own adherence. This pattern is consistent with value–behavior gap research showing that affective concern can motivate social judgment without necessarily motivating self-regulated behavioral constraint, particularly when compliance carries personal cost [67]. Findings further suggest a trade-off scenario of valuation versus personal compliance, which would be fruitful for future non-monetary charisma-inspired studies to evaluate, because following guidelines and rules is important.
In addition, a moral (i.e., right versus wrong thought and action) policy stance may be an effective way to mobilize voluntary action for waterbirds in Texas. Asserting that waterbirds are in need of protection moralizes the issue of complex charisma while framing conservation as a matter of personal responsibility rather than overall preference. One moral argument that might be effective to spur positive action for waterbirds is that it is right to think and act as if these species belong in coastal systems. For instance, creating a tailored campaign designed to foster a sense of belonging may enhance cohesion between humans, waterbirds, and their habitats and encourage conservation behaviors, guideline and rule following, and cultural continuity (i.e., embedded place-based stewardship via the veneration of waterbirds) [68]. In the case of recreationists on the Texas coast, this effort could be championed and scaled through coastal groups (e.g., anglers and bird watchers) and communities. As there is scant literature on creating a sense of belonging with respect to contested charisma species, an abundance of research opportunities exist in this area.
Recreationists in our study who believed there were enough regulations protecting waterbirds indicated they were less likely to engage in conservation behaviors, suggesting a potential mismatch in human perception and the reality waterbirds face. Logical explanations include a reduced sense of personal responsibility, the problem is already being handled, that any extra effort is redundant, or that birds are overregulated (despite there being no legal protection for this group of birds aside from laws pertaining to all non-game migratory birds). These sentiments can lead to ineffective long-term civic engagement and waterbird management, particularly in the case of perceptions of over-regulation [69,70,71]. Future research will need to understand the roots of sufficient regulation sentiment and identity strategies, such as strengthening self-regulation, countering apathy, or fostering accountability and ownership, to effectively counteract these perceptions.
One takeaway from this study is that waterbirds desperately need champions of not just pro-bird behaviors but an ideology that incorporates waterbird orientations, such as those we measured, and one that resonates with younger age groups and males. Ideology, which links reality to behavior [72], frames how people relate to waterbirds and their habitat in terms of their importance to ecosystems and expresses humans’ moral, political, and ecological responsibility to ensure their populations thrive. This increase should result in a greater likelihood of achieving both recreation and conservation goals through collective norm renegotiation and change, moving away from any positive charisma bias that we argue does not apply or help waterbirds in Texas. One way waterbird conservation leaders can initiate an ideological shift that alters the socio-political fabric [72] underpinning bird conservation is to tie in the plight of waterbirds with the emerging Bird City Texas program. It is a community-focused certification program designed to protect birds in urban habitats through community-centered actions [73]. To integrate waterbirds into such a program, cities would need to pursue certification by fulfilling required actions and maintaining visible and lauded waterbird-friendly programming and conservation efforts (e.g., strategic and targeted marketing and management techniques, respectively). Achievement of a certified Bird City may enhance human relationality with waterbirds, though future research would need to explore this idea on the Texas coast.
The reasons why users protect the system in which they recreate is a grand question in leisure and wildlife conservation studies. Users invested in a resource will often seek to protect it to continue to use it [74]. Therefore, when an inadequate number of people perform behaviors that protect the resource, site managers feel the need to cultivate individuals who are vested in protecting the system on which they rely for enjoyment. We believe that managers and researchers need to consider how they will address relational and socially negotiated orientations because a myriad of contextual factors directly and indirectly affect conservation outcomes for contested and non-charismatic species. By understanding charisma orientations and finding ways to measure and act upon them, we may obtain a better sense of why users do right by wildlife or not, how to enhance their buy-in, and increase the chances of long-term conservation success.

