- Email: [email protected]
The ‘Nest Test’ experiment: are community involvement and good science mutually exclusive?
The ‘Nest Test’ Experiment: are community involvement and good science mutually exclusive?
Introduction Current concern for the environment has provided both an opportunity and an obligation for public institutions such as tnuseums to have a greater environmental relevance to the larger communitv which supports them. One important way for museums to pla)- a greater role is in the area of environmental education. However this can present a dilemma. h~anv museums are essentially collectionbased institutions, but there are some limitations to the educational opportunities provided by collections and collection-based programmcs. How, for example, would one educate the public about a complex scientific issue which is the subject of current public debate and controversy? It could certainly be done using museum specimens from collections, but would require extensive interpretive and support material to make it relevant to the immediate situation. At best this approach would lack the dynamic immediacy of the debate being concurrentI>waged in the wider community. At worst it could appear several lcv-els removed from reality and relevance thus reinforcing the perception of museums as slow-responding and rooted in the past. In order to avoid such problems museums are increasingly adoptin g a varietv of public programmes such as interpretive thcatre, school programmes and debates. As ecologists at the Australian Museum we recently found ourselves faced with a situation which could not be adequatolv handled using the more conventional approaches. We wished to contribute effectively to the debate on a complex and contentious public issue which was characterised by anecdote and speculation but little quantitative information. The challenge for us as ecologists with a research interest in the field under debate was to obtain the information needed to pro\.idc solutions to the problem being discussed. At the same time we had a responsihilitv. as tnembers of the Museum to fulfil some of the other aims of the institution’s mission: namclv to ‘increase understanding of our natural environment ,~nd to be a catalvst in changing public attitudes and actions’. There are manv who might ~a\’ that one cannot achieve both ends simultaneously without severclv compromisin g the qualitv of one or both the products. We decided to undertake the challenge. In this paper we describe and assess the integration of applied research into a public programme.
Th
Ii3
Background
‘,‘L rz.\i 7ij,t’ I:-.~penn~cnt
to the issue
Professional ornithologists and amateur birdwatchers alike have noted and lamented a decline in the numbers of small songbirds in some cities and their surroundings in eastern Australia.’ There has been much speculation as to the reason for this decline, including modification of habitat, proliferation of pesticides, and an increase in the activity of introduced and native predators, Newspapers have particularI> the Pied Currawon;: (Strc p wa gvaculina).’ frequentI>. driven the debate with outbursts of media interest, for example in 1971 in S5~dnc>;~in 1978 in Canberra,’ and most recently in Sydney again in 1991.5 I)u;ing this latter covcragc a professional ecologist recommended that half a million Pied Currawongs should be poisoned per year in the short term. As Pied Currawongs are a protected, co~~spicuous and common native bird, the resulting furore was not unexpected. The ecologist’s recommendation was based on a premise resulting from observations. The observations were that small birds had bccomc lessnumerous, that the Pied Currawong had become mot-c numerous and that introduced berryproducing plants had proliferated. The resultant thesis was that the increase in berries had provided an increased suppl!, of food for juvenile Pied Currawongs over the winter period when native food was scarce. This permitted a greater number of juveniles to survive the winter resulting in an increase in total number of Pied Currawongs. Pied Currawongs arc omnivorous and are known to eat eggs, nestlings and e\‘en adult birds. Therefore an increase in their numbers might in turn increase the predation pressure on small birds, leading to their decline. Although thcrc is ‘1body of anecdotal information to support this thesis, there is little data with which to test it. In particular there is no information on the relative contribution to nesting failure provided by Pied Currawongs compared with other predators which frequent urban landscapes. This lead to the situation of the media capitalising on the sensational aspects of the issue culminating in articles titled ‘The bird that’s munching our swallows’,” ‘Pets fall prey to Currawongs’,’ or ‘Save the friggin Currawon g readers’.” Scientists with opposing viewpoints wet-e interviewed, people bccamc emotionally involved and the chance for informed public d&ate on an important issue was lost. All these events were occurring in a gcncral climate characterised by dwindling resources with which to undcrtakc scientific enquiry and a lack of community awareness that museums conduct research. To address this latter concern, and to promote an understanding of science in the community, the Museum embarked on Scienccsc;zpe, a public programme demonstrating the involvement of science in our evcr\,da\. lives. This prcscnted an ideal ‘umbrella’ under which we could _ develop our own specific ‘Nest Test’ project to deal with the debate concerning Pied Currawongs. Furthcrmorc, involving the public in the collection of scientific data enabled us to design cxpcrimcnts which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive to staff. The scientific aims of the project were: (1) to identify predators of the nests and eggs of small birds and to dcterminc the relative contributions of different predators, in particular, the role of the Pied C urrawong; (2) to measure the abundance of Pied Currawongs and representative small birds in urban areas;
(;I<1 (I GOUI\(,
\\I1
Kl( ll,\l
1:. 11,2l('it
171
(3) to identit\- sonic of the factors influencing p rcdation rates in urban areas, including vegetation characteristics ,lnd the feeding of wildlife by humans; and (4) to develop an index of predation which could be used to measure future changes in predation rate. The aims of the project
for public
education
were:
(1) to increase the level of understanding bv pcoplc of their interactions with their en\.ironmcnt; (2) to disseminate objective information of the role of urban nest predators in the persistence of bird populations; and (3) to demystift. the methods of science. Methods” We knew from prc\.ious research that one way of measuring predation was by putting out artificial bird nests containing artificial plasticine eggs. Many predators appear to respond in the same way to this artificial set up as they do to real nests of small birds. The soft plasticine ‘records’ most predation attempts in the form of heak or tooth impressions. This permits not only the predation lcvcls to be estimated (b!, the number of nests which have suffered attack), but also the idcntificntion of the predators (from the nature of the impressions left behind). Tl lc f cnsibilitv of the method was thcrcforc already dcmonstratcd and had passed scientific peer review” indicating 2 level of scientific merit. To ensure ‘1 degree of realism in our experimental set up, our artificial nests simulated those of the Willie Wagtail. We chose this species because it occurs throughout Australia; it is rcasonabl\~ common, yet apparent]!, declining, and it is charismatic-it ih conspicuous, active and well-liked. We considcrcd it important to select a species to which most of the public could relate. In addition it commonI> nests in urban areas, even on structures such as clotheslines, and its nest could easilv bc copied. We built them out of halved tennis balls covcrcd with coconut fibrc and wool. Our plasticine qgs were speckled with paint to mimic those of Willie Wagtails, but rather than crnplo), professional rescarchcrs to place nests within the urbx~ cnvironmcnt, wc sought public assistance. We therefore needed methods of recruiting volunteers, distributing nests and informing volunteers of what was rccluircd. Muscums ‘it-c well suited to provide these services. With the zsistanie of the Communit!, Relations section, we publicised the project, chiefI!- on .I life-st\,lc tclc\ixion ptxqyCimrne, but also on radio and in print media. The television coverage consisted of three episodes, one providing information c>n the problem ,md sclliciting volunteers. one reminding participants to start the experiment at the nominated time, and one prcscnting feedback of the outcome of the cxpcrimcnt. tiowcver, the most uncertain part of the project was estimating the numhcr of people who would take part. Too man\’ volunteers would lead to ciisaI7pOint”le”t and poshibl\. bad communitv relations, while too few would compromise the scientific and eAucational aims. \Ir!e budgeted on 2000 participants. We tested the fcxibilit! of sending nc\ts ,md eggs through the mail, and using our particular nest construction, WC‘ had no losses or damage. With the help of
172
Tile
‘~“\ic.,t Gbt’
IJ.xp&ment
the Education Dlvlslon we designed data sheets and questionnaires, tested and rovised them. Initially, a small group of specialist volunteers came into the Museum to build the 2000 nests and 4000 eggs. However, volunteers required more supervision than employed staff were able to provide, given that this project was a part-time activity. Therefore three part-time nest-builders were ultimately employed for a total of 300 hours to supervise volunteers and provide much of the labour. At the time of registration, each participant was asked to provide postage stamps to cover the cost of the outward and return postage of their nest. We did this, partly to defray the budget ($7200 potential for nest postage) and partly as a filtering device. We expected that people who were prepared to pay $3.60 up front were more likely to set the experiment through to completion. No one was cxcludcd from the experiment if they did not provide the postage, although almost everyone did. After receiving written registrations, we mailed one nest-kit to each participant. The kit contained a nest and eggs along with instructions on nest placement and how to record observations. In addition, the kit contained questions on the vcgctation and wildlife present in the garden in which the nest was placed, as well as requesting details of any feeding of wildlife by the householder. Participants were asked to return their nest, data-sheet and questionnaires as soon as the), had observed imprints (indicating probable predation) or after 14 days. WC then analyscd imprints left in the plasticine, collated the questionnaires and provided intormation and recommendations for the follow-up television segment three weeks after the experiment concluded. More sophisticated data analysis was conducted after all returns had been rcccived and this information was sent to each participant in a newsletter 12 weeks after the conclusion of the experiment. Evaluation As this was the first such project we had undertaken we considered the evaluation to bc crucially important for us to gain some understanding of the project’s worth. The method of evaluation we used depended on the objective being evaluated. Was the
pro~ecf
successful in meetrng
its stated
scientific
objectives?
This was relatively easy to c\,aluatc using the normal tools of scientific research such as statistics. Aim 1: to identify prcdatol-s of the nests and eggs of small birds and to dctcrmine the relative contributions of different predators, in particular, the role of the Pied Currawong. The use of plasticinc eggsproved very effective in this cxpcrimcnt as it enabled us to vcrif?, that predation had occurred in a large proportion (64%) of nests. Of the nests that were depredated 88% contained eggs which showed marks left by predators (12% had the eggs total]!, removed). We were able to assign 88% of these marks to 6 broad categories: large beak imprints, small beak imprints, beak imprints of parrots, tooth imprints of possums, tooth imprints of rats and scratch marks of cats. Wc were unable to identify beak imprints to species level and so
(;I<1 (, GC~\*lZC,
,\\I)
K1c IIAKI)
173
E. hl,\.lc)l<
was required to determine the relative role of Pied other information Currawongs. This was partially done b> correlating Pied Currawong abundance with the incidence of large beak imprints. Large beak imprints were most common where participants often saw Pied Currawongs. This strongly implied that Pied Currawongs were responsible for most predation by large bn-ds. Marc conclusive evidence was provided from an unexpected source. Our questionnaire asked participants to record the identity of the predator if they saw it attack their nest. We expected the occasional observation but we did not expect a group as large as 134 people. It is clear from the size of this group and from letters and comments, that people spent far more time watching their nests than was requested in the instructions. In 5C% of cases in which people observed their nest being depredated, the predator was identified as the Pied Currawong. The percentage of large birds observed and inferred from imprints in plasticine was similar, suggesting a reasonable degree of accuracy in the identification made by highly successful in achieving this participants. Th c prolect was therefore objective of identifying nest predators. Aim 2: to measure the ahundancc of Pied Currawongs birds in urban areas.
and representative
small
Th e prolect provided intormation on the abundance of several suburban animals. Pied Currawongs were common (i.e. seen at least weekly) in 54% of backyards, the Willie Wagtail, our simulated species was common in 36% and another small bird, the Yellow Robin, was common in 3”/. We selected these species from a list of others which are considered to be declining, because they are very distinctive, but we are unable to properlv evaluate the accuracy of identifications. The relative abundance of the three species was consistent with our expectations, as was the number of admissions that the observer was unsure of what the species looked like. OnI>. IX’%, of participants said they did not know the Willie-Wagtail (remember, WC chose this species because WC expected it to be well-known) whereas 37% did not know the Yellow Robin, a species which is more dependent upon native vegetation. Because Pied Currawongs are not found in the western states of Australia, an opportunity was presented for assessing the accurac). of responses. Eight percent of participants in the western states reported the presence of Pied Currawongs in their gardens, despite bcin, LI out of range. ‘I’his is a small error rate, but it indicates that the use of lay-people in experiments is more reliable when there is an outcome which the researcher can anal\,se (in this case plasticinc eggs), rather than research which is restricted to survc;.. LIespite an\. errors, we expect that this information would be useful as a baseline against which the status of these species could be measured in the future. Aim 3: to idcntif\ including: (a)
some of the factor-\ influcniing
predation rates in urban areas
Vqctntion ch~~zctemtics. The intensity of predation was higher in gardens containing more trees. Iiowever WCwere really interested in the relationship between predation and introduced berry-producing trees. Unfortunately, trial questionnaires asking people to count the number of plants of certain species, required a lc\,el of botanical knowledge which was too high for the general public. We think it is still possible to integrate such questions into a
174
7%
‘sVc’d
%3i ’ lI.xperimcnt
communit!,-based experiment, hut it would require survey work by trained staff to supplement the information provided by the public. (b) 7%~ f&ding of‘ wild& by humans. The experiment demonstrated a correlation between predation rate and the regularity with which participants provided food for Kookaburras, a predatorv bird. However, it is impossible to assign any cause to this correlation because people map onlv feed birds if the\, arc common there in the first place. The correlation indicates that further research is warranted and this could easily be done in a communitybased experiment by asking samples of participants to provide or not provide food as part of the experiment. Aim 4: to develop an index of predation which could be used to measure future changes in predation rate. Sixty-four percent of the nests WC sent out were depredated. In most cases, where the eggs had not been totally rcmo\ed b!, the predator, we had material evidence of the occurrence of predation. The experiment can be repeated at any time to show how predation rate has deviated from this baseline. This will bc particularly valuable if steps are taken to control Pied Currawongs, as it will provide a means of c~aluating the ctfcctivcness of these measures. Kcrs the proJc,ct sMccLJ$jjUI in meeting
its stated public education
aims?
