Public Perceptions of Wildness

1. Public Perceptions of Wildness Attitudinal Research Study for SNH & Scotland’s 2 National Parks Dr David Connolly | 2 May 2012

2. Overview • Study Background • Aims and Objectives • Methodology • Survey Overview

3. Study Background

4. Wildness Attributes • 4 attributes identified by previous wildness research: • perceived naturalness of land cover • modern human artefacts • ruggedness/terrain • remoteness

5. 2008 Research • Previous public perception survey of Wild Places and Landscapes in 2008 • Identified and ranked various contributing attributes • 2011-2012 survey designed to build upon this

6. 2011-2012 Study • Funded by: • Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) • Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) • Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) • Steering Group included: • The 3 funding organisations • Steve Carver from Leeds University, Wildness Mapping Team

7. Aims and Objectives

8. Aims and Objectives • Overall project aim: • To provide quantitative data on the public’s perceptions of wildness, wild land and perceived naturalness of land cover in Scotland • Project objectives: • Identify what people understand to be ‘wild land’ • Identify which elements of the landscape and the land-cover people consider to be natural or wild land and which they consider to be less wild/not wild • Identify the impact of human artefacts in the landscape (eg wind turbines, hill tracks, etc) • To provide user-valuation parameters to inform wildness mapping work.

9. Scope • Provided weights for the four attribute layers for the wildness model • Market segmentation of results (eg by gender, age, and geographic location) • Weights and parameters provided for sub-levels within the 4 attributes. • Eg, do roads, tracks and railways have a greater/lesser impact on perceptions of wildness than plantation forests, or energy infrastructure such as wind turbines, pylons and dams etc

10. Methodology

11. Three Separate Surveys • Online panel • >1000 respondents • Representative of Scottish population • National Park Residents Surveys • Interviewer administered (‘face-to-face’) • Same questionnaire used as online (using showcards) • >100 residents per Park • Targeted invitations to various organisations (eg John Muir Trust, Mountaineering Council of Scotland etc) • Same as the main on-line version • >650 responses

12. Questionnaire Design • Design uses ‘best/worst’ model • Each user asked to complete 5 ranking exercises • Each ranking exercise requires comparison of 5 examples of a wild area or landscape • Photos used to illustrate each example • For each exercise respondents are asked to identify: • ‘Most Wild’ example • ‘Least Wild’ example • Second ‘Most Wild’ example • Second ‘Least Wild’ example • Easier to complete than simply asking users to rank all five examples

13. Photo Selection • Single issue images selected • 4/5 images per element • Extreme weather conditions excluded • Similar depth of field/proximity to relevant feature

14. Questionnaire Overview

15. Questionnaire Overview • Several questions to determine extent of interest and use of outdoors and wild areas - included estimates of frequency of visiting the National Parks (for non-residents) • Introduction of the 4 attributes and an opportunity to identify others • 5 best/worse ranking exercises • Views on need to preserve wild areas in Scotland and actions that should be employed • Basic demographics (gender, age, employment status and postcode)

16. The Attributes • Respondents were presented with a series of descriptions and pictures of attributes which might affect their perception of wildness in Scotland • These were grouped into the four categories identified by previous research: • perceived naturalness (sub-divided into ‘flora’ and ‘fauna’) • man-made structures and features • remotenessfrom roads and railway stations • terrain • ‘Whats that?’ pop-up information was available for each category • Respondents asked to select which descriptions are ‘most wild’ and ‘least wild’.

17. Perceived Naturalness of the Land Cover • The sub-attributes were: • Natural broadleaf or coniferous woodland, heath or moor • Semi-natural woodland • Planted woodland with semi-natural grassland • Evidence of farming • Heavily managed (parks, gardens, intensive grazing)

18. Wildlife The sub-attributes were: Native wildlife may be present (eg red deer, eagles, red squirrel, wild cat and/or pine marten) Domestic livestock may be present (eg cattle and sheep)

19. Man-made structures and objects • The sub-attributes were: • No visible man-made features • Long line features (eg roads, railways and/or vehicle tracks) • Plantation forests • Older structures such as deserted cottages, castles, walls etc • Modern built structures such as homes, farms, quarries • Muirburn (ie moorland actively managed by burning) • Physical evidence of recreation (eg skiing, hiking paths, shooting) • Energy infrastructure (pylons, wind farms, dams) • Transport features such as roads and tracks for vehicles • Built-up areas (villages or small towns)

20. Remoteness • Described as the time it would take for a typical able-bodied adult to walk to this point from the nearest public road or railway station: • 1-hour walk • 2-hour walk • …. • 4-hour walk • 5-hour walk

21. Terrain • This covered the general appearance of an area and how difficult it is to move around, including various combinations of: • height above sea level • presence of features such as cliffs and lochs • steepness/gradient • how easy it is to move around the area

22. Best/Worst Scenario: An example‘Most Wild’ If you think that description D is the ‘most wild’ then tick the box to the left  Q11 Which of these descriptions is most likely to increase your sense of wildness?

23. Best/Worst Scenario: An example ‘Least Wild’  If you think that description B is the ‘least wild’ then tick the box to the right Q12 And which is least likely to increase your sense of wildness?

24. Analysis • Wildness scores calculated for each attribute for each of the three samples • On-line Panel • National Park Residents • Organisation members • Additional segmentation by • Gender • Age • Urban/rural

25. Results • The Final Report is currently with the Steering Group for approval • Likely to appear on relevant web-sites in due course

26. Questions

27. Contact us • Name: David Connolly • Telephone number: 0131 240 8904 • Email: dconnolly@mvaconsultancy.com • Office address: • MVA Consultancy • Prospect House • 5 Thistle Street • Edinburgh • EH2 1DF

28. Document Control Sheet