Limitations

This study serves as an exploratory study of charisma orientations and is limited by our sample size and recruitment methods. Attempts to mitigate recruitment through multiple forms of contact were made to reduce this limitation. Furthermore, though items used in this study were adapted from theory, they remain susceptible to social desirability or self-report biases. Following previously published literature, instrument testing, and data analysis techniques were used to mitigate this limitation. Future research on this topic should validate our choice of and include different measures of charisma orientations and do so across diverse contexts.

Author Contributions

C.S., E.R., D.N. and T.B.; methodology, T.B., D.N., C.S. and E.R.; validation, C.S.; formal analysis, A.M., S.A.D. and C.S.; investigation, A.M.; resources, C.S.; data curation, A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M. and C.S.; writing—review and editing, S.A.D., A.M. and C.S.; visualization, D.N., E.R., T.B. and C.S.; supervision, C.S.; project administration, C.S. and A.M.; funding acquisition, C.S., E.R., D.N. and T.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Texas Parks and Wildlife (contract 2231).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Texas State University, 27 January 2022 (#7782).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Texas Parks & Wildlife Department for their support of this research project and the study participants for taking the time to share their perspectives.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders aided in the conceptualization and initial design of the study but had no role in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Franklin, A. Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-Animal Relations in Modernity; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  2. Fordahl, C. Beyond animal charisma: A sociological approach to charismatic species. Conserv. Soc. 2024, 22, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Johnson, P.J.; Kansky, R.; Loveridge, A.J.; Macdonald, D.W. Size, rarity and charisma: Valuing African wildlife trophies. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Albert, C.; Luque, G.M.; Courchamp, F. The twenty most charismatic species. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Van der Meer, E.; Badza, M.N.; Ndhlovu, A. Large carnivores as tourism flagship species for the Zimbabwe component of the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 2016, 46, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Srivathsa, A.; Banerjee, A.; Banerjee, S.; Chawla, M.M.; Das, A.; Ganguly, D.; Surve, N. Chasms in charismatic species research: Seventy years of carnivore science and its implications for conservation and policy in India. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 273, 109694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Curtin, S. What makes for memorable wildlife encounters? Revelations from ‘serious’ wildlife tourists. J. Ecotourism 2010, 9, 149–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kaplan, S. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environ. Behav. 1987, 19, 3–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ducarme, F.; Luque, G.M.; Courchamp, F. What are “charismatic species” for conservation biologists. Biosci. Master Rev. 2013, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gobster, P.H.; Nassauer, J.I.; Daniel, T.C.; Fry, G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 959–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Verissimo, D.; MacMillan, D.C.; Smith, J.R. Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conserv. Lett. 2011, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. McGinlay, J.; Parsons, D.J.; Morris, J.; Hubatova, M.; Graves, A.; Bradbury, R.B.; Bullock, J.M. Do charismatic species groups generate more cultural ecosystem service benefits? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 27, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tremblay, P. Tourism wildlife icons: Attractions or marketing symbols? J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2002, 9, 164–181. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lorimer, J. Nonhuman charisma. Environ. Plan. Soc. Space 2007, 25, 911–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dayer, A.A.; Williams, A.; Cosbar, E.; Racey, M. Blaming threatened species: Media portrayal of human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 2019, 53, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Prokop, P.; Masarovič, R.; Hajdúchová, S.; Ježová, Z.; Zvaríková, M.; Fedor, P. Prioritisation of charismatic animals in major conservation journals measured by the altmetric attention score. Sustainability 2022, 14, 17029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bulte, E.H.; Van Kooten, G.C. Marginal valuation of charismatic species: Implications for conservation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 14, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. White, P.C.; Bennett, A.C.; Hayes, E.J. The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Rev. 2001, 31, 151–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Richardson, L.; Loomis, J. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1535–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Morse-Jones, S.; Bateman, I.J.; Kontoleon, A.; Ferrini, S.; Burgess, N.D.; Turner, R.K. Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects. In Valuing Ecosystem Services; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2014; pp. 109–131. [Google Scholar]
