Sample
The sample in this study was a random sample of Swiss residents, with an oversampling in a part of the Swiss plateau known as the “Smaragd Gebiet Oberaargau” (hereafter called the Smaragd area), which has been designated as an area of special ecological importance. The Smaragd area is part of the “Em-erald Network”, which was launched in 1998 by the Council of Europe and is an ecological network that aims to conserve European natural habitats and their flora and fauna (Council of Europe, 2011). Resi-dents of the Smaragd area were chosen for oversampling in this study because they have been subjected to an intensive information campaign about the Smaragd concept, which has included information about the concept of ecological compensation areas and about the ecological importance of various habitat elements.
A survey package was sent to 3000 households that were randomly selected from the Swiss telephone directory. The first person in the household aged sixteen years or over to have a birthday in the calendar year was asked to take part in the survey. Of the 3000 questionnaires sent, 2373 were delivered to a ran-domly selected group of households from throughout Switzerland and 492 questionnaires were delivered to a second group consisting of residents of the Smaragd area. The remainder of the initial 3000 surveys were undeliverable. A reminder was sent after two weeks.
Survey instrument
To determine whether there were any a priori differences in environmental attitudes between the groups under study, all participants were asked to complete the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale, which is a scale developed to measure an individuals environmental world view (Dunlap et al. 2000). Since we were interested in the effects of information provided, it was necessary to determine whether there were any a priori differences between the groups under study in their knowledge of, or attitudes towards, spe-cific species that have been the subject of widespread information campaigns so some questions were included about attitudes towards such a species: namely beavers. It was hypothesized that there would be no differences between demographically different groups in attitudes towards either beavers or the environment in general.
The logo of the Smaragd area is an image of the southern damselfly (Coenagrion mercuriale), which possesses many of the characteristics of a charismatic flagship species (Lorimer 2006). Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were aware of the presence of the southern damselfly in Switzerland and were asked to indicate, on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, their agreement with a series of questions about attitudes towards the southern damselfly. Respondents were also asked to rate, on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, the degree of their knowledge of the Smaragd concept and of the concept of ecological compensa-tion areas. It was hypothesised that residents of the Smaragd area would have a higher awareness and knowledge of both the southern damselfly and the Smaragd concept, and would also hold more positive attitudes towards the southern damselfly.
To measure the aesthetic appreciation of structures that enhance ecosystem connectivity first requires that the structures be identified, with the requirement that they be within the perceptual range of humans.
The identification of ecologically relevant structures was carried out in consultation with ecologists (named in the acknowledgements) and was focussed on the indicator species groups of amphibians, specifically tree frogs and toads, damselflies, and grasshoppers. Habitat elements for these species groups include wildflower strips, ponds and pools, and watercourses. Farmers are eligible for subsidy payments for maintaining wildflower strips although maintenance of ponds and watercourses does not confer eligibility for subsidy payments.
Once the structures were identified, different combinations were added to an empty landscape using computerised photo manipulation to create 16 landscapes. The 16 landscapes were divided into eight pairs and presented to the respondents. The choice sets were constructed in a partial factorial design using, (a) four levels of amphibian habitat (frog ponds, toad ponds, no ponds or both), (b) four levels of drainage ditch management (concreted, cleared, overgrown with vegetation, or mixed), and (c) four levels of wildflower strips (none, grasses, wildflowers, and a mixture of flowers and grasses). Respondents were given the option to either select one of the landscape options or to reject both choices and choose a base landscape that contained none of the landscape elements. The ‘no choice’ option in this study can there-fore be considered a rejection of the changes to the landscape rather than a rejection of the landscape itself. Respondents were asked to choose which of the landscapes of each set they would prefer to see when they were out walking.
Since the study also focused on the effects of information, the sample was randomly divided into two groups, with each group given one of two variations of the questionnaire. The versions were identical except that one version contained a list of possible elements with an explanation of the ecological value of each of the landscape elements. The other version contained a list of possible elements without any explanation of their ecological value.
A latent class choice analysis was carried out, using LatentGOLD choice version 4.5, to determine whether preferences for the landscape elements that encourage ecosystem connectivity were consistent across the sample. In the underlying theory of the latent class modelling, it is assumed that choices by an individual are made rationally to increase their utility, which is an abstract measurement of their satisfac-tion in attaining a particular goal. The theory proposes that individual behaviour depends on observable attributes and on latent heterogeneity that varies with factors that are unobserved by the analyst (Greene and Hensher 2002). An extended multinomial logit model was used to estimate the probability of making a specific choice from among a set of alternatives on the basis of landscape attributes and individual characteristics (predictors). Respondents were then classified into groups on the basis of their choices.
An error component is unavoidable since it is unfeasable to measure all characteristics of the respond-ents, and it is only possible to infer that the landscape attributes that affect choice behavior are perceived as intended. However, it was possible to measure some characteristics of the individual and attributes of the landscape (deterministic components) and use that information to predict choice.
