Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding public … · Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding public representations of biodiversity Arjen E. Buijs

Looking beyond superficial knowledgegaps: Understanding publicrepresentations of biodiversity

Arjen E. Buijs1, Anke Fischer2, Dieter Rink3 and Juliette C. Young4

1Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands2Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Socio-Economics Group, Aberdeen, UK3Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ, Department of Urban andEnvironmental Sociology, Leipzig, Germany4NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Edinburgh, Bush Estate, Penicuik, UK

Key words: Attitudes, biodiversity, nature, social representations, values, knowledge, general public,lay people

SUMMARYLack of public support for, and protest against, biodiversity management measures haveoften been explained by the apparently inadequate knowledge of biodiversity in thegeneral public. In stark contrast to this assumption of public ignorance, our results fromfocus group discussions in The Netherlands, Germany and Scotland show that membersof the general public use very rich and complex social representations of biodiversity toargue for particular approaches to biodiversity management. Within these representa-tions, we identified important components, such as (i) the functions and benefits associ-ated with biodiversity, (ii) attributes and values connected to nature, and (iii) views on therelationships between humans and nature. Notions within these components variedacross individuals and groups and were closely linked to their views on biodiversitymanagement in general and specific management measures in particular. This studyillustrates how a better understanding of these representations and their links to publicattitudes is crucial to ensure effective communication on biodiversity and to improvepublic support for biodiversity management.

INTRODUCTION

Losses of biodiversity and attempts to halt thisdecline are among the central, if not the mostcrucial, issues, in both conservation science andpolitics. Generally, the loss of biodiversity at theglobal level is recognised as a serious problem by94% of the European population (Eurobarometer2007). However, implementation of biodiversityconservation measures is often challenged through

fierce debate and resistance to specific manage-ment approaches (Stoll-Kleemann 2001; Miller2005; Lindström et al. 2006; Marshall et al. 2007).This lack of support at the local level has beenlinked to the seemingly inadequate knowledge ofthe general public about biodiversity, suggestingthat the public might not have enough insight toappreciate the benefits of biodiversity and its

International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4 (2008) 65–80DOI 10.3843/Biodiv.4.2:1

Correspondence: Arjen Buijs, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 46, 6700 AA Wageningen,The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

65

conservation (Elder et al. 1998; DEFRA 2002;Hunter and Brehm 2003). Many studies examiningthis phenomenon describe individuals’ under-standing of biodiversity as an isolated concept,neglecting those meanings of biodiversity whichare not connected to scientific definitions, but tothe respondents’ daily practices, of their own expe-riences, knowledge and emotions. Consequently,a common conclusion from existing studies is thatthe public needs to be better educated in orderto adopt the goals and ideals advocated by thedominant conservation discourses (Elder et al.1998). However, the persistent refusal of the publicto support nature conservation based solely onmore information on biodiversity and its loss isa clear indication of the flaws inherent in this‘information deficit’ model of public under-standing and action (Owens 2000).

To contribute to a better understanding of thelack of public support for biodiversity manage-ment, this paper addresses public understanding ofbiodiversity from the perspective of the subjectivityof knowledge (Wynne 1996), rather than from therestricted perspective on ‘biodiversity’ as an iso-lated, fixed concept. We use the notion of ‘socialrepresentations’ to denote and describe themeanings that individuals and groups assign tobiodiversity. Social representations are sociallyelaborated systems of values, ideas and practicesthat define an object for a social group (Moscovici2000). These representations are used by indivi-duals in their social contexts to understand andcommunicate about their environment. Represen-tations can have both descriptive and normative,i.e. evaluative, aspects. For example, individualsmay attribute a certain characteristic to bio-diversity, while at the same time evaluating thischaracteristic as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘important’ or ‘un-important’. Representations help to ‘familiarise theunfamiliar’ (Moscovici 2000), and thus enable thegeneral public to make sense of originally scientificterms such as biodiversity, and to align such termswith their own experience and knowledge relatedto the concept.

Representations are developed by drawing onand incorporating existing representations ofrelated objects. Through communication, peopletry to understand new scientific concepts such as‘biodiversity’, relating these concepts to alreadyexisting representations of more familiar objects.As such, the understanding of a new object

becomes anchored (Moscovici 2000). Through theprocess of anchoring, people attribute certaincharacteristics to biodiversity, partly based on rep-resentations of more familiar concepts like nature,landscape and cultural diversity. Thus, an analysisof public understanding of the concepts ofbiodiversity has to take social representations ofsuch related concepts into account. Overall, priorexperience, knowledge and the social contextshape social representations. Therefore, differentgroups such as farmers, foresters, or urban andrural people may hold different representations ofbiodiversity. In turn, this has important implica-tions for public and stakeholder responses tobiodiversity management policies and measures.As social representations of objects tend to informattitudes towards concrete behaviour related to theobject, analyses of social representations used bydifferent groups of the general public may shedlight on the reasons for public protest against andlack of support for management approaches (Buijset al. 2006; Fischer and Van der Wal 2007).

