How the loss of three billion birds has shaped public opinion

Third in a series

The close-knit group of scientists who study birds knew they had a rare opportunity to get the public’s attention with the discovery that nearly a third of the bird population had disappeared over 50 years.

So they turned to a specialist to come up with a roll-out plan, someone who’d worked both as a researcher and in scientific communications. Miyoko Chu, a senior director at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, pulled together a team of partners to figure out how to release the findings in a way that would resonate with millions of Americans.

The research data was massive, assembled over two years with help from seven organizations. But in the end, the partnership came up with three words that resonated: “Three Billion Birds,” focusing on the breathtaking size of the losses uncovered in the study. Team members also put together an outline of how to respond, and they built a dynamic website that explained the discovery and laid out the “Seven Simple Steps” people could take to help contain the losses.

The findings were published in the journal Science in September of 2019, grabbing more attention than any scientific revelation of its kind this century. At the end of several weeks of media coverage, opinion pieces, videos and social media clamor, the research had multiplied to 25 million references on Google.

With the five-year anniversary of the Three Billion Birds report this fall, we’re publishing a series of interviews with key players about the impact.

Today’s interview with Chu looks chiefly at how the public reaction has evolved in the past five years. She talks about how the spread of interest in birds is helping build support for conservation. But she also sees an uphill struggle to produce the political will needed to take significant action. Here’s a link to the first interview with Peter Marra, a Georgetown University scientist and one of the leading bird specialists in the U.S. Here’s a link to the second interview, with Mike Parr, president of the nonprofit American Bird Conservancy who originally pushed for the report.

Our interview with Chu follows, condensed slightly for clarity and length.

Question: What do you think the impact of the three billion bird research has been on the public understanding and appreciation of birds over the past five years? 

Miyoko Chu: I would like to think that there’s a stronger sense among Americans that birds are in crisis, and that we’ve lost this staggering number of birds in just a matter of decades.  I think it was really interesting that until that moment, there hadn’t been a number to pin down the dimensions of bird decline. I think the ability to do that makes it more tangible. To say that we’ve lost nearly 30 percent of our breeding birds in the U.S. and Canada in just 50 years helps people grasp the magnitude of what’s happened.

Question: When you’re out talking with people, particularly those who aren’t working in this field, have they retained that number? 

Chu: I guess most often I am talking with audiences who are already in the fold with birding and so I feel like it’s a very familiar refrain to people. It’s become a shorthand, I think, in the community of bird conservation to be able to say we’ve lost three billion birds. It’s a shorthand way of saying we see the problem and we want to do something to make sure that the next 50 years are different from what the last 50 have been. I hope there is a baseline at least and a greater recognition in the public overall. Even if they may not recall a specific number, that there is a measurable, significant decrease. 

Making a difference

Question: Are you finding ways to measure that impact on public awareness? Are you seeing things going into place that might make a difference in how bird populations are going to fare over the next 50 years?

Chu: We do know that when we released the Three Billion Bird report, this was one of the most widely covered scientific topic on any subject up until that time. And what we saw in that moment, I think, echoes what we’ve seen since. Soon after that paper was published, we received a video from Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-Va, Ninth District), and he was holding up the press release about the loss of three billion birds, and he was advocating for a bill to make buildings safer for birds. Basically he was saying, “We’ve just lost three billion birds. Can we cut to the chase here and save some birds?”

And I feel like that type of conversation has probably replayed itself over and over in countless ways – to try to do something different to help birds. I myself have been surprised by how quickly it allows me to advance the conversation. This is not just about 300 birds striking windows in our town. It’s about a much larger level of decline.

Three Billion Birds Revisited: Here’s a link to our full library of posts on the five-year anniversary of this discovery of North America’s bird losses and what leading players have to say about what’s being done — and what isn’t — to respond to these profound shifts in populations.

Question: Right about the time the report came out, the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (RAWA) was on the verge of passing Congress, although it eventually stalled in the Senate. This was one concrete, easily understood step that could make a difference for not just birds but other wildlife too. What is your sense of why that hasn’t gotten final approval?

Chu: I just think in general that when it comes to legislation these days, Americans are focused on other concerns. So we’re hearing it in this year’s election, that people really want to hear about the economy. They want to hear about immigration, reproductive rights, national security. Environmental concerns don’t come up as much, and when they do it’s often around the context of energy or pollution or perhaps climate. But it’s these issues that really are hitting people and their livelihoods and health most directly.

