Committed Bird-Watchers Gain Greater Psychological Restorative Benefits Compared to Those Less Committed Regardless of Expertise

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown a positive impact of nature on psychological restoration and on well-being, which, in turn, are related to life satisfaction. Previous studies were place based or episode assessments, usually in the field. Here, we studied bird-watchers at different levels of their recreational specialization, especially the factor commitment. We applied a leisure activity-related questionnaire to assess psychological restorativeness. We analyzed responses from 388 bird-watchers (260 male, 127 female, 1 diverse) from an internet survey. Three factors emerged and were labeled as restoration, detachment, and experiencing freedom. We here show for the first time that the psychological restorativeness of a leisure activity is dependent on the recreational specialization level. Psychological commitment toward birding was related to all three factors. Thus, birders do not need to have a high knowledge or must do many birding trips, but rather birding needs to be important to their life. This, in turn, suggests that even beginners in bird-watching with low expertise may gain health benefits from their leisure activity.

Introduction

Numerous studies have shown a positive impact of nature on human health, both (a) mental health or experienced restorativeness and (b) physical health and concerning diseases (see Clark et al., 2014; Maller et al., 2006; Sandifer, Sutton-Grier, & Ward, 2015). The studies concerning mental health and restorativeness have been grounded in theories, for example, the attention restoration theory (ART; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and the psychosocial stress recovery theory (SRT; Ulrich et al., 1991), sometimes considered together as psychological restorativeness (Menardo, Brondino, Hall, & Pasini, 2021).

SRT is based on the prediction that if individuals are under stress, an encounter with most unthreatening natural environments will have a stress reducing or restorative influence (Ulrich et al., 1991). ART suggests that natural environments are ideal places to restore diminished attentional capacity because nature holds one's attention only moderately so that sufficient headspace is available for mental reflection (Basu, Duvall, & Kaplan, 2019; Kaplan, 1995).

Previous studies on the relationship between nature experience and well-being were based on a variety of measures of nature and biodiversity, as well as diverse measures of mental health and on differing spatial scales. Some studies used health-based indicators on a macroecological perspective (Methorst et al., 2021), or experiments within natural settings (Pasanen, Ojala, Tyrväinen, & Korpela, 2018), experiments with simulated nature walk (Crossan & Salmoni, 2021), as well as place-based studies where the restorativeness was related to place characteristics of green spaces (Felappi, Sommer, Falkenberg, Terlau, & Kötter, 2020).

Although the function and impact of nature itself on health and psychological well-being have been established, also biodiversity, that is, number of different species within a given area, was found to have a significant effect on well-being (Dallimer et al., 2012). In more detail, bird diversity was related to positive emotions (Cameron et al., 2020) and plant species diversity to stress recovery (Lindemann-Matthies & Matthies, 2018). Furthermore, studying soundscapes, Uebel, Marselle, Dean, Rhodes, and Bonn (2021) showed that soundscapes from urban parks that contained a rich array of perceived bird sounds offered the greatest perceived restoration. This emphasizes the importance of specific organismic groups on mental health.

Knowledge about species in detail does not seem to be important because stress recovery theory posits a healing power of nature that lies in an unconscious autonomic response to natural elements (Lindemann-Matthies, Junge, & Matthies, 2010; Ulrich et al., 1991), and the relationship between bird diversity and neighborhood satisfaction seems to be unconscious (Hepburn, Smith, Zelenski, & Fahrig, 2020). Thus, stress recovery may occur without recognition (Ulrich et al., 1991), but as perceived biodiversity was also related to perceived restorativeness (Nghiem et al., 2021), a causal link between biodiversity knowledge and at least perceived diversity, which is related to conscious recognition, seems possible.

Johansson, Flykt, Frank, and Hartig (2021) further emphasized the general value of wildlife experience within nature in addition to the more generic experience of nature. In line with this, Marselle et al. (2021) emphasized that we need a better mechanistic understanding of the pathways through which biodiversity influences health. In this study, we propose that individual differences may be related to a different influence of nature on health and well-being by examining bird-watchers. Bird-watchers spend a considerable amount of time in identifying and recognizing birds, thus, they are knowledgeable about bird diversity. Therefore, bird-watching can make people happier in a general sense (Oman, 2021), but it has not been necessarily related to the characteristics of the individual person.

Birds are valued positively by people (Brock, Perino, & Sugden, 2017; Clucas, Rabotyagov, & Marzluff, 2015). Clucas et al. (2015) examined the economic value of songbirds in cities, for example, by assessing the expenditure for bird food and the willingness to pay for conservation. In addition to demographics, culture, and socioeconomic factors, attitudes toward birds and attitudes toward conservation influenced these decisions. Brock et al. (2017) used a choice experiment to show that people prefer birds with an aesthetic appeal and species that evoke human emotions related to the protectiveness of a species.

These findings, in turn, suggest that people can gain well-being by caring for their birds (Brock et al., 2017), which in turn is related to general well-being. Engagement with the natural world (Dutcher et al., 2007) exhibits many of the qualities identified in the literature of subjective well-being as beneficial to lasting life satisfaction (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2011). Therefore, subjective well-being is related to the aspects of ART and SRT (see Introduction) as well as to leisure activities [see, e.g., the DRAMMA model of Newman, Tay, and Diener (2014); see below].