In this paper, we empirically develop a concep-tual framework to analyse the array of differentnotions that social groups, such as residents in pro-tected areas, farmers, recreationalists and foresters,develop and use to understand biodiversity issues,and illustrate how these notions interact and in-form their views and attitudes towards biodiversitymanagement. We investigate how, although theymight not be familiar with the scientific termino-logy, different groups within the general publicuse representations of biodiversity and nature tomake sense of biodiversity management. We alsoinvestigate to what extent specific attitudes onnature management are embedded in people’sworldviews and representations. Unravelling therepresentations of biodiversity and nature held bydifferent stakeholder groups, including the generalpublic, will hence contribute to a better under-standing of their attitudes towards biodiversitymanagement, which, in turn, is essential to design-ing successful communications and managementapproaches. For this purpose, we report findingsfrom focus group discussions that involved a widerange of members of the general public inGermany, Scotland and The Netherlands.

As a first step, we examine the participants’associations with the term ‘biodiversity’. We thenpresent a conceptual framework developed fromthe data that we use to deconstruct and analyse the

Biodiversity representations Buijs et al.

66 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management

representations of biodiversity expressed in thegroup discussions. The paper concludes with a dis-cussion on the implications of our findings forbiodiversity policies and management.

METHODS

Study sites

Our study was conducted around three large pro-tected areas in The Netherlands, Germany andScotland (Figure 1). The protected areas werechosen as a common reference for our study inorder to capture general understanding and atti-tudes towards biodiversity as well as concrete atti-tudes towards specific measures of protection andmanagement related to these designated areas.

In The Netherlands, research centred on theDrents Friese Wold National Park, situated in thenortheastern part of the country and typical for thispart of The Netherlands. The National Park

consists of 6,100 ha of forests, moorland and driftsand owned by different nature conservationgroups. Hardly anyone lives within the area. Thevillages surrounding the National Park draw heavilyon tourism for maintaining their economic andsocial viability.

The Scottish study centred on the CairngormsNational Park, established in 2003, which covers380,000 ha and is Britain’s newest national park. Itis home to about 17,000 inhabitants, and tourism-related businesses account for 80% of the localeconomy. The Cairngorms massif constitutes oneof the largest and most unspoilt upland areas inBritain (Warren 2002) and is considered the mostimportant mountain area in Britain for natureconservation.

In Germany, the area selected for this studywas the South-East Rügen Biosphere Reserve,which covers 23,500 ha (9,500 ha terrestrial and14,500 ha marine area) and includes the islandof Vilm as well as wetlands of international


International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 67

Figure 1 Locations of the three study areas in the Netherlands, Scotland and Germany

importance and a European bird sanctuary. Thereserve is home to approximately 11,500 people,who, similar to the population around the twoother sites, rely mainly on tourism.

Methods

We chose to adopt a qualitative approach, as weaimed to gain an in-depth understanding of repre-sentations of biodiversity and implications formanagement rather than testing a hypothesis, orproducing generic results. Focus group discussionsare a form of qualitative research used in marketingand the social sciences, and increasingly applied toenvironmental topics (Hull et al. 2001; Gobster2001), in which data are obtained from a relativelysmall group of respondents selected from a broaderpopulation. The technique requires small groups,

led by a facilitator who encourages participants topursue their own priorities on their own terms andin their own words. This enables the group toaddress those issues that are perceived as particu-larly relevant by the participants, rather than issueschosen by the researcher. In addition, the tech-nique encourages group discussions and inter-actions between participants (Bryman 2004).

A total of 19 focus group discussions were carriedout between May and October 2005: five in TheNetherlands, eight in Scotland and six in Germany(Table 1). Sessions generally lasted between 60 and120 min. A general guide was used as a basis fordiscussions (Table 2). The initial questions were onparticipants’ personal experiences with the pro-tected area. This enabled participants to relax andstart identifying topical issues. Participants werethen asked about their associations with the term



CountryGroup and place

Groupcode

Number ofparticipants

Agerange

The NetherlandsLocal residents (including tourism businesses)Local residents and touristsLocal residents (including farmers)Local residents and touristsForestry PhD studentsΣ

NL-1NL-2NL-3NL-4NL-5

69654

30

43–6441–7432–6943–7124–31

ScotlandTouristsTouristsMountaineers on a training courseMountaineers resident in adjacent areasLocal residentsForesters, resident in adjacent areasBirdwatchers, resident in adjacent areasAgricultural college students, resident in adjacent areasΣ

UK-1UK-2UK-3UK-4UK-5UK-6UK-7UK-8

2264

10469

43

46–5344–4732–4537–6821–7635–5549–7019–20

GermanyConservationistsTourism-related businessesLocal residentsTouristsForestersFarmersΣ

G-1G-2G-3G-4G-5G-6

554422

22

34–6944–6556–6634–5945–6437–44

Total 19 95

Table 1 Composition of focus groups. Group codes used in the results section refer to the respective focus groupdiscussions

‘biodiversity’, before broadening the discussionsout to perceptions and concepts of biodiversity andits management.

Sampling

Our aim was to gain as wide a range of views onbiodiversity as possible. Sampling was designed tocover a cross-section of the public from a widerange of backgrounds, including urban and ruraldwellers, lay people, citizen-stakeholders and pro-fessionals in relevant fields, such as forestry, conser-vation and farming (Table 1). For each focus groupdiscussion, we approached a specific type of stake-holder, trying to minimise within-group variation,while maximising variation between groups.Wherever possible, existing groups, such as moun-taineering and birdwatching associations, werecontacted. Each group was thus relatively homo-geneous with regard to certain aspects of theirrelation to their natural environment, while mostgroups were heterogeneous with regard to gender,age and, in many cases, educational background.Overall, 95 participants aged 19 to 76 took part inour focus groups. As the study aimed to explore thediversity of representations among the generalpublic rather than to provide a demographicallyrepresentative comparison of sub-groups withstatistical means, this sample size can be consideredmore than sufficient (Bryman 2004).

