Characterizing stakeholder perceptions of birdwatching benefits as a cultural ecosystem service: a comparative study of Atlantic and Pacific flyway estuaries

Recreational activities such as birdwatching, or “birding,” are among the most commonly studied cultural ecosystem services. However, the benefits these services provide, particularly within avian-estuarine habitats, remain mostly under characterized. We identify, distinguish, and compare stakeholder perceptions of cultural ecosystem service benefits associated with birdwatching across two major estuaries situated within US coastal flyways. Drawing on a mixed-methods questionnaire administered to 31 birding stakeholders in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey (Atlantic Flyway) and San Francisco Bay, California (Pacific Flyway), we assess the distinct benefits across three categories: identities, capabilities, and experiences of birders, as well as associated service-benefit products like cultural goods. Experiential benefits, particularly those associated with rare or vagrant bird sightings, were the most prominent across both sites. Barnegat Bay was believed by informants to host a variety of birding-related events that overlap with greater themes of coastal culture and maritime heritage, whereas San Francisco Bay informants saw more insulated birding-specific cultural goods. Specialized birder identity was emphasized more strongly among San Francisco Bay informants than those in Barnegat Bay, and geographic identity tied to locally iconic species received little emphasis in either location. Informants at both sites also identified a notable knowledge gap between active birdwatchers and the general public, which we argue warrants attention from local wildlife and land managers. Taken together, our findings illuminate the reciprocal nature of cultural ecosystem services by demonstrating how identity, capability, and experience interact across distinct estuary contexts. These interactions offer actionable insights for managers seeking to develop more effective interpretive and outreach programming, tailored tourism offerings, and stronger conservation initiatives.

Birdwatching, or birding, encompasses the observation and identification of birds across a range of contexts, from dedicated domestic or international trips to everyday local outings (such as walks in nearby parks) and even casual observation around one’s home (Carver, 2024). Birding has received increasing scholarly attention over time; for example, a bibliometric analysis of birding-related research indexed in Web of Science identified 474 publications spanning 32 years, beginning in 1980 (Tamimzadeh and Özel, 2024). In that analysis conservation, citizen science 1, tourism, technology, and social and cultural dimensions emerged as primary foci of birding research, highlighting the field’s complex, interrelated, and far-reaching implications. Birding has also been examined for the range of health benefits it confers, including improvements in cognition and mental well-being (Andrews et al., 2025). In addition to these individual benefits, birding contributes substantially to the US economy; participants spend an estimated $279 billion annually, supporting approximately 1.4 million jobs and generating more than $90 billion in income (Carver, 2024).

Birding provides a wide range of benefits, from contributions to national economic output to improvements in individual well-being, despite this breadth, there remains a limited understanding of birdwatching as it relates to ecosystem service benefits, particularly within estuarine ecosystems. This gap constrains the ability of land and wildlife managers to design effective recreation, outreach, and conservation strategies that align with the true value of an ecosystem (Martin et al., 2020). Cultural ecosystem services of coastal ecosystems are under characterized (Martin et al., 2016), in part because their nonmaterial benefits are often difficult to isolate and systematically assess in a complicated and overlooked ecosystem.

Situating estuary-based birdwatching within an ecosystem services framework helps clarify what is known and what is unknown about both the cultural practice and the ecosystem that is supporting it. Ecosystem services are defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems,” and they are typically categorized into four distinguished groups: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. Cultural ecosystem services, including birding, refer to the nonmaterial benefits that individuals derive from ecosystems, such as recreation, aesthetic appreciation, education, and spiritual enrichment (MA, 2005). Monetary valuation methods, while useful in many studies for advancing our understanding of birding’s recreational value, are singularly focused and do not capture the full range of nonmaterial benefits birding provides, from a sense of identity to the skills and capabilities birders develop through their practice. Fish et al. (2016) created a framework that granularizes cultural ecosystem services and benefits into distinct categories to assess these nonmaterial benefits and the systems that create them. Our research here focuses on the benefits dimension including identities, capabilities, experiences, and cultural goods. The distinction of identities, experiences, capabilities, and cultural goods makes seemingly intangible cultural ecosystem benefits more easily identifiable and quantifiable. Experiences refer to the ways in which individuals encounter, perceive, and interact with ecosystems, including both affective responses (e.g., tranquility) and direct engagements (e.g., observing species or habitats) (Fish et al., 2016). Identity refers to the ways individuals understand themselves and their relationships to the world around them, such as identifying as a “birder” or associating cultural meaning with wildlife or landscapes. Capabilities refer to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that individuals develop through engagement with ecosystems, including ecological understanding and the ability to identify, interpret, and interact with species and habitats. Cultural goods refer to tangible or organized manifestations of cultural ecosystem services, often described as service-benefit products, such as festivals, guided activities, or outreach programs that simultaneously enable participation (service) and generate experiential or social benefits. One of the central challenges in evaluating cultural ecosystem services is that culture is deeply tied to place, making it difficult to generalize findings across regions. Comparative research like ours, offers a way through this challenge. By examining two similar but distinct locations, we can distinguish place-specific attributes from shared features of birdwatching-related ecosystem services and offer transferable insights when appropriate. Our comparative design is not intended to compare identical estuarine systems. Rather, it follows a “most-similar systems” logic in which both sites share key ecological and recreational characteristics: they are major estuarine ecosystems, important migratory stopovers within coastal flyways, and well-established destinations for birdwatching of great cultural importance to birders and nature lovers. At the same time, they differ substantially in population size, urbanization, governance context, and regional culture. This design allows us to explore which perceived cultural ecosystem service benefits are shared across estuarine birding destinations and which appear shaped by local social and institutional conditions. Birders are seen as environmentally minded stakeholders who are likely to be involved in wildlife and habitat conservation organizations (Eriksson et al., 2023; Shipley et al., 2019). They are also commonly found to exhibit pro-environmental attitudes and ecologically responsible behaviors (Cheung et al., 2017; Cooper et al., 2015; Pintassilgo et al., 2023). These attitudes and behaviors make birders a worthy research subject but they can be difficult to assess because their interests and abilities follow a large gradient based on individual experience and specialization (Hvenegaard, 2002). This is because birders are not a homogenous group. A birder may call themselves anything from novice to advanced based on their level of specialization and experience. They may also have specific interests that set them apart from one another such as a particular fondness for waterfowl over passerines. The wide range in birder experience and specialization makes capturing the full range of perspectives from birders themselves a considerable sampling challenge; therefore, our research turns to experienced practitioners who work closely with birdwatchers across this spectrum and who are often dedicated birders themselves. Here, we treat them as information-rich key informants on birdwatching as a cultural ecosystem service.