The meaningful evaluation of the public education aims of any public prog’amme is difficult and in this respect our project was no different. In retrospect the greatest inadequacy- in the project was the lack of a formaliscd method for evaluating the achievement of its public education aims. At the time these aims were considered to be an added achievement on top of the scientific ones. We intended to evaluate the achie\~emcnt of public education aims through the interpretation of data such as requests for information and drop-out rate. Whilst we have done this below, the linkage bctwccn such data and the stated aims is more tenuous than WC would like. Aim 1: to increase the level ot’ underst.mding by people of their interactions with their cnvironmcnt. We have no quantitative data with which to measure any change in understanding of the participants. However, part of the experiment involved recording both human activities and environmental attributes which might have an impact on birds. As a result of this we would expect that participants would have rcalised there was a connection between birds, humans and the broader en\.ironmcnt. Certainly anecdotal information indicated that pcoplc became more aware of birds. In order to rcliabl\~ idcntif\, a change in understanding it is necessary to ha\,e some measure of understanding before and after the activitv., This experiment provided the means to nchie\,e this because there were two distinct occasions when the opportunit!, to interrogate participants presented itself. In this scenario prior knowlcdgc could have been assessedby asking participants questions at the time the!, requested a nest. Changes in understanding could be demonstrated if similar questions posed at the completion of the experiment elicited a different response. WC would recommend this inclusion in future experiments.
<;I\I
175
on the role of urban nest predators
in
There wcrc two distinct types of information project: existing and new intormation.
that wet-c made available via the
(a) &isting znf brmlztion. This constituted information which was available to us as scientists but not gcncrallp known b, the public. It included basic ecology, basic animal biolog, the current state of knowledge of nest predation and how human acti\,it;es can modif!. predation rates. This information was provided both in media presentations and in the kits and information sheets provided to participants. Although such information is available in the public domain it is usually not presented outside of specialised markets such as the audiences of science documentar>, programmes (radio and TV) and the subscribers of natural historv magazines. We specifically attempted to address a broader group than this bv utilising a lifestyle programme on a commercial station. This programme &mcd ideal as it focuses on back yards and was, at the time, the highest rating Australian tclovision programmc. It therefore catered to a cross-section of society, particularly, the ‘average’ person.
(1~) h:czt infb~-motion. ‘I’his constituted the results of the experiment itself and interpretations of thcsc results. This information had not been available to the public bcforc and in this respect the project answered applied questions which were of broad interest and use. The information was disseminated through a newsletter to all participants. The newsletter not only presented full results of the experiment, but also provided our assessment of the predator responsible for damage to the particular participant’s eggs. There was thercforc a small amount of pcrsonaliscd information. In addition the results and our reconlinendations to lessen human impacts on small birds were presented in a follow-up telcvisi~~n scgmcnt. The results were also prcscnted in radio interviews. As well as our planned campaign of disseminating results, we also received requests from people who heard about the results on the radio and wanted more information. There have also been two requests from councils and conservation groups to include the results in their newslcttcrs and we have found the results and rccommcndations printed in one council nclvsletter without our prior knowledge. A local politician has also used the results, again without our knowledge and inxcuratcly as it turns out, ill a pi-ess rcleasc concerning the impact of cats on birds. This press release in tui-n spawned a request from a local newspaper for information the\, could use in reporting on the press release. Thcsc examples ot’ the informa;ion pro\idcd 1~~.the project being used by the communitv w-ithout our xtivc involvcmcnt arC evidence of the ability of such projects to make a usctul contribution in disseminating information. Aim 3: to dcni> stif!. the methods ot \cicticc It was our intention to demystif), science 1~1ha\,ing the participants in the project actually do science themselves, thcrcb\ &posing them to the methods of science. We believed that if participants followed a set of instructions that constituted a scientific cxpcritnent and the\, did 50 without too tnanv problems,
Th
176
cn;l,>t Ted ~~spe?+ent
then when thev- rcalised that they had contributed to a scientific process they would also realise that science is a reasonably understandable and logical process. It is apparent that for us to have any confidence that this did eventuate we must know several things. (a) Hoc% zell did participantsfblloc, the instructions? Fewer than 1% of returned data sheets had to be rejected for reasons which may have resulted from an inability to follow instructions. WC have no way of knowing what proportion of the 10% who did not return their data sheets failed to do so because they could not follow the instructions. Even if a considerable proportion of nonreturns resulted from this factor, we feel the high successful return rate indicates that participants were generally able to follow the procedure and complete it successfully. (13) Did the participants understand zzhy they c’cye doing things? It is of little use getting people to do things as a learning exercise if they do not know why they are doing them. We know that participants at least had access to information which explained the reason they were requested to do things because this was provided along with the instructions. We also know they had to read this information as it was embedded within the instructions. (c) Did
the participants
realise
-z’hat
they
were
doing
constituted
science?
Probably, because we described the project in scientific terms including observation, question, experiment, data and results. Furthermore, participants were aware that the project was coordinated by scientists and would form part of the Australian Museum’s Sciencescape programme. Taking these three points into account we believe that science was presented in an accessible way to participants and that because of this they were given the opportunity to realise that science is not necessarily mysterious.
The v.alue of any project depends not just upon whether or not it achieves its’ aims, but also on how much it cost to do so. This type of evaluation enables choices to be made amongst competing types of projects. In order to evaluate the project in this area we must consider the following. Ho,x
much
did the project
cost?
The major cost of the project (excluding volunteer time) was to employ assistanceto manufacture eggs and nests. This required 380 hours work totalling A$1,900. Other costs of the project were materials ($1,660), printing ($1,220) and mail ($895). In addition there was a cost resulting from the time which the scientific staff of the Museum devoted to the project. We did not record detailed figures for this time but the commitment on the part of the supervising scientist was significant over a period of 6 months. Could the stated scientific aims be achieved 12~1a normal research experiment)?
jO?- less cost by other
methods
(e.g.
It this project was to be done without community involvement three-quarters of the above budget would still be incurred in manufacture of eggs and nests. The savings in printing and mail would be massively offset by increases in labour costs to place the nests in peoples’ backyards. In this scenario we would have had more confidence in the data but would have sacrificed the benefits of having
(;I<1
c.
Gcnrluc,
,\\I)
Kl(
liAl
I_.