Birding is a nature-related activity and, therefore, considered to be beneficial for mental health because it is an outdoor and nature-related activity (see Clark et al., 2014; Maller et al., 2006; Sandifer et al., 2015; Weng & Chiang, 2014). Humans differ in their investment in a leisure activity and, thus, people participating in a specific leisure activity do not form a homogeneous, but rather a heterogeneous group (Randler, 2021), and this has been conceptualized previously by Bryan (1977) as recreation specialization.

Following Bryan's (1977) conceptual framework, recreation specialization represents a continuum in behavior between the generalists with low involvement and the specialists with high involvement (Bryan, 1977), but can also be considered as distinct groups of birders: novice/casual, intermediate, and advanced/specialist (Randler, 2021). Recreation specialization is an overarching construct based on and measured by three subdimensions (Lee & Scott, 2004; Scott & Shafer, 2001): the cognitive dimension is measured by the level of knowledge; the behavior dimensions is related to equipment and travel costs, previous participation, and experience; and the affective dimension is related to the attachment and engagement including the centrality to one's lifestyle and a continued involvement (Janeczko et al., 2021).

A special group of birders within the highly specialized birders are labeled “twitchers” that spend a considerable amount of time and money to chase and see rare bird species, which usually incurs high travel costs (Booth, Gaston, Evans, & Armsworth, 2011; Brock, Fraser, Law, Mitchell, & Roberts, 2021). Birding as leisure activity was chosen because the positive influence of bird diversity and birdsong diversity on human mental health and restoration seems an established link (Ratcliffe, Gatersleben, & Sowden, 2013).

In addition to recreation specialization, motivation for birding is another important construct in leisure research, which can be tied to the psychological basic needs as motivational factor [see the DRAMMA model of Newman et al. (2014)], as well as to more practically oriented conceptualization of a leisure activity, based mainly on the three dimensions of achievement, affiliation with nature, and social aspects (Decker, Brown, Driver, & Brown, 1987; Hvenegaard, 2002; Randler, 2022).

Usually, experience with nature takes place during leisure or recreational activities (Rosa & Collado, 2019). Thus, the relationship between leisure and psychological restoration has been studied in many places and contexts (Weng & Chiang, 2014). However, psychological restoration has been studied with a focus on place-based activities, for example, place attachment (Korpela, Ylén, Tyrväinen, & Silvennoinen, 2008). These activities may not be related to a specific place but can also be on a generic or landscape level (Abraham et al., 2010).

Most studies were based on on-site measurements where people were asked directly and immediately during a visit to a given area (Randler, Höllwarth, & Schaal, 2007) to grasp the situational experience or the episodic event. However, some studies were designed in a more general manner when it comes to place attachment (e.g., Korpela et al., 2008; Meyer-Grandbastien et al., 2020). Here, we adapted restoration scales related to episodic surveys or to place attachment to construct a trait-like scale of a leisure activity (bird-watching). We especially wanted to assess the psychological restoration of bird-watching in a generic manner, unrelated to a specific place, an episode, or a specific visit.

As there are only few studies about recreation specialization and psychological restoration (e.g., Norling, Sibthorp, Suchy, Hannon, & Ruddell, 2010; Wöran & Arnberger, 2012), we used studies about physical activity as a template. Norling et al. (2010) studied recreational runners and assigned them to different groups, a high-intensity running group, a medium-intensity, and a low-intensity running group. In addition, a control group was studied. The authors demonstrated that only high-intensity running significantly restored attention more than the control group, the other groups did not. Similarly, experienced hikers received a higher flow experience during climbing than less specialized hikers (Wöran & Arnberger, 2012).

Aim of this study was to relate the recreation specialization of birders to a trait measure of psychological restoration. We hypothesize that higher levels of specialization lead to greater psychological restoration. In addition, we sampled demographic factors as control variables (Randler, 2021).

Materials and Methods

Data collection

We used an internet survey to obtain data on birding as a leisure activity and specialization concerning this activity. Participant recruitment was based on three approaches. First, direct e-mails were sent to individual bird-watchers; second, the study was advertised on social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, through our academic and medical organizations; third, we relied on the snowball procedure by asking the respondents to distribute the link among other people they may have considered interested in the survey. These approaches were chosen to spread the study broadly. Classical Polish birders rather focused on birding lists only, they better react to conventional e-mail what was practiced previously by Frątczak, Sparks, Randler, and Tryjanowski (2020).

The e-mail addresses were collected by one of the authors, concerning birders who are generally interested in participation in studies. In addition, people who are not highly specialized birders, but are used to bird-watch as a kind of outdoor activity, prefer social media. Snowballing is a common procedure to reach further interested people by “word of mouth.”

The snowball procedure is a nonrandom sampling because not every element in the population has equal chance of being selected as the sample, but it is adequate where potential participants are hard to locate. It is well suited for a number of research purposes, for example, when it requires the knowledge of insiders to locate people for the study (Etikan, Alkassim, & Abubakar, 2016). The selection may produce potential noise, but the sample is comparable with others in Poland (Frątczak et al., 2020; Janeczko et al., 2021).