This study addresses two central research questions: first, whether meaningful differences exist in the perceptions of cultural ecosystem service benefits derived from birds and birdwatching between Barnegat Bay, New Jersey and San Francisco Bay, California; and second, how an enhanced understanding of these benefits may improve environmental decision-making processes or policies. Our objective is not to isolate causal relationships but to identify patterns of similarity and variation that can inform future cultural ecosystem service research and management.

To answer our research questions, we draw on the perspectives of key informants, made up of experienced birding stakeholders, including conservation practitioners, tourism professionals, and birding experts, to characterize how cultural ecosystem service benefits associated with birdwatching are perceived and described across locations. Our key informants were selected not for their statistical representation of birdwatchers but for the depth of knowledge, experience, and perspective they bring to birdwatching in their region (Patton, 2002). In their roles as guides, nonprofit employees, and even government agency professionals, these individuals have built relationships with local birdwatchers and in fact many are active birdwatchers themselves. Their one to one experiences steeped in local birdwatching culture provide a nuanced perspective of birdwatching benefits that has not yet been assessed. From their perceptions we identify and differentiate the interrelated dimensions of cultural ecosystem service benefits, offering a structured approach to understanding how birding contributes to human well-being across distinct social and ecological contexts. We are contributing to a more robust empirical foundation that makes cultural ecosystem services more difficult to dismiss from conservation planning and decision-making and we seek to further the integration of cultural ecosystem services into assessments across diverse regions and contexts.

This study compares the perceptions of cultural ecosystem service benefits of birdwatching according to experienced birding stakeholders in two different estuaries in the Atlantic and Pacific flyways. Our comparison makes clear the differences in benefits characterization in seemingly similar estuarine locations with key institutional, geographic, and social contexts.

Barnegat Bay is a three bay estuarine system also commonly referred to as the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuarine System. There are three smaller bays within this system, the Little Egg Harbor to the south, the Manahawkin Bay in the mid-bay, and the larger Barnegat Bay to the North (Kennish, 2001). Barnegat Bay is a lagoon type estuary along the Atlantic Ocean, separated by a system of barrier islands. The barrier island system comprises Island Beach to the North and Long Beach Island to the South. Both islands are heavily developed, and they are popular tourism destinations in the summer. The Barnegat Bay watershed has a year-round population of 560,000 which almost doubles in the summertime (Barnegat Bay Partnership, 2025). Island Beach State Park, the Barnegat Lighthouse State Park, and the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge represent three prominent protected land spaces within the Bay watershed, although there are additional county and state protected areas. The ecosystem comprises barrier islands with sandy beaches, tidal flats, sedge islands, and salt marshes. Barnegat Bay encompasses around 280 square kilometers; it is quite shallow with an average depth of 1.6 m, ranging from 0.5 m to 6 m throughout (Kennish, 2001).

The San Francisco Bay estuary system covers approximately 4,134 square kilometers and is home to almost 8.5 million people (Cohen, 2000; US EPA, 2012). This estuary system is made up of a North Bay (Suisun and San Pablo Bays), Central Bay, and South Bay (Cloern and Jassby, 2012). The North Bay is strongly influenced by seasonal and annual runoff fluctuations from agricultural lands, while the South Bay is a marine lagoon with ocean connectivity and interference from a highly urbanized landscape. The San Francisco Bay is a critical stopover location for migrating bird species, namely shorebirds and waterfowl (Takekawa et al., 2001). Despite the importance of San Francisco Bay’s wetlands for migrating bird species, more than 90% of them have been lost to urban development, a prominent feature of the Bay area (Cordell, 2020).

Questionnaire design

We designed and implemented a mixed-methods questionnaire informed by the framework of Fish et al. (2016) to assess perceptions of cultural ecosystem benefits from key informants in both locations. Drawing on this framework, our questionnaire was designed to assess experiences (feelings such as tranquility, or physical interactions such as a walk on the beach), identities (how people understand themselves and their relationships to the world around them), capabilities (the knowledge, skills, and abilities that ecosystems help shape, both individually and socially) and cultural goods (tangible or organized manifestations of these benefits, such as festivals or guided birding events).