M/\jOl<
177
observers to monitor each nest. The 134 observations of predation alone were sufficiently valuable from a scientific point of view to advocate the community approach over the conventional scientific approach. Could the stated public education aims be nchieved fbr less cost by an alterative public programme? Within the Australian Museum, probablr, the most appropriate public programme which would deal with a topic Of this nature is the Rapid Response programme. This programme produces small, short-duration exhibitions or events dealing with topical issues. A typical Rapid Response programme will cost about the satne in terms of human and financial resources as the Nest Test experiment and for this reason is a useful comparison. Both these programmes are in the least expensive category of Museum public programmes and so there are no existing programmes which could have achieved the aims for less cost. Unforseen
benefits
In addition to the formal aims of the project there are a number of potential benefits in this tvpc of project. We feel it is important to consider these benefits when deciding whether to undertake a community-based project, even though much of the data regarding their value ma\. be anecdotal.
Such projects prcscnt ideal situations in which to do sonic forms of market research. It is relatively casv to obtain information from participants which can be used to infer communitir needs and interests. This can be done directly by writing specific questions into questionnaires, or indirectly by either extracting useful information on one topic from responses dealing with another or soliciting general comments. The types of information obtained via these methods can range from hard numerical data to communitv perceptions of science, scientists and museums. Such information is crucial in designing better museum programmes and better applied research.
Th c potential‘. tor developing a longer term communication is a valuable feature of projets of this nature. This arises because of the protracted nature of the relationship between the participants and the scientists overseeing the project. There are usually several separate occasions when the participants and scientists will have to communicate and this enables a relationship to develop and new information to be exchanged. The ‘Nest Test’ indicated that there is a real desire within the communitv for ongoing communication with scientists. This was indicated by 35% of pirticipants seeking to be involved in future experiments. In addition scmc participants continue to seek general information from the supervisincy h scientist as a result of the relationship established during the experiment. 7’1le communication can also evolve, in that the participants can indicate to the scientists what thcl, would like to know. This results in a less didactic cominunication than occ& in other museum activities such as displays and seminars. Bcc~usc of the long-term nature of this communication the
17x
feedback and refinement conversational st\,le.
‘l%c
‘I, (‘At 7c,t ( I-:.Y[lwimmt
of response
becomes
iterative
and approaches
a
Communit!.-based research projects, such as the ‘Nest Test’, involve work which is phvsicall\ carried out b\- the community outside of the actual museum gr&ds. K&ause of this sucii projects target groups which might not normally visit a museum. Pnrticipntwn rind inter-action Whilst there
Communit\--bdsed ~research programmcs community relations in d number of w-a\‘s:
arc
idcal
vchiclcs
for
enhancing
Increasing community- access to the scicncc carried out in museums and the scicntlsts who do it. 0 Increasing the \,isibilit)- of museums within the community. 0 Engendering a feelin, ~7within the communitv of involvement by the museum in issues currentI\, being debated/topical in the public arena. 0 Encouraging support for causes dccmcd worthwhile by museums, such as weed reduction and encouraging nati\‘c wildlife. l Ph\,sicallx. taking ~USCU~~ acti\itics illto the communitv instead of conccntrating them at one location. l Providing a link t 0 other museum prqrammcs. l Promoting a scrlsc of camaraderie amongst participants which is linked to the l
111uscut11. l
Eormlng
I’in Ii 13et wccn
muscum
xientists
and the community.
All these attributes will help increase tlic communit!. of museums to the real world.
perception
of the relevance
Recommendations In conclusion WC believe that communit! in\.ol\emcnt in rcscar-ch projects offers J number of unique opp~>rtunitics for muscums and museum scientists. There is no need for xicntists to feel that their science will be compromised by undertaking such ,I course c~f action. If the cspcriments and research are well thought out end clcsigncsd not onI>, will the results be scientifically acceptable, hut a new and po\vcrfuI tool will lx a\~ailable for scientists to apply to problems which wcrc too his to tackle before. Not- should museums lx anything but enthusiastic supporters of prc’posals \vhich involve community participation. Again a communit! -ha.sed research pl-ojcct can do things no other museum public programmc could hope to achicvc. WC arc confident that good science can be carried out in this w.I\. and ha\e Iittlc doubt of the benefits which accrue to i7iuseums from \ucli projects. I iowe\,el-, as we have little hard data on the latter aspect, we recc~mnicnd that formati\,c ,ind sunimati\.c evaluation lx an integral part of the project design. This will hcttcr ennble museum administrators to judge the VJIUC. of thcsc projects. Acknowledgements WC wish to thank K~rkra; K,r&y,r)-L! and the Nine Network for television coverage of the prc>jcct. Special thanks arc due to the iollowin~ specialist volunteers Anita Bahar, Michelle Christ!, Bclinda Drew, Irma Glass, Ko,hyn 1 Iill, Guy Hodgson, Caitlin Kcndal, Gerah h’lajor. Sheil,l Major, Melissa Mills, Anthony Nicholas, Michael Smith and (:larinda Wang. And of course the project would not have been possible without the efforts of the ZCCC volunteer participants. Support for this project was provided 13~. the Australian Museum and an Australian liexarcli (:ouncil Postdoctoral I’cll~>wship.
183
‘The ‘t\e,t
Zst ’ Lspcrlment
Notes I PA. Hoskin. 1991, Pl,c Herds of Sydney’, Surrq Bcatt; Sr Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW Austrdlin. 2 E1.F. Rccher, 1972. ‘The Vcrtcbratc I~auna of Sydney’. In F1.A. Nix, ed., The City us a Life System? pp. 79-87. (Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia Vol. 7, Canberra, l-972). 3 Ibid. 4 G. Tibiccn, 197X. ‘Out and About’, C~~nbr~w,z Hzvd Notes 4(2), 26. 5 G. Robcrt5. 199 I. ‘The Bird That’s Munching Our Swallow,‘, 7%e SyIney Morning HeyaId 3C October. Sydney, Australia. p. 3. 6 Ibid. ‘lhc Sydney Morning He&d 31 7 G. Roberts. 1991. ‘Pets Fall Prc! to (Iurrawongs’, Cktoher, Sydney, Australia, p. 23. 8 M. Raptcrcr. 1992. ‘Save the Fri ggin Cur-rawong. Readers!‘, Picture, 176, 22 January, 22-27, Sydne!, Australia. 9 F’ull Jocumcntation on the cxpcrimcnt including instructions on nest and egg-making, cxpcrimcnt instructions, qucstionnairc, datd sheets and feedback sheet are available from the authors upon request. 10 R.L. Major, G.H. Pyke. M.T. Christy, (;. Gowing and R.S. Hill, 1994. ‘Can Nest Predation I-.xplain the Timing of the brcedin g !&son 2nd the I’attcrn of Nest Dispersion of New f lolland F-lonc\~cater~‘, Ozkos 69, 3hG372.