  21. Randler, C.; Koch, S. Willingness to protect bird species depends on individual respondents’ demographic and species traits. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2025, 7, e13277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hosey, G. A preliminary model of human–animal relationships in the zoo. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 109, 105–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Skibins, J.C.; Powell, R.B.; Hallo, J.C. Charisma and conservation: Charismatic megafauna’s influence on safari and zoo tourists’ pro-conservation behaviors. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 959–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Macdonald, E.A.; Burnham, D.; Hinks, A.E.; Dickman, A.J.; Malhi, Y.; Macdonald, D.W. Conservation inequality and the charismatic cat: Felis felicis. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2015, 3, 851–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Caro, T.; Riggio, J. Conservation and behavior of Africa’s “Big Five”. Curr. Zool. 2014, 60, 486–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tal, A. A charismatic hyena: Insights for human-wildlife interaction in shared urban environments. Case Stud. Environ. 2024, 8, 2302549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hall, C.M.; James, M.; Baird, T. Forests and trees as charismatic mega-flora: Implications for heritage tourism and conservation. J. Herit. Tour. 2011, 6, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Den Hartog, D.N.; De Hoogh, A.H.; Keegan, A.E. The interactive effects of belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1131–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Karim, A.; Purnomo, H.; Fikriyah, F.; Kardiyati, E.N. A charismatic relationship: How a Kyai’s charismatic leadership and society’s compliance are constructed? J. Indones. Econ. Bus. 2020, 35, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Takala, T. Dark leadership, charisma and trust. Psychology 2010, 1, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Frank, E.; Sudarshan, A. The Social Costs of Keystone Species Collapse: Evidence from the Decline of Vultures in India; University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper: Chicago, IL, USA, 2023; No. 2022-165. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mack, A.L.; Wright, D.D. The frugivore community and the fruiting plant flora in a New Guinea rainforest: Identifying keystone frugivores. In Tropical fruits and frugivores: The Search for Strong Interactors; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 185–203. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mekonen, S. Birds as biodiversity and environmental indicator. Indicator 2017, 7, 28–34. [Google Scholar]
  34. Anderson, S.H.; Kelly, D.; Robertson, A.W.; Ladley, J.J. Pollination by birds. In Why Birds Matter: Avian Ecological Function and Ecosystem Services; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2016; p. 73. [Google Scholar]
  35. Braverman, I. Wild Life: The Institution of Nature; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  36. Watson, G. Free agency. J. Philos. 1975, 72, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ake, C. Charismatic legitimation and political integration. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 1966, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lamb, D. Animals, Ethics and Aesthetics. J. Appl. Anim. Ethics Res. 2019, 1, 66–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kleinhans, B.; Macdonald, E. Conservation beyond liking: Moral concern without affective charisma. Conserv. Soc. 2023, 21, 45–56. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tisdell, C.; Wilson, C.; Nantha, H.S. Association of public support for survival of wildlife species with their likeability. Anthrozoös 2005, 18, 160–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bruder, J.; Burakowski, L.M.; Park, T.; Al-Haddad, R.; Al-Hemaidi, S.; Al-Korbi, A.; Al-Naimi, A. Cross-cultural awareness and attitudes toward threatened animal species. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 898503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Smith, P.; Mann, J.; Marsh, A. Empathy for wildlife: The importance of the individual. Ambio 2024, 53, 1269–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R. Attached recreationists: Who are they and what do they value? J. Leis. Res. 2004, 36, 145–165. [Google Scholar]