The questionnaire was originally designed to capture perceptions of both cultural ecosystem services and benefits, consistent with the Fish et al. (2016) distinction between the two. While certain questions were designed to elicit either services (e.g., birdwatching as a cultural practice) or benefits (e.g., identities, experiences, capabilities, cultural goods), informants frequently described benefits in response to questions originally intended to assess services. A complete list of the 27 questions can be found in the Supplementary Material. Because our qualitative coding used deductive benefit-focused codes (identities, experiences, capabilities, cultural goods) across all open-ended responses regardless of the originating question’s intended focus, benefit-related content was captured wherever it occurred in responses, not only from questions explicitly designed to elicit benefits. As this publication focuses specifically on the benefits dimension of the entire dataset, a companion analysis of services-related findings is outside the scope of the present study.

Multiple choice questions were used to directly assess identity, capabilities, experiences, and cultural goods as quantitative data. One example is listed here, this question assessed identity. “How much do you believe people see birds as a symbol for your community?” Response options included:

Many people see birds as a symbol for our community

People who enjoy bird watching and nature would see birds as a symbol for our community

I don’t think people would see birds as a symbol for our community

Open-ended questions were used to prompt the informant to discuss their perceptions of birdwatching in their region and elements of the framework were identified through qualitative coding. One example question is “Can you describe something unique about bird watching in your location compared to bird watching in other locations?” where an informant’s response was coded as an experience “The diversity you can see in the bay is incredible, there are also large carpets of birds.”

Data collection

Study site locations were selected because they share several characteristics relevant to birdwatching and cultural ecosystem services, including their importance as migratory bird habitats, their prominence as birdwatching destinations, and their status as heavily used estuarine recreation systems. We acknowledge substantial differences in scale, population, and governance context between sites. For instance, Island Beach State Park, nestled in the North end of the Barnegat Bay, boasts over one million visitors each year alone (NJDEP, 2026), while the Golden Gate National Recreation Area hosted more than 13 million visitors in 2021 (USNPS, 2022). Rather than treating these differences as sources of bias, we view them as important contextual factors that may influence how birdwatching-related benefits are perceived and characterized. We compare two semi-enclosed multi-bay estuarine systems that face mounting anthropogenic pressure with plentiful outdoor recreation options and serve as critical locations for birds on their respective coastal flyway. For that reason, we use the same questionnaire to assess the perceptions of cultural ecosystem service benefits associated with birding, including capabilities, identities, experiences, and cultural goods for each area.

Our key informants were specifically selected to survey experienced practitioners in birding, bird tourism, and bird conservation. As such, our findings should be interpreted as stakeholder characterizations of birdwatching-related benefits rather than direct measurements of benefits experienced by the broader birdwatching public. This decision was made to gain access to perspectives from those with a higher level of involvement in birding beyond that of the average birder. The perspective of the average birdwatcher is no less important; however, we strove for a more distilled sample pool of informants. Informants were selected using purposive sampling and publicly available contact information for conservation organizations, state agencies, federal agencies, local government, tourism businesses, and other birding-related stakeholders.

Following purposive sampling, snowball sampling was used to obtain more informants from a robust and healthy assortment of collaborations and partnerships often seen between non-governmental organizations, eco-tourism ventures, and conservation managers. Collectively, 31 key informant interviews were conducted across both locations with 16 from Barnegat Bay and 15 from San Francisco Bay (Table 1). Interviews were performed either over the phone or in person and responses were recorded verbatim into Qualtrics (Provo, UT). In person interviews were administered during field visits with scheduled appointments occurring August 1-8, 2025, for Barnegat Bay and January 5-8 2026, for San Francisco Bay. Responses collected through snowball sampling over the phone took place through February 2026. Interviews usually lasted from 15 minutes to one hour. Given the study’s use of human subject data, our questionnaire and methods adhered to guidelines and requirements of the University of Wyoming’s Institutional Review Board (Approved under IRB-2025-66).

Data analysis

Both deductive and inductive coding were used on open-ended questions. Proportions were then calculated in order to summarize findings for individual study sites (Barnegat Bay, n=16, and San Francisco Bay, n=15) in addition to combined findings for both (n=31). All qualitative coding of open-ended responses was completed by a primary coder and an iterative review of their codebook and data sample was performed for greater transparency and consistency in data analysis. Intercoder-reliability was established through a consensus based approach where review and critique was performed by five additional researchers with the primary codebook and a sample of the data collected (O’Connor and Joffe, 2020). A refined level of consensus was reached when all participants agreed on the definition and application of codes to the sample dataset. Once inter-coder reliability was established, the remainder of open-ended question data was coded by the primary coder.

Deductive qualitative codes were formulated from the benefits section of the framework by Fish et al. (2016). Deductive codes include:

Identities

Experiences

Capabilities

Cultural goods

These deductive codes were used to identify when informants were talking about specific characterizations of cultural ecosystem service benefits within their region. Sub-codes were identified from patterns within responses themselves and were used as inductive codes in an open coding procedure. These sub-codes help to see patterns in the condition and characteristics of cultural ecosystem benefits.

Inductive sub-codes include:

Threats

Diversity

Rare bird sightings

Deductive codes (identities, experiences, capabilities, cultural goods) were applied across the full set of open-ended responses rather than restricted to questions originally designed to target a specific benefit category. This approach was necessary because informants often discussed a variety of benefits in response to questions intended to elicit descriptions of services, reflecting the interconnected nature of services and benefits in practice. Inductive sub-codes listed here and discussed in our results correspond to threats, diversity, and rare bird sightings related to benefits only.

