Abstract Bird banding stations are well-positioned to impact public beliefs and behaviors in ways that support bird conservation. Despite this potential, we know very little about the prevalence, approaches, challenges, or successes of public engagement at bird banding stations and related impacts on visitors. To address this gap, we surveyed bird banding station leaders in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada on their current public engagement practices and intended knowledge- and belief-based outcomes. We also surveyed visitors at 2 banding stations in the U.S. to assess impacts. According to surveyed station leaders, 89% of banding stations in North America engaged the public in interactive learning experiences focused on bird biology and the banding process. Furthermore, station leaders were not just thinking about how to implement public engagement but were designing these experiences around intended knowledge- and belief-based outcomes (ie, specific changes among visitors that stations hoped to achieve through public engagement). While leaders prioritized knowledge gains, they also sought changes in visitors’ beliefs about science transparency and science professionals’ competency, willingness to listen, and care for society. This finding aligns with the broad understanding that beliefs play a significant role in changing participants’ behavior. It also matches visitor data, which showed the highest impacts on outcomes associated with their beliefs about science professionals’ caring and listening and transparency of science research. Overall, our study highlights the value of banding stations as important venues to connect the public with avian research and conservation through interactive, first-hand experiences. Our results also point to the need for additional research to understand and improve public-engagement efforts, such as examining ways to design public engagement around well-defined intended outcomes that ultimately support bird conservation goals.
Davis et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: