Same river, different values and why it matters

Abstract

Examination of the values that people assign to specific natural places is likely to be useful for environmental decision-making but is an underdeveloped area of sociopsychological research. A mail survey was used to examine the differences and similarities in values assigned by people to the Loddon River in south-eastern Australia. Environmental, social and economic values were explored across five different community types: urban residents, rural residents, natural resource management (NRM) professionals, environmental group members (EGM) and landholders. While urban residents, rural residents and landholders had similar responses, NRM professionals and EGM placed much stronger emphasis on environmental values derived from the river, and much less emphasis on economic values. Members of two community types (EGM and NRM professionals) responded in a relatively homogenous way, within a narrow range of response options. By contrast, three community types (urban residents, rural residents and landholders) responded in more diverse ways. There were similarities in the social values (historical and aesthetic) expressed by the different community types, suggesting common points for stakeholder engagement in the management of the river. Results point to the need for environmental managers to ensure that consultation is not limited to the most actively engaged sectors of the community, as their responses may not be representative of other groups.

Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts

“…The researchers listed a range of environmental (e.g., bird habitat), social (e.g., peaceful place to be), and economic (e. g., irrigation water) goals, and asked respondents to indicate how important each of these items was to them (on a 1-5 scale). Seymour et al (2011) observed that urban and rural residents often (and surprisingly) share patterns of personal priorities, but that these value patterns were significantly different from those of regional natural resource managers and interest-based communities (such as farmers). The researchers concluded that if managers' decisions are allied more closely to the priorities of environmental groups than of residents, this raises questions about democratic representation in decision-making (see also Maybery et al 2005).…”

“…This requires characterization of the value-patterns within a particular community, as well as a comparison of those value-patterns with policy and/or other decision-making bodies. For example, Seymour et al (2011) surveyed local residents, regional water stakeholders, and managers in rural Australia about environmental management priorities. The researchers listed a range of environmental (e.g., bird habitat), social (e.g., peaceful place to be), and economic (e. g., irrigation water) goals, and asked respondents to indicate how important each of these items was to them (on a 1-5 scale).…”

“…Some scholars argue that a pyramid of biological needs can act as a universal framework for ordering human goals (Maslow 1943, Wallace 2007, whereas others create distinctions such as environmental/social/economic or ethical/cognitive/ aesthetic when seeking to group people's priorities (Vugteveen et al 2010, Seymour et al 2011. There is always a risk that analystframed value items will "miss the point" in a particular setting (Tadaki et al 2015).…”

“…In terms of scale, analysts often seek statistically representative samples through surveys, whether as mail-out surveys or a large number of structured interviews (e.g., Dietz et al 2005, Corner et al 2014, Hicks et al 2015. While the sample size can be modest in the case of small communities (Vugteveen et al 2010, Seymour et al 2011, representativeness can be attained insofar as participation reflects wider community composition, even if statistical significance may not be possible . In terms of scope, the value items are often either generated directly by experts or drawn from public materials and assembled by experts.…”

The study of human values in understanding and managing social-ecological systems

“…A number of authors have identified typologies or classification systems to account for the variety of ways people value the natural world, including the geo-diversity of the planet (Gray 2004), landscapes (Stephenson 2008), wetlands and rivers (Seymour et al 2011), forests (Manning et al 1999, Brown andReed 2000), as well as wildlife and nature (Kellert 1996, Trainor 2006). …”