Data analysis

All focus group discussions were recorded ontape and verbatim transcribed. The data were ana-lysed in two steps: 1) substantive coding and 2)theoretical coding (Strauss and Corbin 1990).Transcriptions were first coded substantively, based

on the empirical data using broad categories dis-cussed and validated by all authors in an iterativeprocess. As a second step, these substantive codeswere (where possible) related to theoretical con-cepts such as ‘human–nature relationship’ and‘aesthetic functions’. Final main coding categoriesincluded the understanding of biodiversity, con-cepts of nature, views on the role of humans innature, values related to nature and biodiversity,attitudes towards biodiversity management mea-sures and the perception of changes and threats tobiodiversity. These main categories were used as astructuring principle in the conceptual framework.

RESULTS

This section starts with a brief presentation of theparticipants’ associations with the term ‘bio-diversity’. We then introduce a conceptual frame-work derived from our empirical work, whichorganises the notions we found to form part of thedifferent groups’ representations of biodiversity.Finally, we illustrate by means of two examples howthe respondents combine these notions, linkingthem to their daily practices, and how these notionsinform their views on biodiversity management ingeneral, as well as their attitudes towards bio-diversity management measures in particular.

Understandings of the term ‘biodiversity’

During the focus group discussions, we asked theparticipants explicitly about their understandingand definition of the term ‘biodiversity’. Whilemany participants had heard of the term, thedefinitions offered differed considerably. Someparticipants anchored their definition in theirunderstanding of the ecological concept, defining



1.

2.3.4.5.

6.7.

What are your personal experiences in the nature reserve? Probing, for example: Do you have a favourite plant oranimal in the region? How often have you been in this area? What is your general impression of the area? Whatwere your expectations before you came?Have you heard about the national park/biosphere reserve?Have you ever come across the term ‘biodiversity’, or biological diversity? Where not, brief explanation is given.What does ‘biological diversity’ mean to you? What first comes to mind?How important is biological diversity to human beings? How important is biological diversity for your everydaylife?How do you think biological diversity could best be maintained or managed?Would you like to add anything?

Table 2 Discussion guide used in the focus group discussions

biodiversity as the variety of species, sometimesincluding habitats and, more rarely, genes:

It is also number and quality of habitats as well asnumber of species [UK-4, group code see Table 1].

Such definitions were often given by interested laypeople such as mountaineers (UK-3, UK-4), butalso by some professionals in the field of naturalresource management (G-1, G-5).

Many participants, in particular local residentsand tourists with no particular background innatural resource management (UK-1, UK-2, NL-1,NL-3, NL-4, G-2, G-3, G-4), used broader defini-tions, often including diversity of landscapes andcultural diversity in, for example, land use or evencuisine. For some of them, ‘biodiversity’ was a termsubsuming all things living:

Biodiversity is everything that we can find here in termsof living nature or living matter. Humans are certainlypart of that [G-5].

Among these groups, some individuals gave de-tailed descriptions of diversity based on their per-sonal experience in the nearby protected areas.They often anchored their understanding of theconcept in their own experiences:

I do see diversity returning. I remember we put sundew ina pot on the windowsill when I was young. Sundew isvery exciting; you could see the flies being eaten. I haven’tseen any sundew since then. I have told my husband thatstory many times, and now I can finally show him whatsundew looks like, right here in the park! [NL-1]

Some respondents, especially among those who had(semi) professional dealings with biodiversity poli-cies (UK-5, UK-7, NL-5, G-1), expressed a criticalstance on the actual use of the term ‘biodiversity’.According to these participants, the term hadbecome fuzzy, unclear and a political instrument,which in itself could deter certain groups:

It has become a buzzword [. . .]. There are otherapproaches and they are just being blanketed outbecause it is not the ‘in’ word [UK-5].

This brief overview of the immediate reactions tothe word ‘biodiversity’ in the different focus groupsshows that, while for many of the respondents theterm was unknown, others directly related meaningto this term. Associations ranged from standardtextbook to broader definitions of diversity, oftenembedded in personal experiences with nature,

but also including critical comments on the strate-gic use of the term.

The focus group discussions also revealed thatthe participants held a much greater diversity andwealth of associations than a discussion of the term‘biodiversity’ alone could have revealed. Thoseparticipants who were not familiar with the termstill expressed complex understanding of bio-diversity, embedded in wider networks of inter-related concepts. Thus, to understand publicperceptions of biodiversity, we need to look atbroader representations of nature. The nextsections focus on these representations.