The link was provided through the German website SoSciSurvey from mid-August 2021 to end of September 2021. SoSciSurvey follows European laws on data protection and guarantees anonymity. The survey was carried out in Polish language. Birders are usually educated citizens, thus, using an online recruitment and survey does not seem to provide a bias. According to Polish law, ethical approval was waived because it was an anonymous online survey.

Questionnaires

Demographic variables that were assessed were gender (female/male/prefer not to respond), age (in years), and higher education (yes/no). We aimed at sampling a representative Polish birder population (comparable with the study of Janeczko et al., 2021).

Birding specialization

Birding specialization was based on items provided by Lee and Scott (2004) and Randler (2021). Birding specialization has three dimensions: The first, behavior, was measured with three items: number of birding trips per year, days spent birding per year, and total years of bird-watching. This dimension showed a Cronbach's α of 0.73. Higher values on the behavior scale represent a higher effort in time spent for birding. Second, skill/knowledge was measured by the number of species being able to identify (a) visually, (b) by sound, and (c) by grouping oneself on a 5-point scale reaching from novice to expert (Cronbach's α was 0.90). Higher scores represent a higher knowledge in bird identification.

Third, psychological commitment was assessed with three questions: “Other leisure activities don't interest me as much as birding,” “I would rather go birding than do most anything else,” and “If I couldn't go birding, I am not sure what I would do.” These items were scaled from full disagree (1) to fully agree (5). A high score indicates a high psychological commitment for birding. Cronbach's α was 0.79. Apart from internal consistency, there is some external validity for these self-report questionnaires. Randler and Heil (2021) reported a strong correlation between the self-assessment of skill/knowledge and the scores in a bird identification test that followed the self-report questions.

Psychological restoration

Psychological restoration was measured with items borrowed from or inspired by previous research. For example, items related to place attachment were rephrased to depict the leisure activity birding, and situational or episode-related items were changed into a trait variable. The items and the related concepts are found in Table 1. The scale of psychological restoration related to birding contained 15 items (Table 1) that were coded on a Likert scale from 1 (fully disagree) to 5 (fully agree).

Table 1.

Items Used in This Study and Their Origin

ENGLISH	ADAPTED FROM OR INSPIRED BY	CONSTRUCT BY AUTHORS
I feel birding clears my head.	Dallimer et al. (2012) Fuller et al. (2007) Bryce et al. (2016)	Well-being/reflection Therapeutic value
I feel birding gives me a sense of freedom.	Bryce et al. (2016)	Therapeutic value
Birding leaves me feeling healthier.	Bryce et al. (2016)	Therapeutic value
I feel that I have had a lot of memorable experiences by birding.	Fuller et al. (2007) Bryce et al. (2016)	Continuity with the past Memory/transformative value
Bird-watching makes me feel calm and relaxed.	Wyles et al. (2019) Meyer-Grandbastien et al. (2020)	Recalled restoration Relaxation/stress reduction
Birding makes me feel refreshed and revitalized.	Wyles et al. (2019)	Recalled restoration
After bird-watching, I feel rested.	Young et al. (2020) von Lindern, Bauer, Frick, Hunziker, and Hartig (2013)	Reported restoration
I feel peaceful when I go birding.	Dallimer et al. (2012) Fuller et al. (2007)	Well-being/reflection
I gain perspective on my life during birding.	Dallimer et al. (2012) Fuller et al. (2007)	Well-being/reflection
Get away from everyday problems.	McFarlane (1994) Meyer-Grandbastien et al. (2020) Hartig, Korpela, Evans, & Gärling (1997)	Psychological detachment Escape from daily routine
To forget about work problems.	Sonnentag and Fritz (2007)	Psychological detachment
…use the time to relax.	Sonnentag and Fritz (2007)	Relaxation
Feeling again like a “wild child,” unrestrained by duties.	Van der Merwe and Saayman (2008)	Nostalgia
Feel like being in a safe world/natural environment.	Meyer-Grandbastien et al. (2020) Korpela et al. (2008)	Safety
Experiencing freedom.	Codina and Pestana (2019)	Leisure related

Items were adapted from (or inspired by) previous studies but rephrased to adapt it to the leisure activity birding in general (not to a place- or episode-based event).

Statistical analysis

The internal consistencies of the subdimensions were measured by Cronbach's α. We applied an exploratory factor analysis because previous study suggests that this construct is not unidimensional and that several factors are present (see, e.g., Bryce et al., 2016; Dallimer et al., 2012; Wyles et al., 2019). In addition, there is no consensus and agreement about the different underlying constructs, and the different studies revealed different dimensions (see, e.g., Bryce et al., 2016). To analyze the scale structure of the restoration items, an exploratory factor analysis based on maximum likelihood extraction and oblimin rotation was applied and the pattern matrix is shown (Costello & Osborne, 2005).

