The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Public Attitudes to the Environment in Scotland

7.4 HOW WELL ARE WILDLIFE AND HABITATS PROTECTED?

The fact that wildlife and habitats protection has increased dramatically in recent years was described earlier in this chapter. The survey asked respondents to consider how well they felt wildlife and habitats were protected in Scotland at present, and whether they had noticed a change in this over the last five years.

Looking at Figure 7.4 and Table 7.4, the majority of people felt that wildlife and habitats were very or quite well protected (59%), but three in ten people felt they were not well protected (28%). While there were no striking differences of opinion by education or tenure for this question, a third of the youngest age group thought that they were not very well protected (33%) compared with under a quarter of those aged over 65 years (23%). A greater proportion of those who never used the countryside said they did not know how well wildlife and habitats were protected (for example, 14% of this group said they did not know, compared with 8% of occasional active users). Perhaps unsurprisingly, views about the success of protection varied between those living in rural and urban areas. People living in large urban areas were less likely to express an opinion on how well wildlife and habitats were protected (12%) than those from rural areas (6% of those in remote rural areas). While 69% of those in remote rural areas thought wildlife and habitats were very or quite well protected, only 56% of those from accessible small towns agreed.

Views on whether wildlife and habitats had become more or less protected in the last five years were divided among the population (Figure 7.4 and Table 7.5). Although a third of people (35%) thought that wildlife and habitats were now a little or a lot more protected than 5 years ago, a similar proportion (38%) thought the situation had not changed. Younger respondents were more likely to think there had been an improvement than other groups. Just under four in ten people aged between 16 and 24 thought they had become a little more protected in the last five years, but only around three in ten people in other age groups agreed. There was some variation in views according to highest educational qualification with a quarter (25%) of those without formal qualifications feeling that wildlife and habitats were a little more protected than five years ago, compared with over a third of those with degrees or professional qualifications (35%).

Again, there was an urban-rural distinction in views on whether there had been a change in wildlife and habitats protection. Just under one in ten rural area residents (9% of those from accessible rural areas and 8% from remote rural areas) thought that there was a lot more protection, but only 2% of people from large urban areas and 3% from other urban areas agreed. Knowledge about the changing level of protection also varied with urban or rural location; 16% of respondents from large urban areas did not know how protection had changed, compared with 11% of respondents from accessible rural areas. Those who never used the countryside for active pursuits or to walk were less likely to think that wildlife and habitats had become more protected than other groups. Around three in ten people from this group thought they were more protected (28%), but four in ten frequent active countryside users (39%) held this view.

Perceptions of change in wildlife and habitats protection are also interesting when looked at by the respondent's current views on levels of protection (Table 7.6). For example, half of those who thought that wildlife and habitats were currently very well protected thought that they had become more protected over the last five years (50%). In contrast, over half of those who thought that wildlife and habitats were not well protected at all said that they had become less protected over this time (52%). Equivalent proportions of people who thought that wildlife and habitats were very well protected, quite well protected or not very well protected had not noticed a change in the level of protection in the last five years; around four in ten people in each case.

7.5 THREATS TO WILDLIFE AND HABITATS AND METHODS OF PROTECTION

Respondents were asked which three activities they felt represented the greatest threats to wildlife and habitats (Table 7.7). 'New developments and roads being built in the countryside' and 'pollution caused by industry' were each selected by over half of those asked (54% in each case). 'Crimes against wildlife' were seen to be next most significant (41%). Around a quarter of people thought that 'people visiting the countryside/tourism' and 'climate change / global warming' represented significant threats (26% each). The activities of land managers themselves were perceived to represent a lesser, but still significant threat, with farming, closely followed by gamekeeping, being seen as the more damaging of the three broad types of management mentioned. Current methods of forestry were felt by respondents to be a much less significant threat to natural heritage than other forms of land management ⁷⁰.

There were some differences in the perceptions of threats identified between urban and rural respondents. Remote rural area residents were more concerned about 'current methods of farming' than their urban counterparts. Over a third of the first group (34%) selected this as a threat, compared with two in ten other urban and large urban area residents (20% and 19% respectively). Three in ten people from large urban areas (29%) selected 'people visiting the countryside / tourism' as one of the three greatest threat compared with two in ten remote rural area respondents (20%). A greater proportion of residents from large urban areas also thought 'gamekeeping and traditional shooting estates' represented a threat.

The survey also found some differences in relation to respondents' use of the countryside. Both frequent walkers and non countryside users ranked pollution caused by industry as the greatest threats to wildlife and habitats. All other groups ranked new developments in the countryside as the greatest threat. Gamekeeping and traditional shooting estates were seen to be more of a threat by occasional walkers than frequent active users of the countryside (21% and 13% selected this respectively). In contrast, frequent active users were more concerned by current methods of farming than other groups.