Completion was high overall: 29 of 31 informants (93.5%) answered all 27 questionnaire items. Two San Francisco Bay informants did not answer a single multiple-choice item, resulting in n=13 (rather than n=15) for San Francisco Bay on that specific question, while Barnegat Bay retained a full n=16; combined across both sites, this item had n=29 (rather than n=31). All other items had complete responses across all 31 informants. Proportions for the affected item were calculated using the number of informants who answered that item as the denominator for each relevant grouping (n=13 for San Francisco Bay; n=29 combined), rather than the full sample, so as not to inflate or deflate the estimate. For all other multiple choice and Likert scale questions, the frequency of responses was divided by the number of informants (per location) in order to calculate proportions of responses. Quantitative proportions were used in our analyses for interpretation of the differences between assessments of benefits across flyway locations by informants.

Both datasets (quantitative and qualitative) were analyzed independently before being integrated for comparison, consistent with a convergent mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). For each benefit category (identities, experiences, capabilities, cultural goods), we compared the frequency with which informants spontaneously discussed a given benefit in open-ended responses with the proportion of informants who agreed or disagreed with specific statements describing how that benefit manifested in their location (e.g., “I agree birdwatchers come here to experience tranquility”). This approach allowed us to distinguish benefits that were prominent in informants’ own spontaneous framing of birdwatching from specific characterizations of those benefits that informants affirmed or rejected when prompted directly. At the site level, we combined the specific descriptions of benefits provided in open-ended responses with corresponding quantitative results to build an exploratory characterization of cultural ecosystem service benefits for each location, which were then compared across Barnegat Bay and San Francisco Bay to identify shared and place-specific patterns.

The following findings reflect the perceptions of our modest pool of 31 purposively sampled key informants. These informants include experienced practitioners in birding, tourism, and conservation, rather than a representative sample of the broader birdwatching public. The proportions and patterns reported below should be interpreted as exploratory characterizations of perceived descriptions of cultural ecosystem service benefits and not as definitive or generalizable measurements of benefits experienced by birdwatchers at large. This is especially relevant for informant perceptions between Barnegat Bay and San Francisco Bay, where observed differences are in a “most similar systems” comparison. The findings here (summarized in Table 2) reflect variation in stakeholder characterization rather than confirmed population-level differences between sites.

Experiences

In Barnegat Bay experiences emerged as the most frequently referenced category of cultural ecosystem service benefits. We found 14 of the 16 informants explicitly described experiential dimensions of birding when discussing locations, species, and site-specific attributes. San Francisco Bay informants similarly emphasized experiences as a central cultural ecosystem service benefit of birding, with 13 of 15 informants voluntarily discussing experiential dimensions as critical to birding in their region.

Our key informants assessed where birdwatchers were traveling from to experience their respective location based on their knowledge gained from direct outreach, work history, and birding interactions. Informants indicated that birdwatchers travel to Barnegat Bay from a range of distances, most commonly from nearby states 2 (n=12), followed by local communities (n=9), across the United States (n=7), and internationally (n=5) (Table 3). Similarly, informants indicated that birdwatchers travel to the San Francisco Bay area from multiple spatial scales, most commonly from local regions (n=11), followed by nearby states (n=10) and international locations (n=10), as well as from across the United States (n=9). While Barnegat Bay informants most commonly pointed to nearby states and local communities as the primary sources of visitors, San Francisco Bay informants described a more evenly distributed pattern across local, nearby-state, and international origins, with no single category standing out as clearly dominant. In both locations, informants described birdwatchers as visiting from a wide range of distances, indicating that both sites draw birders beyond their immediate local communities.

A large majority of informants in Barnegat Bay reported that birders are drawn to the area for tranquility (n=14) and opportunities to escape urban environments while observing wildlife (n=14). Responses were more divided regarding certain experiential motivations in San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Bay informants were split on whether birdwatchers were primarily seeking tranquility (54% agree; 46% disagree) and whether they were motivated by escaping urban environments to view wildlife (47% agree; 53% disagree).Beyond travel motivations, experiential benefits were also shaped by the ecological characteristics of both regions. In open-ended responses, informants frequently emphasized the importance of diversity, including both species richness and habitat heterogeneity, as well as the opportunity to observe large, healthy bird populations. Accessibility emerged as an additional experiential dimension. One birding guide in Barnegat Bay highlighted the importance of access to diverse species in shaping the quality and frequency of birding experiences.

“It is definitely one of the more species rich habitats that you can go to in the region, during the winter in particular. There are other places around with maybe the same diversity of winter seabirds and things like that but the numbers you are able to see of certain species are really spectacular in the Barnegat Bay specifically.”

In contrast to Barnegat Bay, San Francisco Bay informants more explicitly linked desired experiences to individual-level factors, particularly place of origin and level of birding specialization. Informants noted that what constitutes a meaningful or desirable experience varies substantially depending on what species are novel or difficult for a given birder to encounter. As one informant involved in several nongovernmental organizations in San Francisco explained:

“It depends on where people are coming from. At Coyote Hills we have so many white-tailed kites. People also get excited about shovelers, but they are a dime a dozen. The Ridgeway Rail is exciting to see. The single most iconic species people are traveling to see is highly specific to where they are coming from and what birds they find difficult to find. A phenomenal birder came out and was very excited to see snowy egrets. Anything you want to see[ … ] you can find somewhere in the Bay area.”

In Barnegat Bay, rare and vagrant bird sightings were among the most salient experiential benefits identified by informants. Over half of informants (nine out of 16) referenced the importance of encountering rare species (those present but difficult to detect) or vagrant species (those occurring outside their typical range), often more frequently than any single iconic species. This emphasis on rarity aligns with patterns observed in coastal flyway systems, where vagrant occurrences are more common than in inland regions (Ralph and Wolfe, 2018), and underscores the role of novelty and unpredictability in shaping birding experiences. Rarities and vagrants were also discussed by San Francisco Bay informants, just with less frequency. Only five San Francisco Bay informants brought up rarity in terms of experiences.