This is a standard procedure when it is assumed that the factors or subdimensions are related. For further statistical analyses, we used a t-test to compare differences between men and women, and general linear models to assess the influence of the birding specialization dimension and the demographics (age, gender, and education) on the different subscales of psychological restoration simultaneously. All p-values were obtained in two-tailed tests.

Statement on ethical approval

Research reported in this article has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner, in full compliance with all relevant codes of experimentation and legislation according to Polish law. Participants were informed about the nature of the study and the aims on the first page. The participants could stop and leave at any time. We followed the European Union's regulation for data protection by using So-SciSurvey. Polish law allows anonymous data collection without an ethical approval.

Results

A total of 388 bird-watchers gave responses, 260 male, 127 female, and 1 diverse. Mean age was 42.22 years (standard deviation = 13.68). Women were on average 37.41 ± 13.68 years old, whereas men were on average 44.61 ± 13.04 years old, and thus, women were significantly younger than men in our study (T-test, T = −4.972, df = 379, p < 0.001). A total of 316 people (81%) reported a university degree (at least bachelor or honors), 68 reported no university degree, and 4 did not respond to the question.

The exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor structure with an eigen-value >1. The eigen values for the factors were 6.44, 1.62, and 1.20 respectively. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was 0.882, Bartlett's test of sphericity was χ² = 2865.279 (df = 105, p < 0.001), suggesting a good fit of the model structure. The pattern matrix is given in Table 2.

Table 2.

Pattern Matrix of the Questions Related to Psychological Restoration

	WELL-BEING	DETACHMENT	FREEDOM
…feel more rested after birding	0.884	0.030	0.132
…birding calm and relax	0.769	−0.002	−0.035
…feel peaceful	0.741	−0.056	0.002
… refreshed and revitalized birding	0.642	−0.056	−0.144
…birding feeling more healthy	0.534	−0.061	−0.248
… lot of memorable experience	0.521	0.147	−0.080
…birding clears my head	0.465	−0.252	−0.177
…gain perspective of my life	0.439	−0.053	−0.226
…nothing better to relax	0.387	−0.267	0.057
…forget problems related to work	0.028	−0.950	0.028
…get away from everyday problems	0.000	−0.773	−0.088
… experiencing freedom	−0.059	−0.001	−0.978
…gives sense of freedom	0.225	0.024	−0.730
…feel safe in a natural world	0.155	0.022	−0.458
…back to childhood	−0.018	−0.240	−0.340
Cronbach's α	0.88	0.87	0.64

Strongest factor loadings are printed in bold.

The three factors could be labeled as well-being, detachment, and experiencing freedom. The factors were correlated with each other: well-being correlated −0.327 with detachment and −0.589 with experiencing freedom. Detachment was positively correlated with experiencing freedom (0.348). These correlations show the relationship between the three different factors, thus well-being and detachment and detachment and experiencing freedom are less closely related factors than well-being and experiencing freedom. Cronbach's α was good in the scales well-being and detachment (Table 2) and acceptable in experiencing freedom.

In three general linear models, gender and university degree (yes/no) were used as fixed factors, and age, and the three birding specialization subscales (skill/knowledge, behavior, psychological commitment) as covariates. Females scored higher on well-being than men (F = 4.643, p = 0.032, partial η² = 0.012; estimated means ± standard error: women: 3.84 ± 0.098 vs. men: 3.58 ± 0.062), age, and educational level were not significant (p > 0.2).

Furthermore, psychological commitment was highly significant (F = 60.141, p < 0.001) with a considerable effect size (partial η² = 0.14). Concerning detachment, there was only a significant effect in psychological commitment (F = 38.823, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.095). Similarly, in the dimension experiencing freedom, a significant effect was found in the subscale psychological commitment (F = 26.292, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.067).

Discussion

In this study, we applied an exploratory factor analysis on items related to psychological restoration and revealed three distinct dimensions that were labeled detachment, experiencing freedom, and well-being. In labeling these dimensions, we followed previous studies (e.g., Bryce et al., 2016; Codina & Pestana, 2019; Dallimer et al., 2012; Fuller et al., 2007; McFarlane, 1994). Furthermore, we found a significant relationship between psychological restoration and specialization among bird-watchers in the domain psychological commitment. The more specialized they were, the higher was the psychological restoration from this leisure activity. However, this was found only in the dimension psychological commitment to birding, but not in the other dimensions skill/knowledge and behavior.

In addition, the effect of commitment to birding was related to all three subscales of psychological restoration: well-being, detachment, and experiencing freedom. How can these results be related to previous study? We found no relationship between the dimension skill/knowledge and psychological restoration. This is against our prediction as we assumed that higher skilled birders should recognize more species than lesser skilled birders, and that this higher perceived species richness should lead to a higher psychological restoration. Previous studies reported that higher biodiversity was related to a higher stress recovery, higher well-being, or more positive emotions (Cameron et al., 2020; Dallimer et al., 2012; Lindemann-Matthies, Junge, & Matthies, 2010).

One reason might have been that higher specialized birders are more experienced in detecting bird species, and thus, within the same place or patch, the experienced birder may find and identify more species, which could explain the link. However, we found no significant influence in the linear model. This is in line with a study that showed that self-reported well-being was not related to bird species knowledge in public park visitors in Chile (Parra-Saldívar, Abades, Celis-Diez, & Gelcich, 2020).

