Conservation in the face of ambivalent public perceptions – The case of peatlands as ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’
Introduction
Most conservation efforts today recognise the need to take perceptions and values of a range of stakeholders into account if conservation is to succeed in the long term (Harrison and Burgess, 2000, Linnell et al., 2015, Mace et al., 2011, Robinson, 2011). This includes those who live in or close to conservation areas, who will often bear costs in terms of restricted use and access, but also the wider public, who shares the cost for publicly funded conservation. In the case of charismatic mega-fauna it may be relatively easy to attract widespread support for conservation, although even in these cases there may be conflicts and different interpretations of how species and ecosystems should be managed (e.g., Fischer and Van der Wal, 2007, Patterson et al., 2003). For less iconic fauna, flora and ecosystems it may be more difficult to garner the support of the public. A common approach from conservation organisations and governments has been to try to educate the public on why they should care about for example rare moths and herbs (Buijs et al. 2008). However, information campaigns are often not effective in changing opinions, let alone behaviour due to the weak links between knowledge, attitudes and behaviour and a lack of understanding of the social representations of nature (Buijs et al., 2008, Heberlein, 2012). How and to what degree information is taken on board depends for example on pre-existing beliefs and values (Groffman et al., 2010, Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009). A more fruitful approach may therefore be to look at the reasons why people do or do not support certain conservation projects or approaches and how this is related to their interactions with the environment. This includes perspectives on the appropriate use of a place or ecosystem, and views on how perceived benefits and dis-benefits associated with an ecosystem and its different uses have been and will be affected by human use (Bennett, 2016, Cheng et al., 2003). Studies on farmers' attitudes to agri-environmental schemes have for example shown the many-facetted reasons for farmers' resistance to such schemes (Harrison et al., 1998, McHenry, 1997). These include different understandings of nature, conservation and humans' relationship with nature and of the effects of their own actions as well as reactions against being portrayed as ignorant, and feeling under pressure from an increasingly urban society (Harrison et al., 1998, McHenry, 1997). Here we look at the case of peatlands in Scotland, as an example of an ecosystem which is currently the focus of many conservation and restoration initiatives, and which is seen as ‘problematic’ in the sense that those advocating its conservation assume that the general public does not care about peatlands (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2001, Heritage, 2015).
Globally, peatlands cover around 3% of the earth's land surface, hold around 10% of the world's freshwater and 33% of the world's terrestrial carbon (Joosten and Clark 2002). Around 9–15% of Europe's peatland areas are found in the UK of which more than 77% are located in Scotland (Bain et al., 2011, Bruneau and Johnson, 2014). Scottish peatlands mainly consist of blanket bog, which is a globally rare habitat type (Bruneau and Johnson 2014). Perceptions of peatlands have changed over time with changing uses (Collier 2014). Archaeological finds indicate that peatlands in Europe used to be sites of ritual importance as well as being sources of food and materials (McDermott, 2007, Van de Noort and O'Sullivan, 2007). In the more recent past, peatlands in Scotland were mainly seen as either a source of peat or as wastelands to be converted to other productive uses such as forestry or agriculture (Johnston and Soulsby, 2000, Rawlins and Morris, 2010, Smout, 1997, Van de Noort and O'Sullivan, 2007). As a consequence a large portion of Scottish peatlands has been degraded to some extent leading to biodiversity loss, release of greenhouse gases and problems with soil erosion and water regulation (Bain et al. 2011).
Today, experts view peatlands as important providers of ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity, water regulation, preservation of natural and human history, sense of place, fuel, grazing, and field sports (Bain et al. 2011). Conservation of peatlands is advocated on the basis of these services, especially regulating and supporting services (carbon sequestration, water regulation and biodiversity)(Bain et al., 2011, Evans et al., 2014) and is reflected in international policies and agreements such as the RAMSAR convention and EU Habitats Directive, and in national policies in countries such as Scotland. To win the public's support for peatland restoration, information materials seek to convey the many benefits of peatlands, including the use of the peat itself even though this is seen as one of the causes of degradation (Whitfield et al. 2011).
However, little is known about what peatlands mean to people today (with a few notable exceptions such as e.g. Collier and Scott, 2010, Reed and Kenter, 2014), especially beyond their direct use for economic activity, and how people view conservation and restoration efforts. The few existing studies have shown that both cultural and provisioning ecosystem services are important (Collier and Scott, 2010, Collier and Scott, 2009, Reed and Kenter, 2014), but that existing trade-offs between different types of uses may not be acknowledged (Bullock and Collier 2011). While cultural ecosystem services are often defined as a category of their own comprising ‘immaterial benefits and services’ provided by ecosystems, we here use a broader definition where we include cultural significance of e.g. provisioning services and material benefits such as income from e.g. recreation businesses. In addition, culturally shaped values are essential in defining what are regarded as services or dis-services, and are therefore key to perceptions and attitudes towards management and conservation of ecosystems.