Recovering American’s Wildlife Act (which includes $1.4 billion a year in funding for conservation and research) is one of those rare proposals with bipartisan support within Congress and among voters. It’s a real win in terms of providing dollars to implement wildlife action plans. And I think if you ask, the average person they would support it. But if you ask how many people have heard about it or how they would describe it, I would say probably not many, especially outside the birding and conservation community. There are so many issues with even much greater public visibility that get stalled in Congress, like gun control measures that a majority of Americans support. So it’s not just this one that’s tough to move forward. 

Millions flock to birding

Question: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service measures public interest in the outdoors, as you know. It has come up with this number, that more than 95 million people consider themselves birders – roughly a third of all Americans. I’m just curious about how you analyze that number and what do you think that means?

Chu: What I take away from those numbers is that birds are just part of the fabric of our lives. I mean, we are fortunate that they’re still ubiquitous enough that we can encounter them in our daily lives, as long as we’re taking a moment to notice them.

And we also have ubiquitous information about birds these days, so people are more connected than ever before to take an interest in birds and go further with it, toward knowledge, towards thinking about the bigger picture with birds on our planet and maybe taking the next steps. It’s heartening to know that these numbers are growing and that the tools and ability to move this kind of interest and love of birds into action is bigger than ever before. 

Question: We wanted to get your view on the dynamics of modern media, which you deal with all the time, in terms of getting across the issues the lab is working on. Things have changed in a media landscape, moving much more quickly, driven by social dynamics. How does that work in favor and also against trying to get across the points important to you? 

Chu: I’m always looking for those stories that can move audiences to learn about and take action for birds. So what I see is very encouraging, which is an uptick in in-depth coverage on birds in the media. And I’m seeing that in different channels, right? You yourself are doing it on the web, you do it in mass media like newspapers. We’re seeing it in podcasts. We’re seeing it on webinars, on YouTube. Audiences are more interested in birds than ever, so there’s this resonance with this content that people are creating.

One thing I love is that the reporters and editors and producers I’m meeting are themselves interested in birds. I’ll find out at the end of the end of the interview that they’re birders. So I think we’ve reached this critical mass where both producers and consumers are really interested in this topic. I’m seeing really good coverage overall, and I think the media landscape seems to be working in favor of bringing these issues to the public.

Question: That leads into a question about the drum beat of bad news about birds, and how that might have a negative impact of people sort of giving up, of people thinking the whole thing is hopeless. How do you look at that whole question? I mean the loss of birds is real, these things aren’t being overstated, but it can also lead to defeatism.

Brining back birds

Chu: It’s critical to show both sides of that coin — the bad news but also the stories that show how we are bringing birds back. Stories like how we’ve brought back Ospreys and Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons. Or how farmers in Colombia are growing coffee that sustains their families and also sustains biodiversity and the health of the land. I feel like for every reaction that leads to the loss of birds, there’s an equal and opposite reaction that can bring them back. And what we need to do is show that, so we’re not paralyzed by the dismay.

So with the Three Billion Birds paper, I think we recognized how devastating that was going to feel to people. So we paired that hand in hand with the Seven Simple Actions campaign. So every story could show both of these pieces at the same time. I hope that whenever possible, those dual messages can be packaged together. If we’ve overdone the gloom and doom stories, what are the success stories out there that we can bring to light.

Question: Are you able to tell whether the Seven Simple Steps message has had an impact.

Chu: Yes, I think so. There’s more public awareness and engagement today than there was five years ago, not just because of that campaign. Obviously, I think it’s a movement as a whole and it’s kind of fueling itself.

A really spectacular example is window collisions. I saw far less happening on that front five years ago. One important player got engaged, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, connecting it directly with three billion birds. They said, let’s take this moment and see what we can do to help turn this tide on window collisions (among the most significant causes of loss of birds each year). They convened partners across sectors, government agencies and nonprofits and industry came together. They put together a common set of messages, platforms, resources that we can do to help each other out. The organic growth that’s been building even before this effort has been incredible. Across the U.S., more than 20 cities and states now have legislation to help reduce collisions.

Revolutionary apps

Question: Advances in technology over the past five or 10 years have been dramatic, many developed by the Cornell Lab. They include the embrace of eBird, and the Merlin Bird ID app, for example. What role do you think these play in connecting people to birds and what progress in conservation to you think can be ascribed to them?