  44. Crowley, S.L.; Hinchliffe, S.; McDonald, R.A. The Paradox of Charisma: Condensed meaning and competing attachments in wildlife conservation. Antipode 2020, 52, 1651–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jepson, P.; Ladle, R. Developing new symbolic species for conservation marketing. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 1481–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vaske, J.J.; Donnelly, M.P.; Whittaker, D.; Jonker, S. Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest issues. Soc. Nat. Res. 2002, 15, 761–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Needham, M.D.; Vaske, J.J. Activity involvement, place attachment, and compliance with recreation rules. Leis. Sci. 2013, 35, 309–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Marion, J.L.; Leung, Y.-F.; Eagleston, H.; Burroughs, K. A review and synthesis of recreation ecology research supporting carrying capacity and visitor use management decision making. J. For. 2016, 114, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jorgensen, J.G.; Brown, B.M. Evaluating recreationists’ awareness and attitudes toward Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) at Lake McConaughy, Nebraska, USA. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2015, 20, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Grafton, R.Q. Social capital and fisheries governance. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2005, 48, 753–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Davis, C.A.; Smith, L.M. Ecology and management of migrant shorebirds in the Playa Lakes Region of Texas. In Wildlife Monographs; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 3–45. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3830842 (accessed on 9 November 2025).
  52. Shackelford, C.E.; Lockwood, M.W. The Birds of Texas: Occurrence and Seasonal Movements; Texas Parks and Wildlife: Austin, TX, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  53. Brusati, E.D.; DuBowy, P.J.; Lacher, T.E., Jr. Comparing Ecological Functions of Natural and Created Wetlands for Shorebirds in Texas; Waterbirds: Traverse City, MI, USA, 2001; pp. 371–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Atkinson, P.W. Can we recreate or restore intertidal habitats for shorebirds? Bull.-Wader Study Group 2003, 100, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  55. Elliott, R.J. The Texas Open Beaches Act: Public Rights to Beach Access. Baylor L. Rev. 1976, 28, 383. [Google Scholar]
  56. Feild, L.; Pruchno, R.A.; Bewley, J.; Lemay, E.P., Jr.; Levinsky, N.G. Using probability vs. nonprobability sampling to identify hard-to-access participants for health-related research: Costs and contrasts. J. Aging Health 2006, 18, 565–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Etikan, I.; Bala, K. Combination of probability random sampling method with non probability random sampling method (sampling versus sampling methods). Biom. Biostat. Int. J. 2017, 5, 210–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D.; Christian, L.M. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  59. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 18; StataCorp LLC: College Station, TX, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  60. SPSS. Statistics for Windows: Version 10; SPSS Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  61. Graham, J.W. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009, 60, 549–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pampaka, M.; Hutcheson, G.; Williams, J. Handling missing data: Analysis of a challenging data set using multiple imputation. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2016, 39, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pigott, T.D. A review of methods for missing data. Educ. Res. Eval. 2001, 7, 353–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fabrigar, L.R.; Wegener, D.T.; MacCallum, R.C.; Strahan, E.J. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 1999, 4, 272–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J.W. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 7. [Google Scholar]