In this study we investigate present day perceptions of peatlands in two locations in Scotland including the views of people who live or work in peatlands, as well as the views of those who do not. We argue that support of both groups is important if conservation is to succeed in the long-term, and that it is necessary to better understand their views of peatlands. This can help to understand support or resistance to conservation and particular management interventions, tailor communication material and identify common ground as a first step to resolve conflicts (Fischer and Van der Wal, 2007, Patterson et al., 2003). To gain a better understanding of how people perceive peatlands we conducted qualitative research focusing on
- •
the range of uses, benefits, dis-benefits, problems or conflicts people recognise in relation to peatlands,
- •
people's perceptions of the consequences of peatland degradation and of peatland restoration
The study took the form of three focus groups, two in an urban setting far from larger peatland areas, and one in a rural location in a peatland dominated landscape. The results help us to identify barriers which need to be overcome, in order for restoration and conservation of ecosystems such as peatlands to be successful.
Section snippets
Peatlands in Scotland
Peatlands can be defined in several ways, and classified according to geographical location, whether they are actively forming peat at present or not, and the different types of vegetation associated with them (Bruneau and Johnson 2014). General characteristics of peatlands include that they are waterlogged, nutrient poor and that the soil consists of an accumulation of partly decayed vegetation (peat) with great water holding capacity.
Peatlands are estimated to cover more than 20% of
Study area
In order to explore public perceptions of peatlands and to capture a variety of views, we conducted three focus groups with members of the general public in two locations in Scotland: one on the Isle of Lewis and two in the city of Aberdeen. As explained, the two locations were chosen due to their contrasting characteristics in relation to peatlands and the different relationships and experiences that we assumed people in these two areas would have with peatlands.
The Isle of Lewis constitutes
Methods
Each focus group lasted around 3 h. They were advertised locally using social media, posters in public places and word of mouth. Participants were provided with a small monetary incentive presented as compensation for travelling to participate. The focus groups in Aberdeen were held in October and November 2014, while the focus group in Lewis was held in July 2015.2
Results
Across the topics and sites, different narratives, attitudes and ambivalences emerged. These are summarised in the following while details on the uses, benefits, dis-benefits, characteristics of peatlands in different ecological status and criteria for the selection of potential restoration areas as reported by focus groups participants can be found in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4. The information reported in these tables has been used for the development of the different narratives
Discussion
This study showed the existence of different framings of peatlands as well as ambivalence. Many of the participants thus held apparently contradictory views at the same time. Archaeological and historic sources indicate that ambivalence around peatlands is not new (Rotherham, 2012, Van de Noort and O'Sullivan, 2007). In pre-history, peatlands in Europe were both sources of materials for everyday life and places where material and human sacrifices took place and other-worldly powers could be
Conclusion
Peatlands in Scotland are ambivalent places that are viewed as ‘good, bad and ugly’ (metaphorically speaking) all at the same time. The multiple and ambivalent views of wild landscapes seem not stem necessarily from lack of knowledge, as often assumed by experts, but rather to be due to their biophysical characteristics, history, trade-offs between different uses and differences in personal relationships with nature. To ensure the long-term success of conservation in situations such as these,
Role of the funding source
This research has been funded by Scottish Government's Rural and Environmental Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS), 2011–16. The funding source has not influenced the design, implementation, analysis or write-up of this study.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the participants in the focus groups in Aberdeen and the Isle of Lewis for their time and sharing their experiences and viewpoints with us. We also thank Andrew McBride, Kathleen Allen, Rebekka Artz, Willie Towers, Matt Aitkenhead and Steve Chapman for assisting us with their expertise on peatlands, Carol Kyle for helping with the implementation of the focus groups, Anke Fischer and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article, and Ximena
References (55)
- et al.
Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together
Environ. Sci. Pol.
(2012) - et al.
When the public good conflicts with an apparent preference for unsustainable behaviour
Ecol. Econ.
(2011) Novel ecosystems and the emergence of cultural ecosystem services
Ecosystem Services
(2014)- et al.
Conflicting rationalities, knowledge and values in scarred landscapes
J. Rural. Stud.
(2009) - et al.
Focus group discourses in a mined landscape
Land Use Policy
(2010) - et al.
Public participation and local environmental planning: testing factors influencing decision quality and implementation in four case studies from Germany
Land Use Policy
(2015) - et al.
Framing the landscape: discourses of woodland restoration and moorland management in Scotland
J. Rural. Stud.
(2010) - et al.
Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird - the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options
Biol. Conserv.
(2007) Visual perception of wild land in Scotland
Landsc. Urban Plan.
(1998)- et al.
Discounted knowledges: farmers' and residents understanding of nature conservation goals and policies
J. Environ. Manag.
(1998)