Dummy variables indicating whether the respondent belonged to the group that had received supplemen-tary ecological information and in which region the respondent lives (the Smaragd area or the remainder of German-speaking Switzerland) were also included in the statistical model as covariates. It was hypoth-esised that the group that received further information would reveal stronger preferences, expressed by higher utility estimates, for the landscape elements that encourage ecosystem connectivity than the group that received no further information. Furthermore, it was hypothesised that this effect would be less for the residents of the Smaragd area since their a priori knowledge was expected to be higher than that of the remainder of the sample.
Innovation, gains, new insights and main results thanks to ENHANCE
Main Results
The results of the latent class choice analysis showed that a four-class model provided the best fit, as indicated by the Bayesian Information Criteria, to the data. A bootstrap test was carried out to determine whether there would be a significant improvement in the model by increasing to the 5-class model. The p-value was 0.18, which suggests that the improvement is not significant. The overall R² for the model was 0.42. Class membership was found to be a significant predictor of choices that were made according to the attributes of the presence of ponds, and the management of the ditches and grass strips. Place of residence (p = 0.13), and whether the respondent received additional information (p = 0.32) were found to be not significant predictors of class membership.
When examining the results of the latent class analysis, the mean utility estimates essentially gives the result of a one-class model in which respondent heterogeneity was not taken into consideration. Taken as a whole, the mixed verges, the varied ditches, and the combination of the pond types returned the highest utility estimates. In other words, the overall preference was for all of the landscape elements that encourage ecosystem connectivity to be present, which in turn increases complexity of the landscape.
The preference for complexity would have been predicted by Ulrich (1983), Kaplan and Kaplan (1989), Hunziker (1995), and Hunziker and Kienast (1999) and suggests that the concept of subsidising farmers to set aside land for ecological compensation areas is within the wishes of the Swiss public.
It would be reasonable to encourage elements that promote ecosystem connectivity in the agricultural landscape: given the overall preference for these elements, the importance of agricultural areas as places for nearby outdoor recreation, and the number of people who regularly go walking in nature. However, the four-class model provided the best fit to the data, which suggests that while the majority holds these preferences, they are not universal.
Class one respondents found the negative effect of the presence of a muddy yellow-bellied-toad pond counteracted the positive utility of a frog pond to give an overall negative utility if both were present. They preferred the variations of the drainage ditch with vegetation and rejected the concrete channelling while they also preferred grass verges or a mixture of flowers and grass verges. It should be noted that the utility estimates of class one members are near to zero, which indicates a degree of disengagement. This group, representing nearly half the sample, exhibit only minor disutility regardless of which constellation of landscape elements are present.
Classes two and three were similar in the utility estimates associated with ponds in that they found frog ponds attractive and muddy yellow-bellied-toad ponds unattractive, but with a net positive utility estimate if both were present. Both classes exhibited positive preferences for varied vegetation coverage on the watercourse, which is the most ecologically favourable option. Their preferences for the grass verges were also similar except that members of class two found the mixed verge to be attractive while the members of class three did not. Members of class two were the only respondents to return positive utility estimates for the concrete channelled drainage ditch. The class three members exhibited a preference for natural elements that are favourable to ecosystem connectivity while members of class two appear to prefer landscapes that, as Ulrich (1986) and Gobster (1995) suggest, display a degree of management.
Classes two and three both strongly favour landscapes with a high degree of complexity and collectively provide the preferences that result in the net preference for complexity. However, while both classes responded in this way that agrees with previous landscape preference studies, the latent class analysis revealed that classes two and three, representing 42 percent of the population prefer complexity, while class one, representing 47 percent do not exhibit disutility when landscapes are less complex. An analy-sis without separating the respondents into the classes would have reasonably concluded that the major-ity prefer complex landscapes. This heterogenemajor-ity provides further evidence for the tripartite relationship proposed by Bourassa (1990) in that there were no measurable differences in environmental attitude and all respondents were members of the same culture, so differences can be assumed to be in the third dimension of personal preference.
Members of class four, which represent 10.7 percent of the sample found toad ponds to be more attrac-tive than frog ponds, for which they reported a negaattrac-tive utility, although they reported a net posiattrac-tive utility estimate if both were present. They also found grass verges to be more attractive and the varied ditches to be most attractive. This attribute combination suggests a practical application of minimizing the disrup-tion to the farmer.
Key Insights
The results of this study suggest that some persuasion, or at least efforts to engage the disinterested, may be required for generating acceptance of enhancement efforts. Furthermore, those wishing to encourage biodiversity in agricultural areas would be well advised to attempt to reach members of class three who do not differentiate between complexity that enhances ecosystem connectivity and complexity, such as concreted drainage channels, that are less conducive to ecosystem connectivity.
The results further suggest that a cognitive approach, namely informing people of the ecological sig-nificance of the various landscape elements, may not be the optimal approach to efforts of persuasion.