Across both estuaries, seasonality emerged as a key structuring element of birding experiences. Rather than identifying a single iconic species, informants frequently described birding in terms of seasonal assemblages that define the experience at different times of year. One county parks informant in Barnegat Bay noted: “Based on the time of year, for instance in wintertime people look for waterfowl. In the fall migration raptors are a big part of the interest in birding. Passerines are interesting too and important but for Ocean County definitely waterfowl and raptors.”

A federal agency informant from San Francisco Bay similarly recounted:

“Depends on the season, in the winter waterfowl are our big species. Specifically in the South San Francisco Bay ruddy ducks and shovelers are species people come to see and talk about. Scaup in the North Bay. In the spring and fall we have migratory shorebirds that people are very excited to see: sandpipers, godwits, willets, phalaropes, curlews. In the summer people come for the breeding birds such as terns (foresters, caspian, elegant, and least) people come out to see the nesting terns. Specifically for the south San Francisco bay we have American avocets and black necked stilts. We do have some resident birds: Ridgway’s Rail is an endemic species and people are very excited to see those. We also have black skimmers and western snowy plovers in the summer that people get excited about.”

Finally, informants in both regions highlighted the importance of crossover experiences, in which birding is embedded within broader cultural, tourism, and place-based activities. One Barnegat Bay informant observed:

“In addition to enjoying bird watching there are a lot of cultural resources in this area. People may come for a variety of reasons and that multiplies the motivation to travel especially if there are things to do for an entire family. This area does have a lot of resources for education, entertainment, cultural experiences etc.”

A San Francisco Bay informant similarly noted:

“One thing, this is a very urban place and it has great birds. Birders from out of town have come to the Bay area not exclusively for birds but to sight see and experience San Francisco and then because they are here, they can get some birding in. People come here for the intersection of vibrant cultural space AND vibrant natural space.”

Together, these responses suggest that the co-occurrence of cultural, recreational, and heritage amenities plays an influential role in shaping experiential benefits and travel motivations.

Taken together, both estuaries offer experientially rich birding opportunities shaped by seasonality and novelty. Barnegat Bay experiences are more consistently framed around tranquility and escape, whereas San Francisco Bay experiences are more variably defined by individual specialization and species rarity.

Identity

Compared to experiences which were openly discussed by most informants across locations, identity was brought up in open-ended questions considerably less. Only three Barnegat Bay informants mentioned identity voluntarily while eight San Francisco Bay informants discussed identity voluntarily in open-ended responses.

Variation among our informants’ origins provides an important context for interpreting identity-related findings. As shown in Figure 1, Barnegat Bay informant zip codes were concentrated within Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, and Cape May counties. This reflects a largely local informant base, with one informant located in eastern Pennsylvania. San Francisco Bay informant zip codes spanned a wider geographic area (Figure 2). Which includes San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Marin counties, with one informant located as far as El Dorado Hills, well outside the immediate Bay Area. Informants in San Francisco drew on experiences and perspectives from a wider and more varied set of communities across the greater Bay Area, rather than a more tightly bounded local area as seen in Barnegat Bay.

When asked questions designed to directly assess identity related to birding in their communities, 14 of the 16 Barnegat Bay informants did not perceive local identity as tied to a particular species. When San Francisco Bay informants were asked if a particular species was related to local identity, the majority of informants also said no (12 out of 15) (Figure 3).

A majority, 12 of the 16 Barnegat Bay informants, agreed that individuals who engage in birding or nature-based activities would view birds in general as symbolic of their community, rather than associating identity with a single species. Only one informant indicated that average people would see birds as a symbol for their community, while three informants did not believe birds function as a community symbol at all. In San Francisco, when asked if birds in general would be seen as a symbol for their community, only 4 informants thought the average person would see birds as a symbol for their community while seven thought only birdwatchers and nature lovers would see birds this way (Figure 4). The remaining four out of 16 did not think birds were seen as a symbol for their community by anyone.

Beyond these quantitative patterns, there is a small amount of compelling qualitative data relating to identity. Namely, two informants for Barnegat Bay did point out intersections in the identity of birdwatchers. One commercial marine tourism professional noted “A lot of fishermen are converted birders.” and a federal agency informant pointed out “Most of our locals are birdwatchers [ … ] We have several private bird guides in our area.”. While quantitative results show informants were unsure as to whether locals would identify with birds or a specific species, qualitative responses weakly demonstrate they do believe that select locals identify as birdwatchers.

San Francisco Bay informants discussed identity considerably more. One NGO informant’s comments on the types of birding identities in the area illuminates the different motivations for birdwatchers:

“There are two types of birdwatchers, the kind that are the community science birdwatchers that want to be a part of the conservation process. A lot of shorebirders are doing that and really observe the bay for us (the non-governmental organization) and [in] general. The other kind are rarity chasers; there are migrant traps and we get really unusual birds sometimes from South America or Asia. There are a lot of people looking for rarities and chasing them down.”

Overall, neither location strongly ties general community identity to a single iconic species or birds as a whole. Identity has a much lower occurrence in qualitative data, but when Barnegat Bay informants did bring up identity it was more often described in terms of individual conversion into the birding community. San Francisco Bay informants described identity more often than Barnegat Bay informants and framed identity as different subcultures within the birding community itself.