[Table 7.7]

* Respondents were asked to select the three threats with the most impact, although 16% of respondents selected two, and 14% selected one threat only.

Given that 97% of people thought that protecting wildlife and habitats is a matter of great importance, it is interesting to consider the public's views on the best methods of reducing threats to wildlife and habitats. Respondents were presented with a list of potential ways of either protecting or improving habitats and wildlife. These varied from persuasive information campaigns to more severe measures such as imprisonment and fines for those who commit wildlife crimes.

Figure 7.5 shows that six in ten people (60%) believed that 'fining companies for causing pollution that significantly harms wildlife and habitats' was a very good way to protect wildlife and habitats and the next most popular option was 'fining people for wildlife crimes such as shooting or poisoning birds, stealing birds' eggs or rare plants and cruelty to protected wild animals like badgers'.

Providing people with more information about 'how to behave to protect wildlife and habitats' was seen to be the next most successful way to reduce harm to both wildlife and habitats. Over half of people who used the countryside frequently, either for active pursuits (53%) or walks (52%), agreed that providing visitors with more information would be a very good way to protect wildlife and habitats, but only four in ten non users of the countryside (40%) agreed with them (Table 7.8). This is interesting in that countryside users appear to be acknowledging a personal duty to act responsibly to reduce threats. Again, no great differences were observed between those in urban and rural areas in support for this approach.

People were less sure about the effectiveness of targeting those with specific responsibility for activities which could damage wildlife and habitats. For example, although a quarter of people said that sending 'senior managers or company bosses to prison for causing pollution that significantly harms wildlife and habitats' would be a very good way to protect or improve them, the same proportion thought that this would not be a good way to achieve this end, and a further 12% said it was not a good way at all. Imprisonment for those who commit wildlife crimes or cause damage to specially protected habitats and sites were viewed more favourably by people from remote rural areas than other areas. For example, four in ten people (41%) from remote rural areas thought that sending people to prison for wildlife crimes would be a good way to protect wildlife and habitats, compared with three in ten people from large urban areas (30%).

People were also asked to consider measures which focused on farmers' and foresters' roles in habitat and wildlife protection. Although around eight in ten people (78%) thought that fining farmers for failure to protect was a good or very good way to protect wildlife and habitats, 'paying farmers/foresters to protect habitats' was perceived to be less effective. Six in ten people said this was a very good or good method, while over three in ten said it would not be a very good way or not at all a good way (32%). Rural residents were more likely to support payments for farmers and foresters than urban residents (24% and 18% respectively said this would be a 'very good way' to protect wildlife and habitats).

The least popular way of protecting wildlife and habitats was killing species which adversely impact on the habitats of other species. Although just under one in ten people (8%) said this was a very good way to improve wildlife and habitats protection, and a further three in ten (29%) said it was a good way, around two in ten people said this was not good at all (18%) - more than for any other method of wildlife and habitats protection.

[Table 7.8 and Figure 7.5]

The public's awareness of and views on organisations working to protect the environment in general was explored in section 3.4. The survey also asked people who they thought were responsible specifically for protecting wildlife and habitats in Scotland, and who should have the biggest part to play. Respondents could select as many options as they liked for the first question, and up to three for the second question. Table 7.9 and Figure 7.6 compare the findings for these questions.

Of fifteen suggested groups who may play a role in wildlife and habitats protection, voluntary organisations (such as the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the RSPB) were identified as currently playing an important role by three quarters of respondents. The next most frequently selected option was the government agencies - SNH, SEPA and the Forestry Commission (56%). The third most popular answer, chosen by four in ten people, was 'people who live in the countryside'. Foresters and farmers were selected by an equivalent proportion of people: around a third in each case. Local authorities were perceived to currently play a role in wildlife and habitats protection by around a quarter of people (24%) and just slightly fewer (21%) thought that the Scottish Executive presently played an important role.

These findings are interesting in light of responses to the second question "who do you think should play the most important role?". In this case, the public thought that the government should play the most significant part in wildlife and habitats protection. While a third of people (36%) selected the Scottish Executive, the same proportion said government agencies such as SEPA, SNH and the Forestry Commission. Just slightly fewer (33%) felt that local authorities should play an important role. Ideally it appeared that the role of voluntary agencies in the protection of wildlife and habitats should be secondary to that of government and statutory agencies. Just under three in ten people said that voluntary organisations should play an important role making this the fourth ranked option.

« Previous | Contents | Next »