Introduction Current concern for the environment has provided both an opportunity and an obligation for public institutions such as tnuseums to have a greater environmental relevance to the larger communitv which supports them. One important way for museums to pla)- a greater role is in the area of environmental education. However this can present a dilemma. h~anv museums are essentially collectionbased institutions, but there are some limitations to the educational opportunities provided by collections and collection-based programmcs. How, for example, would one educate the public about a complex scientific issue which is the subject of current public debate and controversy? It could certainly be done using museum specimens from collections, but would require extensive interpretive and support material to make it relevant to the immediate situation. At best this approach would lack the dynamic immediacy of the debate being concurrentI>waged in the wider community. At worst it could appear several lcv-els removed from reality and relevance thus reinforcing the perception of museums as slow-responding and rooted in the past. In order to avoid such problems museums are increasingly adoptin g a varietv of public programmes such as interpretive thcatre, school programmes and debates. As ecologists at the Australian Museum we recently found ourselves faced with a situation which could not be adequatolv handled using the more conventional approaches. We wished to contribute effectively to the debate on a complex and contentious public issue which was characterised by anecdote and speculation but little quantitative information. The challenge for us as ecologists with a research interest in the field under debate was to obtain the information needed to pro\.idc solutions to the problem being discussed. At the same time we had a responsihilitv. as tnembers of the Museum to fulfil some of the other aims of the institution’s mission: namclv to ‘increase understanding of our natural environment ,~nd to be a catalvst in changing public attitudes and actions’. There are manv who might ~a\’ that one cannot achieve both ends simultaneously without severclv compromisin g the qualitv of one or both the products. We decided to undertake the challenge. In this paper we describe and assess the integration of applied research into a public programme.
Th
Ii3
Background
‘,‘L rz.\i 7ij,t’ I:-.~penn~cnt
to the issue
Professional ornithologists and amateur birdwatchers alike have noted and lamented a decline in the numbers of small songbirds in some cities and their surroundings in eastern Australia.’ There has been much speculation as to the reason for this decline, including modification of habitat, proliferation of pesticides, and an increase in the activity of introduced and native predators, Newspapers have particularI> the Pied Currawon;: (Strc p wa gvaculina).’ frequentI>. driven the debate with outbursts of media interest, for example in 1971 in S5~dnc>;~in 1978 in Canberra,’ and most recently in Sydney again in 1991.5 I)u;ing this latter covcragc a professional ecologist recommended that half a million Pied Currawongs should be poisoned per year in the short term. As Pied Currawongs are a protected, co~~spicuous and common native bird, the resulting furore was not unexpected. The ecologist’s recommendation was based on a premise resulting from observations. The observations were that small birds had bccomc lessnumerous, that the Pied Currawong had become mot-c numerous and that introduced berryproducing plants had proliferated. The resultant thesis was that the increase in berries had provided an increased suppl!, of food for juvenile Pied Currawongs over the winter period when native food was scarce. This permitted a greater number of juveniles to survive the winter resulting in an increase in total number of Pied Currawongs. Pied Currawongs arc omnivorous and are known to eat eggs, nestlings and e\‘en adult birds. Therefore an increase in their numbers might in turn increase the predation pressure on small birds, leading to their decline. Although thcrc is ‘1body of anecdotal information to support this thesis, there is little data with which to test it. In particular there is no information on the relative contribution to nesting failure provided by Pied Currawongs compared with other predators which frequent urban landscapes. This lead to the situation of the media capitalising on the sensational aspects of the issue culminating in articles titled ‘The bird that’s munching our swallows’,” ‘Pets fall prey to Currawongs’,’ or ‘Save the friggin Currawon g readers’.” Scientists with opposing viewpoints wet-e interviewed, people bccamc emotionally involved and the chance for informed public d&ate on an important issue was lost. All these events were occurring in a gcncral climate characterised by dwindling resources with which to undcrtakc scientific enquiry and a lack of community awareness that museums conduct research. To address this latter concern, and to promote an understanding of science in the community, the Museum embarked on Scienccsc;zpe, a public programme demonstrating the involvement of science in our evcr\,da\. lives. This prcscnted an ideal ‘umbrella’ under which we could _ develop our own specific ‘Nest Test’ project to deal with the debate concerning Pied Currawongs. Furthcrmorc, involving the public in the collection of scientific data enabled us to design cxpcrimcnts which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive to staff. The scientific aims of the project were: (1) to identify predators of the nests and eggs of small birds and to dcterminc the relative contributions of different predators, in particular, the role of the Pied C urrawong; (2) to measure the abundance of Pied Currawongs and representative small birds in urban areas;
(;I<1 (I GOUI\(,
\\I1
Kl( ll,\l
1:. 11,2l('it
171
(3) to identit\- sonic of the factors influencing p rcdation rates in urban areas, including vegetation characteristics ,lnd the feeding of wildlife by humans; and (4) to develop an index of predation which could be used to measure future changes in predation rate. The aims of the project
for public
education
were:
(1) to increase the level of understanding bv pcoplc of their interactions with their en\.ironmcnt; (2) to disseminate objective information of the role of urban nest predators in the persistence of bird populations; and (3) to demystift. the methods of science. Methods” We knew from prc\.ious research that one way of measuring predation was by putting out artificial bird nests containing artificial plasticine eggs. Many predators appear to respond in the same way to this artificial set up as they do to real nests of small birds. The soft plasticine ‘records’ most predation attempts in the form of heak or tooth impressions. This permits not only the predation lcvcls to be estimated (b!, the number of nests which have suffered attack), but also the idcntificntion of the predators (from the nature of the impressions left behind). Tl lc f cnsibilitv of the method was thcrcforc already dcmonstratcd and had passed scientific peer review” indicating 2 level of scientific merit. To ensure ‘1 degree of realism in our experimental set up, our artificial nests simulated those of the Willie Wagtail. We chose this species because it occurs throughout Australia; it is rcasonabl\~ common, yet apparent]!, declining, and it is charismatic-it ih conspicuous, active and well-liked. We considcrcd it important to select a species to which most of the public could relate. In addition it commonI> nests in urban areas, even on structures such as clotheslines, and its nest could easilv bc copied. We built them out of halved tennis balls covcrcd with coconut fibrc and wool. Our plasticine qgs were speckled with paint to mimic those of Willie Wagtails, but rather than crnplo), professional rescarchcrs to place nests within the urbx~ cnvironmcnt, wc sought public assistance. We therefore needed methods of recruiting volunteers, distributing nests and informing volunteers of what was rccluircd. Muscums ‘it-c well suited to provide these services. With the zsistanie of the Communit!, Relations section, we publicised the project, chiefI!- on .I life-st\,lc tclc\ixion ptxqyCimrne, but also on radio and in print media. The television coverage consisted of three episodes, one providing information c>n the problem ,md sclliciting volunteers. one reminding participants to start the experiment at the nominated time, and one prcscnting feedback of the outcome of the cxpcrimcnt. tiowcver, the most uncertain part of the project was estimating the numhcr of people who would take part. Too man\’ volunteers would lead to ciisaI7pOint”le”t and poshibl\. bad communitv relations, while too few would compromise the scientific and eAucational aims. \Ir!e budgeted on 2000 participants. We tested the fcxibilit! of sending nc\ts ,md eggs through the mail, and using our particular nest construction, WC‘ had no losses or damage. With the help of