Deconstructing social representations ofbiodiversity: a conceptual framework

We found that representations of biodiversity werebuilt out of and embedded in a wide range ofconcepts recurring across the focus groups, whichincluded both descriptive and normative elements.Several of these were related to more familiarobjects like nature and landscape, which were usedto anchor the representation of biodiversity. How-ever, these concepts were combined in differentways by the different groups, thus forming distinctrepresentations of biodiversity, each with their ownimplications for attitudes towards biodiversity man-agement. In this section, we present an overview ofthe different components that we identified to bedistinct, albeit related, elements of the differentsocial representations of biodiversity (Figure 2).Subsequently, we show that these notions werelinked to form group-specific representations ofbiodiversity (Figures 3 and 4).

While the analysis of the transcripts wasinformed by the literature on public understandingof nature and biodiversity, the conceptual frame-work outlined here represents the notions and con-cepts expressed in at least one of the focus groupdiscussions. In particular, we identified three majorcomponents of biodiversity representations: (i)views on the functions and benefits that biodiversitymight provide, (ii) attributes associated withnature, and (iii) views on the relationship betweenhumankind and nature (Figure 2).

Benefits and functions of biodiversity

An important component of biodiversity represen-tations consisted of the benefits and functions the



participants attributed to biodiversity, mostly froman anthropocentric perspective. We identified thefollowing aspects in the discussions:

1. Biodiversity as the basis of human life,expressing the feeling that biodiversity wasessential to human health and humansurvival.

2. Biodiversity as providing and ensuring bal-ance in nature, often emphasising the import-ance of every animal and plant in the foodchain, and the role of species in ensuring anequilibrium in natural systems.

3. Aesthetic functions of biodiversity, appreciat-ing habitat diversity within landscapes andspecies diversity within habitats as visuallyappealing, for example, through the differentcolours of plant leaves and flowers, or mean-dering little streams in the landscape.

4. Biodiversity as creating a sense of place,describing how specific patterns of species

and habitats that were seen as typical for cer-tain places added to the authenticity of thearea, inspired pride in local nature and pro-vided orientation in the wider landscape.

5. Economic values of biodiversity, emphasisingthat many economic activities such as fisher-ies, forestry, farming and tourism dependdirectly or indirectly on biodiversity and itsstabilising functions.

Characteristics attributed to nature

A second important component of biodiversityrepresentations was the characteristics respondentsassociated with nature. As will be shown below,these concepts of nature seemed to provide theparticipants with a frame against which they con-sidered the functions and benefits of biodiversitydescribed above. Again, these characteristics ofnature were often associated with positive valuesand showed the individuals’ ideals with regard to



Benefits of biodiversity� basis of human life� providing and ensuring balance� aesthetic functions� creating a sense of place� economic values


Attributes of nature� vitality� autarky� diversity� balance � robustness vs. fragility� stasis vs. dynamics

Attributes of nature� vitality� autarky� diversity� balance � robustness vs. fragility� stasis vs. dynamics

Views on biodiversity management� nature-centred goals, hands-off� nature-centred goals, hands-on� human-related goals


Attitudes towardsbiodiversity managemente. g., towards access rules,invasives management, reintroductions, …

Attitudes towardsbiodiversity managemente. g., towards access rules,invasives management, reintroductions, …

Human-nature relationship� Humans as part of nature

� humans as participants in nature� humans as responsible managers

� Humans as separate from nature� humans as stewards� humans as enemies� humans as users and engineers




Figure 2 Conceptual framework: components of social representations of biodiversity identified in one or more ofthe 19 focus-group discussions

nature. As attributes used to either characterise ordefine nature, we identified in particular:

1. Vitality, describing nature as being consti-tuted by living beings.

2. Autarky, i.e. self-sufficiency, with connotationsof nature being independent, untouched byhumans, unpredictable or imposing.

3. Diversity as an attribute that did not neces-sarily constitute nature, but that made naturemore valuable, both for aesthetic reasons andas instrumental in ensuring balance in nature.

4. Balance, as equilibrium in natural systems wasgenerally considered as healthy and desirable.

5. Robustness versus fragility: While for someparticipants nature was characterised as beingextremely fragile, others challenged this view,describing nature as robust.

6. Stasis versus dynamics: While some partici-pants described nature as being in a constantflux, the majority saw nature to be in a particu-lar state, the latter often implying referencesto ideal or former states that individualswanted to see achieved or restored.

Relationship between humankind and nature

As a third core element of biodiversity representa-tions, we identified views on the role of humankindin nature. We could distinguish two main notions:

1. humans as part of nature,

2. humans as separate or distinct from nature.

These two views were, in some groups, the subjectof an explicit debate between individuals, openlycontesting the view that humans are stewards ofnature:

I don’t think it is an ownership issue at all, we are partof the environment and I really hate the idea of humans[. . .], the whole idea of this is mine, and it is suchnonsense that you own a piece of land, it is ridiculous[UK-3].

Within these two major categories, differentnuances could be distinguished (Figure 2). Forexample, among those participants who con-sidered humans as part of nature, we found groupsthat tended towards the view that humans were apart of nature just as is any other animal, whereasothers saw humans as responsible for consideratemanagement of nature, due to their particular abili-ties that distinguished them from other animals.