Chu: Yeah, it’s been revolutionary — and it’s going to be even more so. If you think about it, we have unprecedented tools and capabilities compared with any other point in human history to be able to spark and accelerate people’s connections and knowledge of nature and to move that into action. The Merlin Bird ID (app) has had just the astronomical growth over these five years. It’s opened up the world of birds to so many people. And that goes hand in hand with growth in projects like eBird, which passed its one millionth mark this year for the number of contributors (people filing lists on the app of the birds they see and hear).

At the same time, as we have all these people tuned into birders, we have these sensors like acoustic recorders and radar that just enhance our ability to detect what’s happening in real time on our planet. And we can put that together with these new kinds of visualizations that allow us to quickly tell a story to decision makers and to the public. So I’m excited about how we are all able to see a much more integrated picture of our planet. And I think that’s going to be important in helping take the steps we need to sustain ourselves and nature. 

Question: One of the things we heard from a lot of people we interviewed in the process of writing our book was that if you look at history over more than a century, each time there was a need to protect birds the public stepped forward and passed legislation or put into place new agencies. The question is whether the Three Billion Bird report might have the same impact as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring published in 1962. That hasn’t happened yet, though it took more than 10 years for some of the progress to play out in the 1970s. Do you think there is the possibility of that kind of really pivotal action still ahead?

Chu: We’ve talked about how some of these major pieces of legislation are very challenging to pass in Congress. I think what we’re seeing, for example with climate action, is that communities are not waiting around for federal legislation. We have mayors and governors who are moving their states to meet climate goals. We might see regional and local action adding up to help bolster birds.

Especially here in the U.S., where some of those federal pieces may take longer, I’m encouraged that we have a growing movement of people across all different types of professions and ages contributing in their own way. So you’re going to encounter state legislators and university presidents and kids and attorneys and reporters and people who are moving that ball forward for birds. Is it enough? I don’t know. But we’re going to need all of it. 

Question: What about the next generations coming up? Birding has always been thought of as an older person’s pastime. But we’re seeing some of that change. How is the transfer to the next generations going? 

Chu: I’m thrilled by it. I remember when I was in college, there was a printed flyer on the dining hall table — which was how they got word out back in those days. It said come out for a bird walk. So I did that and it was just me and the person who organized the walk.

Today, you have college clubs here at Cornell with more than 100 students. You have kids in high school with young birder clubs and kids much younger than that who are already tuning into birders with the help of bird cams and Merlin Bird ID. So I feel like there’s been a big cultural shift where younger people are excited about birds. And speaking of technology, they’re using technology in different ways.

Question: What about the global picture. These declines are a worldwide phenomenon, of course, and the lab is seeking to become a global player. What kind of impacts do you think the Three Billion Bird report had on the global picture. Many parts of the world don’t have the resources we have here. How’s the global picture looking to you? 

Chu: Well, Canada came out with the state of Canada’s birds just this week, and then we’ve had the State of the Birds for India and Australia. And then as you mentioned, the State of the World’s Birds and all of these are pointing to the same picture, which is the scale of bird declines across habitats with many of the same causes. So I think you know the Three Billion Birds report just goes with these other pieces from other countries that are telling us that larger global picture is the same story. 

What’s next?

Question: What kind of followups do you think are needed in the wake of the Three Billion Bird report?

Chu: I think there are opportunities to go from international and country level reporting to much more customized local stories, partly because of the technology. With eBird, we’re now able to tell down to an eight-mile radius whether a particular bird species is increasing or decreasing right around you. And we know that people tend to care about the birds that are right in their own backyards. Those are the ones they care about the most. And voters typically care about the environmental issues that are in their backyard the most, so it would be really interesting to tap into the power of the local reporting in these narratives and see if there’s a way to do that so that it can be scaled and made easy for people who want to tell those stories. 

Question: How might that be done? You can certainly do that now with the eBird data, but how does it actually get delivered in a way that average folks in a neighborhood might be able to absorb?

Chu: That’s a great question. In preparation to support the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, eBird has released a website that provides statewide summaries of birds. Those would ultimately assist in the state wildlife action plans, but they could also be used for storytelling.

They do require a certain level of investment to interpret them from those data sources, so it would be interesting to think about how we can help surface those stories across all of our states in a more efficient way. I don’t know the answer to that. But people do care most about the birds that they get to see every day.