Our results suggest that it still may be perceived biodiversity (Nghiem et al., 2021), which does not necessarily relate strongly to objectively measured biodiversity (Dean et al., 2011), thus, the competence of the individual bird-watcher may not contribute to this or that the link between well-being and biodiversity is an unconscious one, which confirms the prediction of ART (Ulrich et al., 1991). However, effects may outweigh each other in that a highly experienced birder might indeed gain greater restoration from identifying more birds, but this could be compensated for by them also being more attuned to birds that have disappeared (in terms of numbers or diversity), or in rare birds they have missed, triggering distress or grief.

From a practical viewpoint, however, these results suggest that even nonexperienced birders with a low knowledge may benefit from the psychological restoration in a similar way as highly knowledgeable birders. The birding specialization dimension of behavior, which is related to the number of excursions and the days in the field, was also unrelated to psychological restoration in general, suggesting that it may not just be the amount of time spent outdoors in relation to birding.

However, the study showed that more psychologically committed birders may benefit more from the psychological restoration of their leisure activity bird-watching. The causal link may be that committed birders especially seek out places, where more species are present, that is, they actively look for an enriching environment, which, in turn, provides a better stress recovery than the more inexperienced bird-watcher who looks around in a less bird-rich environment. Also, a higher psychological commitment may be also related to a higher satisfaction with the birding activity and then with the general life satisfaction (Newman et al., 2014).

Furthermore, specialized birders spent even time outside when the weather conditions are less optimal (for humans), but highly optimal for rare birds (mainly vagrants; unpublished data). Lastly, for highly committed birders, bird-watching is central to their lifestyle, which may make it possible that this centrality is linked to restoration in a bidirectional manner, feeling good because one is going out for birding, and, in turn, going birding has a positive impact on health and well-being, because the activity is central to one's lifestyle.

Psychological commitment may play the key role because many urban birders are highly committed despite a lower bird diversity, and it may be that psychological commitment makes the experience more meaningful to the birder, that is, that it is not the species observed but the impact of the observation itself that differs. Psychological commitment seems to be of higher meaningfulness than other dimensions, and this might be more relevant to understand different effects on restoration than simple behavioral factors.

Thus, further studies should take a closer look at the birding behavior, for example, at different places (or “home ranges”) of birders, and further variables, such as motivation. As the relationship existed between psychological restoration and commitment, we assume that there might also be a relationship between birding motivation and restoration. Motivation has been studied in some places (e.g., Hvenegaard, 2002; Larson et al., 2020), therefore, additional studies in the future should apply both concepts together with restoration.

Another possibility to explain these results may lie in the by-product of birding. Many people, at least in our study area, Poland, rely on walking during their birding activities, especially in protected areas. Such moderate leisure activity, especially walking, was found to be the best outdoor activity for improving mental health (Weng & Chiang, 2014). Therefore, the effect may come from staying outside in nature, comparably with walking or gardening (Murawiec, Tryjanowski, & Nita, 2021; Weng & Chiang, 2014). Further studies are needed to compare these activities with birding to assess the benefits of bird-watching versus walking in the same place and environment.

The results may be generalizable for parts of the world, where leisure activities are central to lifestyles. However, there are also different approaches to birding, such as birding and guiding (or leading field trips) as a profession (like in many southern hemispheric regions), and also the tradition of birding is different, for example, when comparing South American countries with the United States or Great Britain (Cordell & Herbert, 2002; de Camargo Barbosa, Develey, & Ribeiro, 2021). It would be interesting to see whether our results hold on a more global scale [e.g., compare with Randler, Tryjanowski, Jokimäki, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki, & Staller (2020)], however, birding has become a global leisure activity (Steven et al., 2015).

Birders differ from the general sample population in Poland. The median age of the Polish population is 41.7 years (www.worldometers.info). Thus, birders are older than nonbirders, and more male biased. In Germany, birding started to become more popular a few years ago, and rather relatively younger people and women started birding (Randler, 2021), a trend that is reflected with a delay in Poland. However, compared with two different Polish birder studies, there were 67% men in Janeczko et al. (2021) that is comparable with our 68%. Furthermore, most people were aged 35–54 years, which is also similar to our study. A similar composition of age and gender was reported in another study of Frątczak et al. (2020).

Limitations and directions for future research

One limitation is that we used a trait-based approach to measure psychological restoration in a general manner. However, this is a new approach, and it shows the general positive influence of a leisure activity. As a another limitation, measuring on-site would have been an addition, directly in the field to catch situational and episode-related data or through momentary assessments (de Vries, Baselmans, & Bartels, 2021).

Such data would also help to assess the effects of the different places (de Vries et al., 2021), for example, weather conditions [temperature, sun; Moss (1995); Murawiec et al. (2021)], day of week or time of day (Randler & Weber, 2015), differences in environments, social influence, or scenicness of the place (de Vries et al., 2021; Kondo et al., 2020). Probably, such questions might also be assessed by a survey when people report on their most visited place.