Views on biodiversity management in general

We found that respondents combined notionsfrom these three general categories in differentways to support their arguments for or againstparticular approaches to biodiversity management.We use the term ‘views’ here to denote very generalforms of attitudes that do not refer to specific





Attributes of nature� vitality � autarky� diversity� balance � robustness vs. fragility� stasis vs. dynamics

Attributes of nature� vitality � autarky� diversity� balance � robustness vs. fragility� stasis vs. dynamics



Attitudes towardsbiodiversity managementagainst: single species protection, interventions harming sceneryfor: improving scenery, population management

Attitudes towardsbiodiversity managementagainst: single species protection, interventions harming sceneryfor: improving scenery, population management







Figure 3 Components of biodiversity representationsexpressed in the Dutch residents’ group. Black fontindicates notions expressed in the discussion, grey fontshows notions from the conceptual framework that werenot found in this group



Attributes of nature� vitality� autarky: wild, lonely� diversity� balance � robustness vs. fragility� stasis vs. dynamics

Attributes of nature� vitality� autarky: wild, lonely� diversity� balance � robustness vs. fragility� stasis vs. dynamics



Attitudes towardsbiodiversity managementfor: strict access regulations,Increasing species richness through active management of habitats

Attitudes towardsbiodiversity managementfor: strict access regulations,Increasing species richness through active management of habitats







Figure 4 Components of biodiversity representationsexpressed in the Scottish birdwatchers’ group. Blackfont indicates notions expressed in the discussion, greyfont shows notions from the conceptual framework thatwere not found in this group

management measures or behaviour, but togeneric approaches to biodiversity management. Inparticular, we identified three major views:

1. A stance focusing on nature-related goals andfavouring a ‘hands off’ strategy for naturalareas, either immediately or shortly after therestoration of a desired state.

2. A stance focusing on nature-related goals butfavouring a ‘hands-on’ strategy for naturalareas – this included permanent human inter-ventions to establish and maintain the desiredbiodiversity in an area.

3. A stance focusing on human-related goals,including aesthetic and economic functions.

Whereas the first stance was clearly expressed onlyin some Dutch groups, in particular among thelocal residents (NL-2, NL-3), the second view wasadvocated especially by birdwatchers (UK-7) andsome local residents (G-2, G-3). The majority ofgroups shared the third view and acknowledged themultiple expectations of biodiversity held by differ-ent stakeholders and the public. However, theseexpectations were weighted differently betweengroups. For example, while the farmer studentsrecognised that wildlife should be maintained andthus agreed on a general need to manage naturesustainably, they did not favour an extension ofbiodiversity protection at the expense of agricul-tural activities:

I don’t think we have to go to the extent of having toreintroduce habitats. Because there’s still enough tomaintain the wildlife as it is, without having to startspoiling good farmland really [UK-8].

In contrast, while most recreationalists acknowl-edged that natural resources were the basis of rurallivelihoods, they advocated a stronger politicalemphasis on ecological goals:

I think environmental consideration should stand asan equal partner to financial considerations becauseyou can’t continue to raid the landscape because it isthe landscape that wins people back into the hills[UK-3].

Participants often drew on their understandingof biodiversity as described above, stressing forexample the importance of biodiversity for main-taining a balance in nature, to better argue theirviews on biodiversity management. These views in

turn were closely linked with the participants’ atti-tudes towards specific management measures suchas access regulations, management of invasive ordominant species, and habitat management, as willbe shown in the next section.

Understanding attitudes towardsbiodiversity management

In the preceding section, we described the differentcomponents of social representations of bio-diversity. Here, we illustrate how these differentelements come together to form distinct, group-specific representations.

Although most respondents were committed tothe protection of biodiversity in general as part ofsustainable biodiversity management, they did notalways agree with the specific management mea-sures taken in the area to protect biodiversity. Thismight seem contradictory at first sight. However,insights into the different notions that form agroup’s representation reveal that these attitudesare well rooted in their understanding of bio-diversity. The following section therefore providescontext-specific illustrations to show the linksbetween representations of biodiversity, views onbiodiversity management in general and attitudestowards specific management measures.

Two group discussions are analysed in moredepth in this section, following the conceptualframework outlined above, to exemplify the diver-sity of representations of biodiversity.

The Dutch residents group

Our first example examines the representationsheld by a Dutch group of local residents, consistingof three men and two women aged 35 to 55 (NL-1,hereafter A), all living in a village on the border ofthe National Park. Having lived in the area for over10 years, they felt closely connected to the park,considering it very much as their ‘backyard’.

Biodiversity was seen as very positive in the repre-sentation of these residents (Figure 3). The protec-tion of biodiversity in general was thus supported,especially because of the benefits for humans (‘A5’refers to person 5 in focus group A):

A5: The emergence of more plants and animals makesit more exciting. Having a stroll through the areabecomes more fun when you see things. [. . .] I think wecan’t live without nature.



Residents used the general abundance of animals,the variety of forests, moorland and brooks, but alsothe variety of man-made features, to assess the levelof biodiversity in their area:

A1: This area is much more diverse than the area whereI used to live.

Facilitator: How do you notice that difference?

A1: You have some small houses here in the area. And ameadow in the middle of the forests, a small brook,moorland.

Through such aspects of general environmentalhealth, scenic beauty and landscape diversity, theresidents’ concept of biodiversity related closely totheir concept of nature. As part of this, the balanceof nature was a particularly important feature usedto understand nature and biodiversity. Specificmanagement measures (and thus certain culturalpractices) were often judged by the effect they hadon the equilibrium of nature:

A3: Because roe deer are not managed anymore, theyare now too many. That is why we all see deer near ourhouses. They are overabundant.