172
Tile
‘~“\ic.,t Gbt’
IJ.xp&ment
the Education Dlvlslon we designed data sheets and questionnaires, tested and rovised them. Initially, a small group of specialist volunteers came into the Museum to build the 2000 nests and 4000 eggs. However, volunteers required more supervision than employed staff were able to provide, given that this project was a part-time activity. Therefore three part-time nest-builders were ultimately employed for a total of 300 hours to supervise volunteers and provide much of the labour. At the time of registration, each participant was asked to provide postage stamps to cover the cost of the outward and return postage of their nest. We did this, partly to defray the budget ($7200 potential for nest postage) and partly as a filtering device. We expected that people who were prepared to pay $3.60 up front were more likely to set the experiment through to completion. No one was cxcludcd from the experiment if they did not provide the postage, although almost everyone did. After receiving written registrations, we mailed one nest-kit to each participant. The kit contained a nest and eggs along with instructions on nest placement and how to record observations. In addition, the kit contained questions on the vcgctation and wildlife present in the garden in which the nest was placed, as well as requesting details of any feeding of wildlife by the householder. Participants were asked to return their nest, data-sheet and questionnaires as soon as the), had observed imprints (indicating probable predation) or after 14 days. WC then analyscd imprints left in the plasticine, collated the questionnaires and provided intormation and recommendations for the follow-up television segment three weeks after the experiment concluded. More sophisticated data analysis was conducted after all returns had been rcccived and this information was sent to each participant in a newsletter 12 weeks after the conclusion of the experiment. Evaluation As this was the first such project we had undertaken we considered the evaluation to bc crucially important for us to gain some understanding of the project’s worth. The method of evaluation we used depended on the objective being evaluated. Was the
pro~ecf
successful in meetrng
its stated
scientific
objectives?
This was relatively easy to c\,aluatc using the normal tools of scientific research such as statistics. Aim 1: to identify prcdatol-s of the nests and eggs of small birds and to dctcrmine the relative contributions of different predators, in particular, the role of the Pied Currawong. The use of plasticinc eggsproved very effective in this cxpcrimcnt as it enabled us to vcrif?, that predation had occurred in a large proportion (64%) of nests. Of the nests that were depredated 88% contained eggs which showed marks left by predators (12% had the eggs total]!, removed). We were able to assign 88% of these marks to 6 broad categories: large beak imprints, small beak imprints, beak imprints of parrots, tooth imprints of possums, tooth imprints of rats and scratch marks of cats. Wc were unable to identify beak imprints to species level and so
(;I<1 (, GC~\*lZC,
,\\I)
K1c IIAKI)
173
E. hl,\.lc)l<
was required to determine the relative role of Pied other information Currawongs. This was partially done b> correlating Pied Currawong abundance with the incidence of large beak imprints. Large beak imprints were most common where participants often saw Pied Currawongs. This strongly implied that Pied Currawongs were responsible for most predation by large bn-ds. Marc conclusive evidence was provided from an unexpected source. Our questionnaire asked participants to record the identity of the predator if they saw it attack their nest. We expected the occasional observation but we did not expect a group as large as 134 people. It is clear from the size of this group and from letters and comments, that people spent far more time watching their nests than was requested in the instructions. In 5C% of cases in which people observed their nest being depredated, the predator was identified as the Pied Currawong. The percentage of large birds observed and inferred from imprints in plasticine was similar, suggesting a reasonable degree of accuracy in the identification made by highly successful in achieving this participants. Th c prolect was therefore objective of identifying nest predators. Aim 2: to measure the ahundancc of Pied Currawongs birds in urban areas.
and representative
small
Th e prolect provided intormation on the abundance of several suburban animals. Pied Currawongs were common (i.e. seen at least weekly) in 54% of backyards, the Willie Wagtail, our simulated species was common in 36% and another small bird, the Yellow Robin, was common in 3”/. We selected these species from a list of others which are considered to be declining, because they are very distinctive, but we are unable to properlv evaluate the accuracy of identifications. The relative abundance of the three species was consistent with our expectations, as was the number of admissions that the observer was unsure of what the species looked like. OnI>. IX’%, of participants said they did not know the Willie-Wagtail (remember, WC chose this species because WC expected it to be well-known) whereas 37% did not know the Yellow Robin, a species which is more dependent upon native vegetation. Because Pied Currawongs are not found in the western states of Australia, an opportunity was presented for assessing the accurac). of responses. Eight percent of participants in the western states reported the presence of Pied Currawongs in their gardens, despite bcin, LI out of range. ‘I’his is a small error rate, but it indicates that the use of lay-people in experiments is more reliable when there is an outcome which the researcher can anal\,se (in this case plasticinc eggs), rather than research which is restricted to survc;.. LIespite an\. errors, we expect that this information would be useful as a baseline against which the status of these species could be measured in the future. Aim 3: to idcntif\ including: (a)
some of the factor-\ influcniing
predation rates in urban areas
Vqctntion ch~~zctemtics. The intensity of predation was higher in gardens containing more trees. Iiowever WCwere really interested in the relationship between predation and introduced berry-producing trees. Unfortunately, trial questionnaires asking people to count the number of plants of certain species, required a lc\,el of botanical knowledge which was too high for the general public. We think it is still possible to integrate such questions into a
174
7%
‘sVc’d
%3i ’ lI.xperimcnt
communit!,-based experiment, hut it would require survey work by trained staff to supplement the information provided by the public. (b) 7%~ f&ding of‘ wild& by humans. The experiment demonstrated a correlation between predation rate and the regularity with which participants provided food for Kookaburras, a predatorv bird. However, it is impossible to assign any cause to this correlation because people map onlv feed birds if the\, arc common there in the first place. The correlation indicates that further research is warranted and this could easily be done in a communitybased experiment by asking samples of participants to provide or not provide food as part of the experiment. Aim 4: to develop an index of predation which could be used to measure future changes in predation rate. Sixty-four percent of the nests WC sent out were depredated. In most cases, where the eggs had not been totally rcmo\ed b!, the predator, we had material evidence of the occurrence of predation. The experiment can be repeated at any time to show how predation rate has deviated from this baseline. This will bc particularly valuable if steps are taken to control Pied Currawongs, as it will provide a means of c~aluating the ctfcctivcness of these measures. Kcrs the proJc,ct sMccLJ$jjUI in meeting
its stated public education
aims?
The meaningful evaluation of the public education aims of any public prog’amme is difficult and in this respect our project was no different. In retrospect the greatest inadequacy- in the project was the lack of a formaliscd method for evaluating the achievement of its public education aims. At the time these aims were considered to be an added achievement on top of the scientific ones. We intended to evaluate the achie\~emcnt of public education aims through the interpretation of data such as requests for information and drop-out rate. Whilst we have done this below, the linkage bctwccn such data and the stated aims is more tenuous than WC would like. Aim 1: to increase the level ot’ underst.mding by people of their interactions with their cnvironmcnt. We have no quantitative data with which to measure any change in understanding of the participants. However, part of the experiment involved recording both human activities and environmental attributes which might have an impact on birds. As a result of this we would expect that participants would have rcalised there was a connection between birds, humans and the broader en\.ironmcnt. Certainly anecdotal information indicated that pcoplc became more aware of birds. In order to rcliabl\~ idcntif\, a change in understanding it is necessary to ha\,e some measure of understanding before and after the activitv., This experiment provided the means to nchie\,e this because there were two distinct occasions when the opportunit!, to interrogate participants presented itself. In this scenario prior knowlcdgc could have been assessedby asking participants questions at the time the!, requested a nest. Changes in understanding could be demonstrated if similar questions posed at the completion of the experiment elicited a different response. WC would recommend this inclusion in future experiments.
<;I\I
175
on the role of urban nest predators
in
There wcrc two distinct types of information project: existing and new intormation.
that wet-c made available via the
(a) &isting znf brmlztion. This constituted information which was available to us as scientists but not gcncrallp known b, the public. It included basic ecology, basic animal biolog, the current state of knowledge of nest predation and how human acti\,it;es can modif!. predation rates. This information was provided both in media presentations and in the kits and information sheets provided to participants. Although such information is available in the public domain it is usually not presented outside of specialised markets such as the audiences of science documentar>, programmes (radio and TV) and the subscribers of natural historv magazines. We specifically attempted to address a broader group than this bv utilising a lifestyle programme on a commercial station. This programme &mcd ideal as it focuses on back yards and was, at the time, the highest rating Australian tclovision programmc. It therefore catered to a cross-section of society, particularly, the ‘average’ person.
(1~) h:czt infb~-motion. ‘I’his constituted the results of the experiment itself and interpretations of thcsc results. This information had not been available to the public bcforc and in this respect the project answered applied questions which were of broad interest and use. The information was disseminated through a newsletter to all participants. The newsletter not only presented full results of the experiment, but also provided our assessment of the predator responsible for damage to the particular participant’s eggs. There was thercforc a small amount of pcrsonaliscd information. In addition the results and our reconlinendations to lessen human impacts on small birds were presented in a follow-up telcvisi~~n scgmcnt. The results were also prcscnted in radio interviews. As well as our planned campaign of disseminating results, we also received requests from people who heard about the results on the radio and wanted more information. There have also been two requests from councils and conservation groups to include the results in their newslcttcrs and we have found the results and rccommcndations printed in one council nclvsletter without our prior knowledge. A local politician has also used the results, again without our knowledge and inxcuratcly as it turns out, ill a pi-ess rcleasc concerning the impact of cats on birds. This press release in tui-n spawned a request from a local newspaper for information the\, could use in reporting on the press release. Thcsc examples ot’ the informa;ion pro\idcd 1~~.the project being used by the communitv w-ithout our xtivc involvcmcnt arC evidence of the ability of such projects to make a usctul contribution in disseminating information. Aim 3: to dcni> stif!. the methods ot \cicticc It was our intention to demystif), science 1~1ha\,ing the participants in the project actually do science themselves, thcrcb\ &posing them to the methods of science. We believed that if participants followed a set of instructions that constituted a scientific cxpcritnent and the\, did 50 without too tnanv problems,
Th
176
cn;l,>t Ted ~~spe?+ent
then when thev- rcalised that they had contributed to a scientific process they would also realise that science is a reasonably understandable and logical process. It is apparent that for us to have any confidence that this did eventuate we must know several things. (a) Hoc% zell did participantsfblloc, the instructions? Fewer than 1% of returned data sheets had to be rejected for reasons which may have resulted from an inability to follow instructions. WC have no way of knowing what proportion of the 10% who did not return their data sheets failed to do so because they could not follow the instructions. Even if a considerable proportion of nonreturns resulted from this factor, we feel the high successful return rate indicates that participants were generally able to follow the procedure and complete it successfully. (13) Did the participants understand zzhy they c’cye doing things? It is of little use getting people to do things as a learning exercise if they do not know why they are doing them. We know that participants at least had access to information which explained the reason they were requested to do things because this was provided along with the instructions. We also know they had to read this information as it was embedded within the instructions. (c) Did
the participants
realise
-z’hat
they
were
doing
constituted
science?
Probably, because we described the project in scientific terms including observation, question, experiment, data and results. Furthermore, participants were aware that the project was coordinated by scientists and would form part of the Australian Museum’s Sciencescape programme. Taking these three points into account we believe that science was presented in an accessible way to participants and that because of this they were given the opportunity to realise that science is not necessarily mysterious.
The v.alue of any project depends not just upon whether or not it achieves its’ aims, but also on how much it cost to do so. This type of evaluation enables choices to be made amongst competing types of projects. In order to evaluate the project in this area we must consider the following. Ho,x
much
did the project
cost?
The major cost of the project (excluding volunteer time) was to employ assistanceto manufacture eggs and nests. This required 380 hours work totalling A$1,900. Other costs of the project were materials ($1,660), printing ($1,220) and mail ($895). In addition there was a cost resulting from the time which the scientific staff of the Museum devoted to the project. We did not record detailed figures for this time but the commitment on the part of the supervising scientist was significant over a period of 6 months. Could the stated scientific aims be achieved 12~1a normal research experiment)?
jO?- less cost by other
methods
(e.g.
It this project was to be done without community involvement three-quarters of the above budget would still be incurred in manufacture of eggs and nests. The savings in printing and mail would be massively offset by increases in labour costs to place the nests in peoples’ backyards. In this scenario we would have had more confidence in the data but would have sacrificed the benefits of having
(;I<1
c.
Gcnrluc,
,\\I)
Kl(
liAl
I_.