Another aspect that might be discussed is the birding specialization concept. Concerning skill/knowledge, there is more than just identification; for example, knowing bird behavior, or strategies of how to find them, and how to strategically use technology, such as social media. It would be an interesting aspect for future research to develop a broader skill/knowledge scale. Another aspect for future research would be adding an item about the replacement costs of the total equipment as a measure of economic commitment (Randler, 2021). Also, there is a feel that there is a dynamic in the specialization concept, which means that people like this activity, therefore, want to do it more and also learn more about it. This might be further studied in a longitudinal study with novice birders.

Directions for future research are possible on different levels. First, considering survey design, we found a strong influence of psychological commitment, which itself is strongly related to centrality to lifestyle and involvement (Kyle, Absher, Norman, Hammitt, & Jodice, 2007); we suggest using the involvement scale from Kyle et al. (2007) for further studies. In addition, exploring aspects of motivation for bird-watching, future studies might include scales on motivation to assess the relationship between psychological restoration and recreation specialization.

More generally, qualitative approaches could be used to gather additional interesting information and to delve deeper into the details of psychological restoration (see, e.g., Lev, Kahn, Chen, & Esperum, 2020), and the qualitative studies might then be analyzed in a mixed method design (Lev et al., 2020; Randler & Marx, 2022).

Conclusion

The study shows that the main dimension in birding specialization that is related to stress recovery is commitment. Thus, birders do not need to have a high knowledge or must do many birding trips, but rather birding needs to be important to their life. This, in turn, suggests that even beginners in bird-watching with low expertise may gain health benefits from their leisure activity.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to Naomi Staller for her help in establishing the website.

Authors' Contributions

All authors designed the research, P.T. and S.M. collected the data, C.R. carried out the analysis, and C.R. wrote the first draft; P.T. and S.M. reviewed the article and added substantial parts.

Data Accessibility

The data for this article will be uploaded to the Open Science Framework after acceptance.

Funding Information

The study was not explicitly funded by third party funding but carried out with the usual departmental budget.

References

Abraham

, Sommerhalder

, & Abel

(2010). Landscape and well-being: a scoping study on the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments. International Journal of Public Health, 55, 59–69.

Basu

, Duvall

, & Kaplan

(2019). Attention restoration theory: Exploring the role of soft fascination and mental bandwidth. Environment and Behavior, 51, 1055–1081.

Booth

J. E.

, Gaston

K. J.

, Evans

K. L.

, & Armsworth

P. R.

(2011). The value of species rarity in biodiversity recreation: A birdwatching example. Biological Conservation, 144, 2728–2732.

Brock

, Fraser

, Law

, Mitchell

, & Roberts

D. L.

(2021). An economic analysis of twitching behaviour and species rarity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10, 54–73.

Brock

, Perino

, & Sugden

(2017). The warden attitude: An investigation of the value of interaction with everyday wildlife. Environmental and Resource Economics, 67, 127–155.

Bryan

(1977). Leisure value systems and recreation specialisation. Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 174–187.

Bryce

, Irvine

K. N.

, Church

, Fish

, Ranger

, & Kenter

J. O.

(2016). Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21, 258–269.

Cameron

R. W. F.

, Brindley

, Mears

, McEwan

, Ferguson

, Sheffield

, … Richardson

(2020). Where the wild things are! Do urban green spaces with greater avian biodiversity promote more positive emotions in humans?. Urban Ecosystems, 23, 301–317.

Clark

N. E.

, Lovell

, Wheeler

B. W.

, Higgins

S. L.

, Deledge

N. H.

, & Norris

(2014). Biodiversity, cultural pathways, and human health: A framework. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 198–204.

10.

Clucas

, Rabotyagov

, & Marzluff

J. M.

(2015). How much is that birdie in my backyard? A cross-continental economic valuation of native urban songbirds. Urban Ecosystems, 18, 251–266.

11.

Codina

, & Pestana

J. V.

(2019). Time matters differently in leisure experience for men and women: Leisure dedication and time perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 2513.

12.

Cordell

H. K.

, & Herbert

N. G.

(2002). The popularity of birding is still growing. Birding, 34, 54–61.

13.

Costello

A. B.

, & Osborne

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10, 7.

14.

Crossan

, & Salmoni

(2021). A simulated walk in nature: Testing predictions from the attention restoration theory. Environment and Behavior, 53, 277–295.

15.

Dallimer

, Irvine

K. N.

, Skinner

A. M.

, Davies

Z. G.

, Rouquette

J. R.

, Maltby

L. L.

, … Gaston

K. J.

(2012). Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience, 62, 47–55.

16.

Dean

, van Dooren

, & Weinstein

(2011). Does biodiversity improve mental health in urban settings?. Medical Hypotheses, 76, 877–880.

17.

de Camargo Barbosa

K. V.

, Develey

P. F.

, & Ribeiro

M. C.

(2021). The contribution of citizen science to research on migratory and urban birds in Brazil. Ornithology Research, 29, 1–11.

18.