  66. Manfredo, M.J.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Karns, G.; Woodruff, S.; Skibins, J. The Role of Values in Wildlife Management; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  67. Keane, A.; Jones, J.P.; Edwards-Jones, G.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. The sleeping policeman: Understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation. Anim. Conserv. 2008, 11, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pipitone, J.M.; Jović, S. Urban Nature and Sense of Belonging: Photo-Narrative Exploration of Socio-Spatial Disparities in New York City. Ecopsychology 2022, 14, 235–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Norton-Griffiths, M. Wildlife losses in Kenya: An analysis of conservation policy. Nat. Resour. Model. 2000, 13, 13–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Shackleton, S. Case Study D Overregulation and Complex Bureaucratic Procedure: A Disincentive for Compliance? The Case of a Valuable Carving Wood in Bushbuckridge, South Africa. In Wild Product Governance; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2010; pp. 199–204. [Google Scholar]
  71. Walsey, V.; Brewer, J. Managed out of existence: Over-regulation of Indigenous subsistence fishing of the Yukon River. GeoJournal 2018, 83, 1169–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Žižek, S. (Ed.) Mapping Ideology; Verso: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  73. Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD). Bird City Texas. 2024. Available online: https://tpwd.texas.gov/wildlife/birding/bird-city-texas (accessed on 9 November 2025).
  74. Freeman, A.M., III; Herriges, J.A.; Kling, C.L. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Conservation 06 00010 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual model articulating domains, constructs, and role in charisma.
Figure 1. Conceptual model articulating domains, constructs, and role in charisma.
Conservation 06 00010 g001
Table 1. Model variables for use in the analysis of how orientations affect waterbird conservation behaviors.
Table 1. Model variables for use in the analysis of how orientations affect waterbird conservation behaviors.
DomainConstructRole in Contested
Charisma
Necessary for coastal ecosystemsBelief about ecological functionEcological justification frame
Have a right to existValue stanceValue justification frame
Should be protectedPolicy stanceMoral frame
Protecting an area I likePlace attachmentAffective meaning
Species I like are being protectedSpecies liking/emotional affinityAffective meaning
Species are decliningThreat recognitionProblem frame
Regulation sufficiencyThreat recognitionProblem frame
Table 2. Ordinal logistic regression results.
Table 2. Ordinal logistic regression results.
Relationship Explored (IV/DV)EstimateSEWalddfp
1. Species likeability/Reporting0.2640.1343.8910.049
2. Birds protected/Advocacy0.5190.2354.8810.027
3a. Enough regulations/Reporting−0.1570.0764.2810.039
3b. Enough regulations/Advocacy−0.5050.09329.621<0.001
4. Gender/Following guidelines15.110.2314290.871<0.001
5a. Age/Advocacy0.2180.0699.9110.002
5b. Education (trade)/Advocacy−1.110.5034.8610.027
5c Gender/Advocacy−16.540.2076389.191<0.001
Table 3. Mean and standard error of conceptual model measures.
Table 3. Mean and standard error of conceptual model measures.
VariableNMeanSE
Necessary to ecosystem5184.800.028
Right to exist5244.820.029
Should be protected5224.740.029
Areas I like5354.350.039
Species I like5334.420.038
Waterbirds are declining4033.870.057
Enough regulations4342.970.057
Follow guidelines6074.670.028
Follow rules6094.650.028
Report disturbance6073.530.050
Engage in conservation3974.030.053
Table 4. Linear regression predicting waterbird conservation behaviors.
Table 4. Linear regression predicting waterbird conservation behaviors.
Relationship ExploredUnstandardized BSEβtp
Model 1
(constant)0.1470.123 1.200.232
Orientations0.1320.0360.1863.64<0.001
Parsimonious Model
(constant)−0.7400.806 −0.9180.359
Orientations0.0930.0400.1292.320.021
Enough regulation−0.3470.109−0.180−3.1690.002
Gender0.8040.2770.1662.910.004
Age0.1500.088−0.0941.7110.088
Note: The DV and Orientations were summed composite variables.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Meeks, A.; Serenari, C.; Rubino, E.; Newstead, D.; Barron, T.; Deringer, S.A. Admiration to Action: How Charisma Orientations Towards Waterbirds Influence Their Conservation. Conservation 2026, 6, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation6010010

AMA Style

Meeks A, Serenari C, Rubino E, Newstead D, Barron T, Deringer SA. Admiration to Action: How Charisma Orientations Towards Waterbirds Influence Their Conservation. Conservation. 2026; 6(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation6010010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Meeks, Abigail, Christopher Serenari, Elena Rubino, David Newstead, Trey Barron, and S. Anthony Deringer. 2026. "Admiration to Action: How Charisma Orientations Towards Waterbirds Influence Their Conservation" Conservation 6, no. 1: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation6010010

APA Style

Meeks, A., Serenari, C., Rubino, E., Newstead, D., Barron, T., & Deringer, S. A. (2026). Admiration to Action: How Charisma Orientations Towards Waterbirds Influence Their Conservation. Conservation, 6(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation6010010

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop