« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter Six Nature
6.1 Perceptions, attitudes and values in relation to nature are explored in this chapter, particularly with reference to the impacts of vegetation, ecology and biodiversity.
Definitions and Concepts
6.2 While nature, like 'landscape' and aesthetic constructions, is a contested concept with multiple meanings, for this review it is used to describe the various elements of the natural environment. This includes the impacts of vegetation on a person's environmental perception, the ecology of an area and its scientific values, and the importance (or otherwise) of biodiversity. Biodiversity is defined as the number and variety of living organisms and ecosystems.
Scotland and UK
6.3 A key UK study of the perception of nature is Powe et al (2004). Through eliciting the values that people place on biodiversity, Powe et al showed that the public may be willing to pay to fund biodiversity conservation. A questionnaire survey and focus groups revealed that participants' willingness to pay was dependent upon whether the biodiversity outcomes were visible and local and that any possible achievements were well publicised.
6.4 An SNH survey cited in the previous chapter includes evidence about nature values from attitudes towards the natural heritage of Scotland (George Street Research, 2005). The survey sought to establish baseline information for public awareness of the natural heritage and the key ideas of biodiversity, landscapes, marine, protected sites and sustainability. For 67% of respondents, seas and coasts were important to them. Just over half of 16-30 year olds strongly agreed with this, compared to three-quarters of the 44-60 year olds (77%) and the over 60s (76%). The report speculates that this might be caused by a reduced exposure to seas and coastline among the younger generation. The findings generally confirmed the popular conception that people in Scotland are proud of their natural heritage and it appeared that the public predominately associate natural heritage with the countryside and the Highlands. Awareness of terms used in this context, except biodiversity, was high, although levels of understanding were mixed. The term biodiversity was only known by 51% of respondents, although 99% agreed that protecting the variety of wildlife and plant life in Scotland was important for future generations. There were significant differences between age groups in the responses to the statement that "learning about nature is time well spent". Only 49% of the under 31s strongly agreed with this, compared to 85% of the over 60s. Variations between age groups appear to suggest that natural heritage and investing in its future is more important for the older generations than the younger generations.
6.5 A recent Executive-commissioned survey, Scottish Biodiversity List Social Criterion: Results of a Survey of the Scottish Population, undertaken to contribute to the social criterion used for the derivation of the Scotland's biodiversity lists, produced 'top ten' lists for each of animals, plants and habitats which were most important to the public (Stewart, 2006). When asked about the habitats of most importance, the most frequently identified were hills and mountains (most important for 54% of respondents), lochs (54%), woodland (47%), beaches (47%) and rivers and streams (45%). Lochs were therefore rated highly and perceived to be the most important water landscape for biodiversity.
6.6 Even more recently, the Scottish Executive-commissioned attitudes survey (2006) demonstrated that people consider the water environment to be important to their quality of life. Specifically, nature/wildlife was the third most commonly given reason for why the water environment is important.
Europe
6.7 Using the example of public attitudes towards a drainage basin in Southern Sweden, Lewan and Soederqvist (2002) focus on knowledge about how nature works and how this may be manifested in recognition of ecosystems among the general public. Focus groups research showed that the public had multiple ecosystem preferences but lacked a basic knowledge about the functions of nature, and their knowledge of the nature and environment of the drainage basin was limited.
6.8 The large-scale EC (2005) survey appears again to the best source of available evidence for comparative data. The survey found that when referring to the natural environment, Europeans mostly think about "pollution in towns and cities", followed closely by "protecting nature". However, important and interesting variation between countries was uncovered. For example, at 38% Danes' first association with the environment is the "protection of nature", while on 1% of those surveyed in Malta (1%) reported the same.
Global
6.9 As noted above, nature, as defined here, includes the impact of vegetation on a person's environmental perception. Henderson et al (2003) discuss this topic in a US context, exploring the impacts of aquatic vegetation on anglers' perceptions through research in two South Carolina reservoirs. Their questionnaire survey found that anglers preferred increased aquatic vegetation. Economic models revealed that increasing plant coverage from current levels would increase angling effort by 11% to 14% and increase economic activity in selected economic sectors, such as lodging, by 18% to 63%. It was suggested that other groups such as pleasure boaters, water skiers, hunters and homeowners along the lakes should be studied using similar methods in order to determine whether their preferences correspond.
6.10 The ecology of an area and its scientific values are discussed in a paper by Aoyagi-Usui et al (2003). In this global comparative study, data from international surveys were analysed to explore ecological values that were found to be structurally different in Asian and Western countries. For example, it concluded that in the Netherlands and the United States, ecological values are linked with altruistic values which are perceived as being contrary to traditional values, whereas in Japan, Bangkok and Manila environmental values are linked with both traditional and altruistic values, illustrating the cultural determination of ecological values.
6.11 Three contrasting international studies of biodiversity which treat biodiversity as an integral component of nature are described here for their findings. In a telephone survey, Jorgensen et al (2001) asked northern Wisconsin property owners about their willingness to pay to preserve biodiversity in a chain of lakes. Many expressed negative attitudes towards payment and therefore did not value biodiversity highly. Kerley et al (2003) also show that the perceptions of tourists can lead to an under-appreciation of biodiversity. Using Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa, as a case study, they found that tourist interest in biodiversity largely focussed on a few vertebrates, while invertebrates and plants were largely ignored. The findings, therefore, indicate that tourists focus on a few charismatic species and may hold misconceptions about the nature of biodiversity. Xue and Tisdell (2001) provide a comparative study of the ecological values of biodiversity in a Chinese setting, suggesting that conservation of biodiversity can generate considerable economic value.
6.12 As an instance of policy interest in this topic, in 2001 the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment produced nature indicators for the marine environment: the Environmental Performance Indicators ( EPIs) measure, monitor and report on the marine environment and the effects of human activities. Indicators include percentage of beaches or coastal areas suitable for bathing, and indicators have been developed for biodiversity (Ministry for the Environment, 2001).
Summary
6.13 While ecological values are determined, in part, by cultural context, the reviewed literature does show that some generalisations may be drawn. For example, a number of studies show that vegetation increases the value placed by the public on water environments. It is also clear that, although water environments are very important ecosystems for the promotion of biodiversity, biodiversity itself does not emerge a public priority for the water environment.
« Previous | Contents | Next »