Decker

D. J.

, Brown

T. L.

, Driver

B. L.

, & Brown

P. J

. (1987). Theoretical developments in assessing social values of wildlife: Toward a comprehensive understanding of wildlife recreation involvement. In D. J. Decker and G. R. Goff (eds.), Valuing wildlife: Economic and social perspectives (pp. 76–95). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

19.

de Vries

L. P.

, Baselmans

B. M.

, & Bartels

(2021). Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment of well-being: A systematic review and recommendations for future studies. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22, 2361–2408.

20.

Diener

, & Biswas-Diener

(2011). Happiness: Unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth. New York: Wiley.

21.

Dutcher

D. D.

, Finley

J. C.

, Luloff

A. E.

, & Johnson

J. B.

(2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39, 474–493.

22.

Etikan

, Alkassim

, & Abubakar

(2016). Comparision of snowball sampling and sequential sampling technique. Biometrics and Biostatistics International Journal, 3, 55.

23.

Felappi

J. F.

, Sommer

J. H.

, Falkenberg

, Terlau

, & Kötter

(2020). Green infrastructure through the lens of “One Health”: A systematic review and integrative framework uncovering synergies and trade-offs between mental health and wildlife support in cities. Science of the Total Environment, 748, 141589.

24.

Frątczak

, Sparks

T. H.

, Randler

, & Tryjanowski

. (2020). Circadian preferences of birdwatchers in Poland: Do “owls” prefer watching night birds, and “larks” prefer daytime ones?. PeerJ, 8, e8673.

25.

Fuller

R. A.

, Irvine

K. N.

, Devine-Wright

, Warren

P. H.

, & Gaston

K. J.

(2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3, 390–394.

26.

Hartig

, Korpela

, Evans

G. W.

, & Gärling

(1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14, 175–194.

27.

Hepburn

, Smith

A. C.

, Zelenski

, & Fahrig

(2020). Bird diversity unconsciously increases people's satisfaction with where they live. Land, 10, 153.

28.

Hvenegaard

G. T.

(2002). Birder specialization differences in conservation involvement, demographics, and motivations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7, 21–36.

29.

Janeczko

, Łukowski

, Bielinis

, Woźnicka

, Janeczko

, & Korcz

(2021). “Not just a hobby, but a lifestyle”: Characteristics, preferences and self-perception of individuals with different levels of involvement in birdwatching. PLos One, 16, e0255359.

30.

Johansson

, Flykt

, Frank

, & Hartig

(2021). Appraisals of wildlife during restorative opportunities in local natural settings. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 635757.

31.

Kaplan

, & Kaplan

(1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Kaplan

(1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.

33.

Kondo

M. C.

, Triguero-Mas

, Donaire-Gonzalez

, Seto

, Valentín

, Hurst

, … Nieuwenhuijsen

M. J.

(2020). Momentary mood response to natural outdoor environments in four European cities. Environment International, 134, 105237.

34.

Korpela

K. M.

, Ylén

, Tyrväinen

, & Silvennoinen

(2008). Determinants of restorative experiences in everyday favorite places. Health & Place, 14, 636–652.

35.

Kyle

, Absher

, Norman

, Hammitt

, & Jodice

(2007). A modified involvement scale. Leisure Studies, 26, 399–427.

36.

Larson

L. R.

, Cooper

C. B.

, Futch

, Singh

, Shipley

N. J.

, Dale

, LeBaron

G. S.

, & Takekawa

J. Y.

(2020). The diverse motivations of citizen scientists: Does conservation emphasis grow as volunteer participation progresses?. Biological Conservation, 242, 108428.

37.

Lee

J. H.

, & Scott

(2004). Measuring birding specialization: A confirmatory factor analysis. Leisure Sciences, 26, 245–260.

38.

Lev

, Kahn

Jr.

, P. H., Chen

, & Esperum

(2020). Relatively wild urban parks can promote human resilience and flourishing: A case study of Discovery Park, Seattle, Washington. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 2, 2.

39.

Lindemann-Matthies

, Junge

, & Matthies

(2010). The influence of plant diversity on people's perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation, 143, 195–202.

40.

Lindemann-Matthies

, & Matthies

(2018). The influence of plant species richness on stress recovery of humans. Web Ecology, 18, 121–128.

41.

Maller

, Townsend

, Pryor

, Brown

, & St Leger

(2006). Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21, 45–54.

42.

Marselle

M. R.

, Hartig

, Cox

D. T.

, de Bell

, Knapp

, Lindley

, … Bonn

(2021). Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: A conceptual framework. Environment International, 150, 106420.

43.

McFarlane

B. L.

(1994). Specialization and motivations of birdwatchers. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 22, 361–370.

44.

Menardo

, Brondino

, Hall

, & Pasini

(2021). Restorativeness in natural and urban environments: A meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, 124, 417–437.

45.

Methorst

, Rehdanz

, Mueller

, Hansjürgens

, Bonn

, & Böhning-Gaese

(2021). The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe. Ecological Economics, 181, 106917.

46.

Meyer-Grandbastien

, Burel

, Hellier

, & Bergerot

(2020). A step towards understanding the relationship between species diversity and psychological restoration of visitors in urban green spaces using landscape heterogeneity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 195, 103728.

47.