Capabilities

Like identity, capabilities had little overall occurrence in qualitative data and was discussed spontaneously by more informants in San Francisco Bay (eight out of 15) than Barnegat Bay (three out of 16). The few mentions of capabilities in Barnegat Bay were often indirect and fleeting, as evidenced by this NGO representative describing the capability of a local birder,

“Our main office is in the heart of downtown Toms River (a 40 acre parcel of green space). One birder said they saw 60 different species.”

While discussion of capabilities was not forthcoming in informants, we did ask directly about the knowledge capabilities of average community members. When asked directly, Barnegat Bay informants were divided. Six informants agreed that knowledge of local bird species was common while eight disagreed, and two were not sure. San Francisco Bay informants were less likely to say that knowledge of local bird species is common in the average member of their community with only five of 15 informants agreeing that bird knowledge was common. (Table 4). Informants across both locations believed birders were coming to their location to increase their knowledge on location specific species. In Barnegat Bay, 14 informants indicated that birdwatchers were visiting their location to learn about the ecology and science of local shorebirds. A similar majority of San Francisco informants, 14 out of 15, agreed that birdwatchers are drawn to the area to learn about the science and ecology of San Francisco’s shorebirds.

Despite the low assessment for average community members, the capabilities of the San Francisco Bay birding community at large was often framed as very knowledgeable and skilled in open-ended responses, as evidenced by this response from an environmental contractor and experienced birder:

“In terms of good birders, we have a higher than average (disproportionate amount) of very good birdwatchers in our area. Compared to other places where people plateau and taper off. We have some of the best birders in the world, some live here full time and some are drawn here and passing through.”

These findings suggest that although both locations perceive limited birding knowledge among the general public, San Francisco Bay informants more frequently characterized their region as a hub of advanced expertise, a distinction not found in informant accounts from Barnegat Bay.

Cultural goods

Of all Barnegat Bay informants, twelve said there were local events, festivals, or outreach activities related to birdwatching species in their location. Slightly more consensus on the prevalence of cultural goods occurred among San Francisco Bay informants, 14 indicated that festivals, events, or outreach activities took place in their area, while only one informant said they did not. Informants from both locations also frequently cited the role of both governmental and non-governmental organizations in the availability and offering of these events.

An overlap between heritage and birding events in Barnegat Bay emerged in responses from five informants. They discussed local events with a distinct element of birding or nature appreciation in addition to cultural subject matter, such as a local waterfowling event called the “Old Time Barnegat Bay Decoy And Gunning Show”, a fall festival called “Pine Barrens Jamboree”, and a University sponsored day of public lectures called the “Pine Barrens Short Course”. An informant employed by a non-governmental organization in Barnegat Bay discussed NGO and government events but also this overlap between other types of events such as heritage or educational offerings:

“Save Barnegat Bay [local NGO] does seasonal events, LBI [Long Beach Island] has various events such as waves of action [ … ] The County and State Parks systems will offer events such as bus trips to learn about birds. Most events in our area have an environmental component: Pine Barrens Jamboree, Lines on the Pines, Pinelands Short Course”.

In San Francisco birding or bird specific events were mentioned by ten informants. These events were often associated with local Audubon chapters or birding groups/alliances such as the “Winged-Migration Expo”, the “Berkeley Bird Festival” and the “Point Reyes Birding and Nature Festival”. One San Francisco Bay area bird guide recounted:

“In the spring there is the Point Reyes Spring Bird Festival. Local Audubon chapters/bird alliances offer dozens of guided bird walks, almost everyday of the month.”

Informants from San Francisco Bay were more likely to discuss birding-specific events, and there was a lack of emphasis on crossover programming. This points to the greater insulation of birding specific activity in the San Francisco Bay area as compared to the common overlap seen in Barnegat Bay. Meanwhile, Barnegat Bay informants discussed a more holistic assortment of events that covered cultural or broad ecological subject matter with elements of birds or birding-related topics.

In our study, birding as a cultural ecosystem service was grounded in similar estuarine conditions between San Francisco Bay and Barnegat Bay and the characterization of benefits, in terms of experiences, identities, capabilities, and cultural goods, varied meaningfully across regional social, ecological, and institutional contexts, variations which our study seeks to shed light on. Our findings follow the core premise of the Fish et al. (2016) framework: that cultural ecosystem service benefits are co-produced through interactions between ecosystems, places, and cultural practices, rather than being static attributes of ecological systems. We treat the benefits described in our results as distinct but interrelated categories of identity, experience, capability, and cultural goods.

Consistent with Fish et al. (2016), our study finds that experiences, identities, capabilities, and cultural goods are not discrete categories but are deeply intertwined. We found from our small sample of key informants that experiences of birding, such as observing rare species, contribute to identity formation (e.g., seeing oneself as a “serious birder”), which in turn enhances capabilities such as species identification skills. Rather than attempting to isolate benefits, our findings support an understanding in which benefits mutually reinforce one another within specific geographic contexts. This interconnectedness helps explain why cultural ecosystem services are often difficult to measure using conventional frameworks, as benefits do not conform to clear boundaries or singular metrics (Chan et al., 2012a, b; Chan and Ruckelshaus, 2010).

The comparative design employed here should be interpreted as an exploration of variation across two ecologically similar but socially distinct estuarine systems. We do not suggest that Barnegat Bay and San Francisco Bay are directly comparable in all respects or that the findings in these locations are representative of all birding in our estuaries. Rather, the comparison allows examination of how cultural ecosystem service benefits associated with birdwatching are characterized within shared ecological settings but differing social and institutional contexts. Consequently, observed differences should not be interpreted as effects of any single contextual variable, but instead as evidence that cultural ecosystem services are shaped by interactions between ecological conditions, regional culture, recreation communities, and governance systems in our study sites.