This view, in turn, impacted on their attitude towardsmanagement, with participants arguing that thebalance of nature in a country like The Netherlands,shaped by humans for many centuries, could only bemaintained through active management of bio-diversity. While not unanimous, the group thusexpressed a relatively static view of nature.

Sustainable use of the area for human-centredgoals was accepted and sometimes even favoured,because of the assumed positive influence ofmanagement on diversity:

A1: This area is very rich in animals and plants.

A3: It has always been rich. Because it comprises notonly nature, but also agricultural areas.

References to the economic value of biodiversity interms of tourism were used to stress the importanceof protecting the aesthetic value of nature. Partici-pants expressed a concern that measures to en-hance biodiversity might diminish aesthetic andother values of the area for incoming tourism.

A5: More diversity is nice, but do it properly. Don’tleave the dead trees standing in the area. People, alsotourists, feel like they are biking through a war zone.That may diminish their appreciation of the area. It

may be true that the woodpecker lives in dead trees, butthe forest needs to be tidied up.

This quote also illustrates that, even though theimportance of biodiversity in general was recog-nised, the use of the concept was not uncontested atthe local level. Discussions on the understandingand importance of protecting biodiversity in thearea may have been triggered because official com-munication on the management of the park expli-citly used biodiversity as an argument to defend theproposed measures. Because participants did notalways agree with the focus on biodiversity in themanagement of the national park, they seemed toperceive the concept of biodiversity as a threat.They explicitly differentiated between protectingnature and protecting biodiversity: while caring fortheir natural environment, they objected to whatthey considered disproportionate and exaggeratedefforts to conserve single species:

A3: I would certainly regret if we had less nature in TheNetherlands. But you have to be careful not to focus ononly one little plant.

A5: We have to make sure the general picture remainsokay. But take for example the exorbitant efforts to pro-tect the common hamster [Cricetus cricetus]. InGermany they have plenty of them!

A3: They spend a million euros only to get one specificorchid back.

This tension between biodiversity managementand nature management was also expressed whendiscussing specific measures for the area. The resi-dents supported several measures that had beentaken, especially those that aimed to enhance thescenic quality of the area, such as the plantation ofsmall-scale landscape elements. Other measures toenhance biodiversity, such as the logging of treesfor expansion of the drift sand area and accessrestriction measures, were strongly contested,especially if they were considered to have a negativeimpact on the scenic quality or authenticity of thearea. Sometimes the effectiveness of these con-tested measures was also questioned:

A3: And where do you think most sundew is found?On the beaten path.

A5: That is something they [experts; AB] say moreoften. That many plants disappear because not enoughpeople set foot in certain areas.



In summary, the Dutch residents’ group expresseda representation of biodiversity that stressed theaesthetic functions of biodiversity at the landscapelevel. Consequently, they argued for biodiversitymanagement that focused on nature and landscapein general rather than on particular species orhabitats.

The Scottish birdwatcher group

The birdwatchers’ focus group (UK-7, hereafter B)consisted of one female and five male participants,aged 49 to 75. All were keen birdwatchers andhighly engaged in voluntary activities. While mostlived in urban or semi-urban areas, they consideredthemselves as very attached to rural environments.

The participants shared a representation ofnature in the Cairngorms National Park as beingwild and lonely, and fragile (Figure 4):

B2: It’s so fragile.

B3: Yeah, you lose one species and everything is inter-dependent. Lose one species and that’s going to have aknock-on effect.

Both ‘wildness’ and ‘fragility’ were unanimouslyused as arguments to protect nature in this areafrom potentially harmful human impacts:

B5: It’s one of the last, really the last, wilderness left inBritain. It is getting far too popular. There are toomany people there.

The participants frequently expressed their con-cerns about changes to natural areas they hadobserved in the last decades, and implicitly arguedfor a static view of nature and the preservation ofpositive states.

B1: You go in that wood now you’ll be lucky to find any-thing more than a buzzard and a wood pigeon. Peri-winkle, which was a gorgeous blue spread, it’s gone.The rabbits have taken over, they are eating the trees,there is no undergrowth left and what you now have is adesert of trees.

Asked for the criteria that defined a desirablecondition of nature, some answers suggested theexistence of an original, primeval state:

B5: Well, what is there, from a pristine condition.. . . []You need to look at the whole, and maybe survey what isin there, and maybe think what isn’t there, and could bethere, and maybe should be there.

Diversity – both the variety of species and habitats –was seen by all as very positive, and the value ofdiversity – variety of colours, phenological appear-ance, species, habitats – was explicitly linked to itsaesthetics.

B1: Particularly when you get this wonderful colour inthe spring as they come in to leaf and then the beautifulcolours in the autumn as they go into their winter.

Diversity was also seen as essential to the equilib-rium in nature:

B3: It’s like I said they are all interdependent.

B4: Because then you can shift the slide very rapidly.

Beyond the contributions of diversity to balance innature and aesthetics, the participants struggled toverbalise where they saw reasons for conservation,expressing themselves rather vaguely when theywere asked why nature or biodiversity should beprotected:

B1: For the wildlife surely? For it will be destroyedwithout it.

Facilitator: But why protect it?

B1: Because anybody who likes wildlife would want itpreserved.