M/\jOl<
177
observers to monitor each nest. The 134 observations of predation alone were sufficiently valuable from a scientific point of view to advocate the community approach over the conventional scientific approach. Could the stated public education aims be nchieved fbr less cost by an alterative public programme? Within the Australian Museum, probablr, the most appropriate public programme which would deal with a topic Of this nature is the Rapid Response programme. This programme produces small, short-duration exhibitions or events dealing with topical issues. A typical Rapid Response programme will cost about the satne in terms of human and financial resources as the Nest Test experiment and for this reason is a useful comparison. Both these programmes are in the least expensive category of Museum public programmes and so there are no existing programmes which could have achieved the aims for less cost. Unforseen
benefits
In addition to the formal aims of the project there are a number of potential benefits in this tvpc of project. We feel it is important to consider these benefits when deciding whether to undertake a community-based project, even though much of the data regarding their value ma\. be anecdotal.
Such projects prcscnt ideal situations in which to do sonic forms of market research. It is relatively casv to obtain information from participants which can be used to infer communitir needs and interests. This can be done directly by writing specific questions into questionnaires, or indirectly by either extracting useful information on one topic from responses dealing with another or soliciting general comments. The types of information obtained via these methods can range from hard numerical data to communitv perceptions of science, scientists and museums. Such information is crucial in designing better museum programmes and better applied research.
Th c potential‘. tor developing a longer term communication is a valuable feature of projets of this nature. This arises because of the protracted nature of the relationship between the participants and the scientists overseeing the project. There are usually several separate occasions when the participants and scientists will have to communicate and this enables a relationship to develop and new information to be exchanged. The ‘Nest Test’ indicated that there is a real desire within the communitv for ongoing communication with scientists. This was indicated by 35% of pirticipants seeking to be involved in future experiments. In addition scmc participants continue to seek general information from the supervisincy h scientist as a result of the relationship established during the experiment. 7’1le communication can also evolve, in that the participants can indicate to the scientists what thcl, would like to know. This results in a less didactic cominunication than occ& in other museum activities such as displays and seminars. Bcc~usc of the long-term nature of this communication the
17x
feedback and refinement conversational st\,le.
‘l%c
‘I, (‘At 7c,t ( I-:.Y[lwimmt
of response
becomes
iterative
and approaches
a
Communit!.-based research projects, such as the ‘Nest Test’, involve work which is phvsicall\ carried out b\- the community outside of the actual museum gr&ds. K&ause of this sucii projects target groups which might not normally visit a museum. Pnrticipntwn rind inter-action Whilst there
Communit\--bdsed ~research programmcs community relations in d number of w-a\‘s:
arc
idcal
vchiclcs
for
enhancing
Increasing community- access to the scicncc carried out in museums and the scicntlsts who do it. 0 Increasing the \,isibilit)- of museums within the community. 0 Engendering a feelin, ~7within the communitv of involvement by the museum in issues currentI\, being debated/topical in the public arena. 0 Encouraging support for causes dccmcd worthwhile by museums, such as weed reduction and encouraging nati\‘c wildlife. l Ph\,sicallx. taking ~USCU~~ acti\itics illto the communitv instead of conccntrating them at one location. l Providing a link t 0 other museum prqrammcs. l Promoting a scrlsc of camaraderie amongst participants which is linked to the l
111uscut11. l
Eormlng
I’in Ii 13et wccn
muscum
xientists
and the community.
All these attributes will help increase tlic communit!. of museums to the real world.
perception
of the relevance
Recommendations In conclusion WC believe that communit! in\.ol\emcnt in rcscar-ch projects offers J number of unique opp~>rtunitics for muscums and museum scientists. There is no need for xicntists to feel that their science will be compromised by undertaking such ,I course c~f action. If the cspcriments and research are well thought out end clcsigncsd not onI>, will the results be scientifically acceptable, hut a new and po\vcrfuI tool will lx a\~ailable for scientists to apply to problems which wcrc too his to tackle before. Not- should museums lx anything but enthusiastic supporters of prc’posals \vhich involve community participation. Again a communit! -ha.sed research pl-ojcct can do things no other museum public programmc could hope to achicvc. WC arc confident that good science can be carried out in this w.I\. and ha\e Iittlc doubt of the benefits which accrue to i7iuseums from \ucli projects. I iowe\,el-, as we have little hard data on the latter aspect, we recc~mnicnd that formati\,c ,ind sunimati\.c evaluation lx an integral part of the project design. This will hcttcr ennble museum administrators to judge the VJIUC. of thcsc projects. Acknowledgements WC wish to thank K~rkra; K,r&y,r)-L! and the Nine Network for television coverage of the prc>jcct. Special thanks arc due to the iollowin~ specialist volunteers Anita Bahar, Michelle Christ!, Bclinda Drew, Irma Glass, Ko,hyn 1 Iill, Guy Hodgson, Caitlin Kcndal, Gerah h’lajor. Sheil,l Major, Melissa Mills, Anthony Nicholas, Michael Smith and (:larinda Wang. And of course the project would not have been possible without the efforts of the ZCCC volunteer participants. Support for this project was provided 13~. the Australian Museum and an Australian liexarcli (:ouncil Postdoctoral I’cll~>wship.
183
‘The ‘t\e,t
Zst ’ Lspcrlment
Notes I PA. Hoskin. 1991, Pl,c Herds of Sydney’, Surrq Bcatt; Sr Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW Austrdlin. 2 E1.F. Rccher, 1972. ‘The Vcrtcbratc I~auna of Sydney’. In F1.A. Nix, ed., The City us a Life System? pp. 79-87. (Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia Vol. 7, Canberra, l-972). 3 Ibid. 4 G. Tibiccn, 197X. ‘Out and About’, C~~nbr~w,z Hzvd Notes 4(2), 26. 5 G. Robcrt5. 199 I. ‘The Bird That’s Munching Our Swallow,‘, 7%e SyIney Morning HeyaId 3C October. Sydney, Australia. p. 3. 6 Ibid. ‘lhc Sydney Morning He&d 31 7 G. Roberts. 1991. ‘Pets Fall Prc! to (Iurrawongs’, Cktoher, Sydney, Australia, p. 23. 8 M. Raptcrcr. 1992. ‘Save the Fri ggin Cur-rawong. Readers!‘, Picture, 176, 22 January, 22-27, Sydne!, Australia. 9 F’ull Jocumcntation on the cxpcrimcnt including instructions on nest and egg-making, cxpcrimcnt instructions, qucstionnairc, datd sheets and feedback sheet are available from the authors upon request. 10 R.L. Major, G.H. Pyke. M.T. Christy, (;. Gowing and R.S. Hill, 1994. ‘Can Nest Predation I-.xplain the Timing of the brcedin g !&son 2nd the I’attcrn of Nest Dispersion of New f lolland F-lonc\~cater~‘, Ozkos 69, 3hG372.