Moss

(1995). Birds and weather: A birdwatchers' guide. London, United Kingdom: Hamlyn.

48.

Murawiec

, Tryjanowski

, & Nita

(2021) An ornithological walk to improve the well-being of mental health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A pilot study. Psychiatria, 18, 190–195.

49.

Newman

D. B.

, Tay

, & Diener

(2014). Leisure and subjective well-being: A model of psychological mechanisms as mediating factors. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 555–578.

50.

Nghiem

T. P. L.

, Wong

K. L.

, Jeevanandam

, Chang

C. C.

, Tan

L. Y. C.

, Goh

, & Carrasco

L. R.

(2021). Biodiverse urban forests, happy people: Experimental evidence linking perceived biodiversity, restoration, and emotional wellbeing. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 59, 127030.

51.

Norling

J. C.

, Sibthorp

, Suchy

, Hannon

J. C.

, & Ruddell

(2010). The benefit of recreational physical activity to restore attentional fatigue: The effects of running intensity level on attention scores. Journal of Leisure Research, 42, 135–152.

52.

Oman

(2021). Understanding well-being data. Improving social and cultural policy, practice and research. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave, Macmillan, Springer., 383 p.

53.

Parra-Saldívar

, Abades

, Celis-Diez

J. L.

, & Gelcich

(2020). Exploring perceived well-being from Urban Parks: Insights from a megacity in Latin America. Sustainability, 12, 7586.

54.

Pasanen

T. P.

, Ojala

, Tyrväinen

, & Korpela

K. M.

(2018). Restoration, well-being, and everyday physical activity in indoor, built outdoor and natural outdoor settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 59, 85–93.

55.

Randler

(2021). An analysis of heterogeneity in German speaking birdwatchers reveals three distinct clusters and gender differences. Birds, 2, 250–260.

56.

Randler

(2022). Motivations for birdwatching: Support for a three-dimensional model. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, [Epub ahead of print]; DOI 10.1080/10871209.2021.1993385.

57.

Randler

, & Heil

(2021). Determinants of bird species literacy—Activity/interest and specialization are more important than socio-demographic variables. Animals, 11, 1595.

58.

Randler

, Höllwarth

, & Schaal

(2007). Urban park visitors and their knowledge of animal species. Anthrozoös, 20, 65–74.

59.

Randler

, & Marx

(2022). Initial involvement into birding: Triggers, gender, and decade effects—A mixed-methods study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9, 1–10.

60.

Randler

, Tryjanowski

, Jokimäki

, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki

M. L.

, & Staller

(2020). SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) Pandemic lockdown influences nature-based recreational activity: The case of birders. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 7310.

61.

Randler

, & Weber

(2015). Positive and negative affect during the school day and its relationship to morningness–eveningness. Biological Rhythm Research, 46, 683–690.

62.

Ratcliffe

, Gatersleben

, & Sowden

P. T.

(2013). Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 221–228.

63.

Rosa

C. D.

, & Collado

(2019). Experiences in nature and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Setting the ground for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 763.

64.

Sandifer

P. A.

, Sutton-Grier

A. E.

, & Ward

B. P.

(2015). Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, 12, 1–15.

65.

Scott

, & Shafer

C. S.

(2001). Recreational specialization: A critical look at the construct. Journal of Leisure Research, 33, 319–343.

66.

Sonnentag

, & Fritz

(2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 204–221.

67.

Steven

, Morrison

, & Castley

J. G.

(2015). Birdwatching and avitourism: A global review of research into its participant markets, distribution and impacts, highlighting future research priorities to inform sustainable avitourism management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23, 1257–1276.

68.

Uebel

, Marselle

, Dean

A. J.

, Rhodes

J. R.

, & Bonn

(2021). Urban green space soundscapes and their perceived restorativeness. People and Nature, 3, 756–769.

69.

Ulrich

R. S.

, Simons

R. F.

, Losito

B. D.

, Fiorito

, Miles

M. A.

, & Zelson

(1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.

70.

Van der Merwe

, & Saayman

(2008). Travel motivations of tourists visiting Kruger National Park. Koedoe: African Protected Area Conservation and Science, 50, 154–159.

71.

von Lindern

, Bauer

, Frick

, Hunziker

, & Hartig

(2013). Occupational engagement as a constraint on restoration during leisure time in forest settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 118, 90–97.

72.

Weng

P. Y.

, & Chiang

Y. C.

(2014). Psychological restoration through indoor and outdoor leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 46, 203–217.

73.

Wöran

, & Arnberger

(2012). Exploring relationships between recreation specialization, restorative environments and mountain hikers' flow experience. Leisure Sciences, 34, 95–114.

74.

Wyles

K. J.

, White

M. P.

, Hattam

, Pahl

, King

, & Austen

(2019). Are some natural environments more psychologically beneficial than others? The importance of type and quality on connectedness to nature and psychological restoration. Environment and Behavior, 51, 111–143.

75.

Young

, Hofmann

, Frey

, Moretti

, & Bauer

(2020). Psychological restoration in urban gardens related to garden type, biodiversity and garden-related stress. Landscape and Urban Planning, 198, 103777.