Notions of an undefined intrinsic value, but alsoaesthetic aspects, were also expressed when the parti-cipants talked about their views of the human–nature relationship. The group saw a clear human–nature divide, with humans being responsible for agood state of nature – for selfish reasons (B3: It is abeautiful place and I want to be able to visit it in the future),but also with respect to future generations:

B2: It’s been there for millions of years. I feel we shouldbe custodians; surely we want to hand it on to the nextgenerations and the generations after that. It has itsown value.

Most of the discussion, however, revolved aroundthe reality of human–nature interactions as seen bythe group. Numerous statements suggested that thegeneral public were seen as ignorant masses thatwere the enemies of nature and biodiversity.

B1: Now the area is full of people, who in my opinion,shouldn’t be there at all. If you like to generalise thegeneral public, huge parties of school children usuallylooking very upset at being beaten through. Huge quan-tities of people who have no interest in the country.



Social representations shared by this group of bird-watchers thus seemed to include a cynical view ofthe general public, a belief that nature was fragile,and an ideal view of nature in a stable, desirablestate, and biodiversity as being aesthetic and con-tributing to balance in nature. These notionswere clearly reflected in the birdwatchers’ stancetowards biodiversity management, which was char-acterised by two major notions – exclusion of anydisturbances to achieve a desirable state of the pro-tected area and, building on this, active manage-ment for biodiversity goals where deemednecessary.

All members of the group agreed that strictregulations needed to be in place to restrict publicaccess and thus reduce negative impacts of visitors.Some argued that the higher parts of the Cairngormsought to be banned to people (B5), while others stressedthe need to strike an adequate balance betweenaccess restrictions and the desire of interestedpeople to visit scenic places. In the end, there wasconsensus about a zoned approach that wouldrestrict access to major areas:

B4: I would be quite willing, as a person who likesgoing out in to the wild, to not go in to 80% of it, andjust looking from the outside.

In addition to such protective measures, severalactive interventions were suggested such as the cull-ing of deer and the establishment of habitat net-works. These were assumed to improve the currentstate, implying an increase in biodiversity:

B1: Do you know what birders want? They want aconnection between the Speyside and the Deeside forests.So that we have got a corridor for nature to travel upand down. Particularly in our case birds but otherthings would eventually find their way.

The birdwatchers’ group thus generally saw bio-diversity goals as a priority for land management.

Comparing biodiversity representations

These two examples illustrate how the participantsanchored their concepts of biodiversity in theirrepresentations of related objects such as natureand landscape. For instance, the notion of balancein nature was used to give importance to diversitythrough the idea that biodiversity was contributingto balance, a notion expressed in both groups.Similarly, diversity was ascribed value through its

aesthetics: a more diverse nature was unanimouslyseen as more beautiful. However, the groupsdiverged on the level at which they expressed theirpreference of diversity. While the Dutch residentsemphasised the scenic value of habitat and struc-tural diversity within a landscape, the Scottish bird-watchers also expressed their enjoyment of speciesdiversity. This was consequently reflected in theirviews on biodiversity management: while the Dutchresidents were opposed to management targetingparticular species at the expense of landscape-based management, the birdwatchers suggestedmanagement measures that supported particularspecies.

The groups differed considerably in the attri-butes and values they ascribed to nature. Comparedto the Scottish birdwatchers and Dutch residents,other groups, such as both the German and theScottish forester groups (G-5, UK-6) had a clearlyless static view of biodiversity: You don’t want it tostand still. In many ways you want the area to moveforward [UK-6]. For the forester groups, thedynamic notion of biodiversity was at the core oftheir representations, and they explicitly arguedagainst a prescriptive stance towards biodiversitymanagement that sees nature as fragile and vulner-able: Rubbish! It’s not fragile, it’s extremely robust and ifsomething does go something else will take its place[UK-6].

The idea of nature as being autarkic, here under-stood as untouched, wild and lonely, was expressedin particular by the Scottish birdwatchers, whereasothers, such as the forester groups and the Dutchlocal residents, saw nature clearly as a product ofhuman and natural interactions. This again wasreflected in views on biodiversity management ingeneral, and attitudes towards specific manage-ment measures in particular, where the bird-watchers argued for stricter regulations to excludethe general public from large natural areas, whilstthe foresters and the Dutch residents saw natureas in need of continuous human intervention.

DISCUSSION

Past studies addressing public understanding ofbiodiversity have often focused on biodiversity as astand-alone concept, qualifying the concepts anddefinitions expressed by members of the public aseither ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in relation to scientificterminology. However, our findings show that an



analysis of the notions that different groups withinthe public use to reason and argue about bio-diversity appears much more suitable for revealingthe reasons for the acceptance of, and protestagainst, biodiversity-related measures.