Experiences as the dominant and place-sensitive benefit

Across both study locations, experiences emerged from our small but expert driven sample as the most relevant and consistently described benefit (Figure 5). This aligns with the broader cultural ecosystem services literature that identifies recreation as the most straightforward and widely studied dimension (Milcu et al., 2013; Pan et al., 2026). Prior studies of recreation often employ economic indicators of cultural ecosystem service benefits such as travel cost methods (Bronzes et al., 2025; Fagarazzi et al., 2021). Non-ecosystem service research of recreation and birdwatching addresses the role of experience in management (Manfredo et al., 1983; Manfredo and Larson, 1993). Our study shows how knowledgeable stakeholders perceive the content of birdwatching-related experiences and how they differ across two different places and birding communities.

In Barnegat Bay, experiences were associated with tranquility, escape, and accessibility, suggesting a form of birding embedded in coastal leisure and regional tourism economies. This is also supported by the crossover found in cultural goods such as waterfowling events in that estuary which combine local coastal heritage with birding interests. Conversely, San Francisco Bay informants described more varied and skill-dependent experiences that are shaped by species availability, birder expertise, and the urban-nature interface. The perceptions of birding from our key informants support related findings that highly specialized birders are motivated by species rarity, diversity, and endemism, often traveling long distances for these opportunities (Booth et al., 2011; Kolstoe and Cameron, 2017).

The importance of rare bird sightings, endemics, and general bird diversity and richness are important across avitourism, but research such as ours illuminates regional differences (Steven et al., 2015). Stakeholder accounts from both sites suggest that uncertainty and novelty may play an important role in shaping recreational value for the birdwatchers they have engaged with (Connell, 2009). Rather than focusing on iconic species alone, according to our purposively selected group of informants, birding benefits are often driven by unpredictability, an insight that has implications for how managers conceptualize and market birding experiences. The popularity of maintaining a “life list” of birds, continuously seeking out the identification of a new bird species and listing them, highlights the importance and regularity of discovery and novelty as a motivator for birdwatchers (Andrews et al., 2025). The combination of outdoor recreation and discovery were found to be significant motivating factors in birdwatcher participation in Christmas bird counts, which positions discovery as an important experience that can be leveraged for conservation (Larson et al., 2020). Having a clear picture of experiences, the way they materialize and the way birders value them, can be implemented into decision-making through a variety of means. One way expected experiences of recreationists are utilized in planning is the “experience-based” management approach (Manfredo et al., 1983; Manfredo and Larson, 1993).

Identity as birding subcultural rather than place-based

Contrary to expectations in cultural ecosystem services research, our modest analysis of quantitative data revealed that identity was less strongly tied to place-based symbolism, such as iconic species representing a community’s identity (Margaryan et al., 2022). Instead, we found preliminary evidence that identity benefits were most uniform as a subcultural belonging among birdwatchers themselves. Across both locations, when asked directly, our distilled pool of key informants largely rejected the idea that a single species defines a local identity, while affirming in open-ended responses that birding as an act constitutes a meaningful identity for birders. This suggests that, at least in our study locations, identity benefits in birding may be less about geographic attachment and more about participation in a shared practice, action, or community.

Recreation specialization also plays a crucial role in identity formation, not only for birding, but other recreation arenas such as waterfowl hunting (Schroeder et al., 2013). Our group of 15 key informants in San Francisco observed a distinction in specialization in birdwatchers between “community science birders” and “rarity chasers” in their location. This highlights the internal variations within this identity, reflecting different motivations for, values concerning, and relationships to conservation. Our informants describe what is essentially a rift in motivation between research or volunteer engagement and leisure activity. In the literature, our findings speak to other scholars who have found that birder motivations depend highly on their specialization (McFarlane, 1994; Randler and Großmann, 2022). These findings complicate traditional place-based interpretations of cultural ecosystem services, suggesting that identity benefits may play a larger role than initially thought in shaping birding recreation and linking local ecosystems to broader social networks. Specialization also bridges the connection between identity and capabilities; another benefit identified in the framework we have employed. Our findings considering identity were sparse and exploratory and we believe more research concerning the role of specialization and identity as a benefit of in cultural ecosystem services is needed.

Capabilities and uneven knowledge distribution

Capabilities, particularly ecological knowledge and skill development, were less frequently discussed unprompted but remain an important dimension of birding benefits. Notably, informants in both regions perceived a gap between the general public and the birding community, with expertise concentrated among dedicated participants. This uneven distribution of capabilities highlights a key tension for management: while birding can build ecological literacy and stewardship among participants, these benefits may not extend across communities without intentional outreach or engagement strategies. For instance, outreach that focuses on knowledge sharing, local issues, or uses techniques like experiential engagement (e.g. citizen science) was found to result in more positive conservation project outcomes (Stern et al., 2017). A diverse array of projects aimed at birders of different levels of experience and interest can be more impactful than focusing only on beginners or only on advanced level birders. Management striving for successful outreach can overcome barriers like lack of knowledge or low self-efficacy through such diverse and tailored approaches (Gregg et al., 2025).