The absence of significant differences between residents of the Smaragd area and the remainder of the sample in their responses to the questions about attitudes towards the southern damselfly suggests that, while the campaigns have raised awareness, people did not make the connection between the landscapes that were presented to them and habitats. One explanation for this unexpected result is that the information was presented to them in the form of text describing ecological concepts. These results, combined with the success in raising awareness of the southern damselfly, support the notion of enhanc-ing its use as a flagship species for the Smaragd area with efforts to connect, as simply as possible, the presence of the damselfly with its habitat requirements.
Furthermore, the place of residence, which indicates whether a respondent lives in an area that had been the subject on an intensive information campaign, did not significantly influence the class alloca-tion of respondents. This shows that the residents of the Smaragd area did not significantly differ in their landscape preferences from the remainder of the sample, although they considered themselves to be more knowledgeable of the Smaragd concept. We propose two possible conclusions. Either the residents of the Smaragd area have not been convinced of the value of the enhanced nature by the information campaigns, or they have not made a connection between the landscape elements that were presented to them in this study and the habitat requirements of the target species. In either case, this result should be of interest to those seeking to increase support for conservation measures through the provision of ecological information.
References
Appleton, J., 1975. The Experience of Landscape, John Wiley and Sons, London.
Bjørner, Thomas Bue et al., 2004. Environmental labelling and consumers’ choice – An empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 473: 411–434.
Bourassa, S., 1990. A Paradigm for Landscape Aesthetics, Environment and Behavior 22: 787–812.
Bunkse, E., 1977. Review of “The Experience of Landscape”, by Appleton, J., Annals of the Association of American Geog-raphers 67: 149–151.
Council of Europe, 2011, Nature: Ecological Networks, http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/econetworks, site accessed November 22, 2011
Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A. and Jones, R., 2000. Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social issues 56: 425–442.
Greene, W. and Hensher, D., 2002 “A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: Contrasts with mixed logit”, working paper ITS-WP-02-08, Institute of Transport studies, The Australian Key Centre in Transport Management, The University of Sydney and Monash University.
Gobster, P., 1995. Ecological Esthetic: Integrating Esthetic and Biodiversity Values, Journal of Forestry 93: 6–10.
Gobster, P., Nassauer, J., Daniel, T. and Fry, G., 2007. The Shared Landscape: What Does Aesthetics Have To Do With Ecology, Landscape Ecology 22: 959–972.
Gutteling, J. and Wiegman, O., 1996. Exploring Risk Communication, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Hartig, T. and Staats, H., 2005. Linking Preference for Environments with their Restorative Quality, In: Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G. and Opdam, P., Editors, 2005. From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Educa-tion and ApplicaEduca-tion, Springer, Dordrecht: 279–292.
Heijnen, P. and Schoonbeek, L., 2008 Environmental groups in monopolistic markets, Environmental and Resource Eco-nomics 39: 379–396.
Home, R., Bauer, N. & Hunziker, M., 2010 Cultural and Biological Determinants in the Evaluation of Urban Green Spaces, Environment & Behavior 42: 494–523.
Hunziker, M., 1995. The Spontaneous Reafforstation in Abandoned Agricultural Lands: Perception and Aesthetical Assesse-ment by Locals and Tourists, Landscape and Urban Planning 31: 399–410.
Hunziker, M. and Kienast, F., 1999. Impacts of Changing Agricultural Activities on Scenic Beauty: A Prototype of an Auto-mated Rapid Assessment Technique. Landscape Ecology 14: 161–176.
Ibanez, L. and Grolleau, G., 2008. Can ecolabelling schemes preserve the environment? Environmental and Resource Economics 402: 233–249.
Jeans, D., 1977. Review of “The Experience of Landscape”, by Appleton, J., Australian Geographer 13: 345–346.
Kaltenborn, B. and Bjerke, T., 2002. Associations Between Environmental Value Orientations and Landscape Preferences, Landscape and Urban Planning 59: 1–11.
Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lorimer, J., 2006 Nonhuman charisma: which species trigger our emotions and why? ECOS 27: 20–27,
Matthies, E. and Kroemker, D., 2000. Participatory Planning – A Heuristic for Adjusting Interventions to the Context, Journal of Environmental Psychology 20: 65–74.
Misgav, A., 2000. Visual Preference of the Public for Vegetation Groups in Israel, Landscape and Urban Planning 48:
143–159.
Mobley, C., Wade, M. and DeWard, S., 2010 Exploring Additional Determinants of Environmentally Responsible Behavior:
The Influence of Environmental Literature and Environmental Attitudes, Environment and Behavior 42: 420–447.
Stables, A. and Bishop, K., 2001. Weak and Strong Conceptions of Environmental Literacy : implications for environmental education, Environmental Education Research 7: 89–97.
Ulrich, R., 1983. Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In: Altman, A. and Wohlwill, J., Editors, 1983.
Behavior and the Natural Environment, Plenum Press, New York: 85–125.
Ulrich, R., 1986. Human Responses to Vegetation and Landscape, Landscape and Urban Planning 13: 26–44.
Van der Made, A., 2008 “Information Provision by Interest Groups”, Paper presented at European Association of Environ-mental and Resource Economists, 16th Annual Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 25 – 28 June 2008.