At the same time, the presence of highly skilled birders described by our informants in the San Francisco Bay area may suggest that certain locations function as hubs of expertise and specialization, further reinforcing the emergence of regional differences in capabilities among birders (Chan et al., 2019). Managers can better target their interpretation efforts for maximum effect through research like ours which assesses birder desired experiences (Ament et al., 2017). In fact, combining interpretation programs with “appreciative recreation experiences,” like birding, has been found to increase the impact of interpretation programming (Satchabut et al., 2023). Successful interpretation of this sort could increase environmental concern and conservation behaviors among those who participate in outdoor recreation programming (Cooper et al., 2015). In this way, understanding the complex relationship between the identity of birders (beginner vs. advanced) and their experiences (as informed by their identity), could lead to an increase in their capabilities.

Implications for management and conservation of cultural services

This study contributes to the growing body of cultural ecosystem services scholarship by providing an exploratory, comparative application of the Fish et al. (2016) framework across two estuaries. By focusing explicitly on benefits rather than services or values, it addresses ongoing conceptual ambiguities in the field (Chan et al., 2012a; Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007) and demonstrates the application of a mixed-method approach for capturing nonmaterial dimensions of human-nature relationships.

From a management perspective, these perceptions suggest that birding opportunities and the benefits they generate should not be treated as uniform across locations. Instead, managers should tailor strategies to the specific configurations of benefits present in their region. Marketing, trail variety, and facility offerings can reflect the kind of birding occurring in a region (advanced, casual, etc.) and lead to more effective marketing campaigns and resource utilization (Randler, 2025). Location centered cultural ecosystem services research is vital for inclusive and informed decision-making (Clarke et al., 2021). For example, in Barnegat Bay, emphasis on accessibility, tranquility, and multi-use coastal tourism may enhance participation and economic benefits. In contrast, San Francisco Bay may benefit from supporting advanced birding opportunities, habitat diversity, and conservation partnerships that cater to highly skilled birders and community science networks.

Identifying the desires of birders is integral in developing specific management or programming for recreationists (McFarlane, 1994). Specifically tailored offerings and management based on findings around motivations attributed to birders by our informants improves overall experiences but also prevents misuse of the biophysical domain or environmental spaces. This can be unethical birding behavior like flushing (scaring birds into flight) and luring (using bait such as pet-store mice or recorded calls of secretive species) have been shown to have a negative impact on birds, especially vulnerable species (Ṣekerciog̅lu, 2002). A clearer picture of rare bird demand from recreationists can allow land managers to simultaneously exploit these sightings for financial, educational, or conservation gain while also promoting sustainability especially as birding increases in popularity (Booth et al., 2011; Padilla-Delgado et al., 2025). Understanding the impact of recreation on wildlife behavior is only one half of the picture. Our findings on the popularity of rare bird sightings as a critical experience for birdwatchers in our study locations can be coupled with existing birding research on motivations and recreational demand.

Recognizing the importance of nonmaterial benefits, such as identity and skill building or desired experiences can help managers better engage birdwatchers as stakeholders in conservation. Given that birdwatchers are often highly involved in environmental stewardship, aligning management strategies with the benefits they value may strengthen conservation outcomes (Bravo et al., 2024; Larson et al., 2018; Ṣekerciog̅lu, 2002).

Despite similar baseline conditions in estuary locations, our study found both notable distinctions and fundamental shared characteristics in how experienced stakeholders characterized cultural ecosystem service benefits associated with birdwatching. Identity for both sites was represented considerably less than other benefit types but was associated with birdwatching or birding as a practice as the primary focus, as opposed to location specific features such as charismatic iconic bird species. Experiences were the most frequently discussed cultural ecosystem service benefit across both estuaries. Rare bird sightings and bird diversity proved to be quintessential birding experiences, which is consistent with broader birding literature beyond ecosystem service studies.

Capabilities and cultural goods demonstrated the most pronounced differences between locations. A critical site-level difference appeared in cultural goods where Barnegat Bay informants often referred to crossover events that blend birding subject matter and activities with local heritage, while San Francisco Bay informants mostly discussed birding specific activities. Capability, like identity, had limited qualitative data to analyze but was addressed much more readily by San Francisco Bay informants compared to their east coast counterparts. When assessed quantitatively, most informants in both locations agreed on a general lack of knowledge-capability related to birding among the average person.

The comparative design we have employed here proposes that ecologically similar systems, in this case coastal estuaries serving as migratory stopovers, can produce distinct configurations of cultural benefits that reflect regional differences (Zheng et al., 2025; Zoeller et al., 2022). This underscores the need for more context-sensitive approaches in both research and management of cultural ecosystem services (Chan and Ruckelshaus, 2010; Daniel et al., 2012; Zoeller et al., 2022).

Because these findings are based on purposively sampled stakeholders rather than a representative sample of birdwatchers, they should be interpreted as informed stakeholder perspectives that can guide future research rather than definitive estimates of benefits experienced by birdwatchers more broadly. That said, our findings on cultural ecosystem service benefits can be used for conservation gain by managers and even tourism operators. However, most important is the continued protection of cultural ecosystem services and their benefits. Currently, cultural ecosystem services are not readily considered in decision-making and this is attributed to difficulty in assessment as well as lack of awareness (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). The underestimation of the importance of cultural ecosystem services has persisted despite the fact they encompass benefits that provide for quality of life. In fact, research has shown dependence on cultural ecosystem services is increasing rapidly, faster even than dependence on provisioning services (Guo et al., 2010). This increased dependence is complicated by the fact that cultural ecosystem services are particularly difficult to recover once degraded, and when the services are lost, so too are their life-giving benefits (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). Research grounded in place and community, such as ours, can be used for both further assessment of cultural ecosystem services and their benefits and, perhaps more importantly, a foundation for their protection.