An innovative aspect of this study is the descrip-tion of the different views on biodiversity as com-prehensive social representations, anchored inrelated concepts like nature and landscape. Weshow that describing people’s understanding ofbiodiversity as social representations is helpful inunderstanding attitudes on biodiversity manage-ment; for example by differentiating betweendifferent causes of critical attitudes on biodiversityconservation measures. These representations areembedded in people’s knowledge, experience andpractices, and shared and negotiated within andbetween groups. Our study provides an overview ofthose components of social representations of bio-diversity that are actually used in different group-specific discourses on biodiversity. Our approach isthus more comprehensive than those that focus onone component, such as human–nature relation-ships, disconnected from the wider context.Indeed, the results of our focus group discussionsrevealed that such social representations ofbiodiversity tend to consist of interrelated compo-nents such as (i) benefits and functions assigned tobiodiversity, (ii) attributes and values relatedto nature, and (iii) views on the human–naturerelationship. The notions within these componentscan have both descriptive and normative, i.e.,evaluative, aspects, which have been found toheavily influence related attitudes and behaviour(Fischer and Van der Wal 2007; Lindström et al.2006; Hunter and Rinner 2004). Figure 2 gives anoverview of the components of representationsfound in our sample, although it is by no meansintended to be exhaustive.

The merit of this approach is twofold. First, itenabled us to show that the participants’ attitudesto biodiversity and its management were wellrooted in their representations of biodiversity andnature. Second, an analysis of such representa-tions helps to identify shared and conflictingperspectives between groups and to identifyreasons behind conflicts over biodiversity manage-ment. Both these aspects and their impact onbiodiversity management are explored in moredetail below.

First, our results demonstrated that participants’attitudes towards biodiversity and its managementwere by no means ‘free-floating’, but clearly rootedin their representations of biodiversity and nature.Participants often explicitly related their views andattitudes regarding biodiversity management to thecharacteristics they assigned to nature. Conse-quently, superficially similar, negative attitudestowards particular biodiversity management mea-sures proved to be based on very different represen-tations of biodiversity. For example, some groupsvoiced strong opposition to the expansion of thedrift sand area in the Drents Friese Wold NationalPark, and argued for a hands-off strategy, drawingon representations based on the autarky and vitalityof nature. Others shared this opposition to expan-sion of the drift sand, but for different reasons andrelated to quite different representations of bio-diversity. They rejected the envisaged ecologicalrestoration because of their deep appreciation ofthe aesthetics of the current landscape, whichwould be destroyed by the expansion of the driftsand area. A better understanding of such opposi-tion and its grounding in social representations ofbiodiversity and nature may help to mitigate thenegative implications of specific measures. Ifnegative attitudes towards transforming a conifer-ous forest to a drift sand area are caused by fear ofdiminishing landscape variety, preserving smallpatches of trees within the restored drift sand areamay safeguard residents’ perception of landscapediversity and thus diminish opposition to such mea-sures. However, such mitigating measures wouldnot be helpful in convincing people who contestthe expansion because it interferes with the autarkyand authenticity of nature.

We thus argue that not only direct reactions tomanagement options, but also the representationsthat underpin public attitudes towards the manage-ment of the natural environment, need to beunderstood in order to make decisions that areshared by the general public. These are related tothe cultural and natural context of the groups inquestion. While our study was not designed to allowgeneralised conclusions on cultural differencesbetween groups or sample sites, several phenom-ena seem to emerge that might merit furtherresearch. For example, current public discourses –as presented, for example, by the media and localactors – might have had an influence on the social



representations expressed in the different studysites. Issues related to ecological restoration werefrequently brought up in the Drents Friese Wolddiscussions. Consequently, hands-off approacheswere favoured where participants objected to resto-ration. In contrast, restoration did not seem to be ofmajor importance to the Scottish groups, whotended to discuss the idea of wilderness and conse-quently incorporated ‘autarky’ as an attribute ofnature in their representations. Discussions on theisland of Rügen and at the Drents Friese Wold oftenfocused on aspects of land use regulations in thecontext of the recent designation, while such issueswere rarely brought up in the Scottish groups.These results could, in future research, be exploredagainst the backdrop of the different designationprocesses and their reflection in the media and inlocal fora. In addition, differences between profes-sional cultures seemed to be striking, with both theGerman and the Scottish foresters arguing for amore dynamic approach to biodiversity manage-ment, in contrast to other groups who maintainedthat biodiversity should be managed in a morestatic way. This is of high relevance to policymakersand managers who need to address the causes ofsuch critical voices in order to effectively manageareas for biodiversity, and provide in-depth insightsthat reach far beyond the type of results thatopinion polls can provide.

Understanding representations of biodiversityalso contributes to an improvement of communica-tion on biodiversity policies and managementmeasures. Indeed, critical comments on the strate-gic use of the term ‘biodiversity’ and the criticalassociations expressed by some of the local resi-dents’ groups show that its use should differentiatebetween target audiences and be carefully plannedto avoid unintended reactions. Taking the idea of‘social representations’ further, communication onbiodiversity management need not be limited tothe concept of biodiversity, but could include manyof the notions that we found in our focus groups tohave more positive connotations. For example,proposed measures could be linked to the manypositive functions and attributes related to bio-diversity and nature, such as aesthetic aspects andthe creation of a sense of place.

Second, an analysis of social representationshelps to identify perspectives shared in groups, andcan highlight the consequences of clashes betweenrepresentations employed by different groups. The

explicit recognition of the multitude of notionsthat make up social representations of biodiversityand ultimately inform attitudes distinguishes ourapproach from previous studies that assume theexistence of one single dominant social representa-tion of nature, landscape or rurality, and ignoretheir diversity and the implications for the manage-ment of nature (Halfacree, 1993; Hovardas andStamou 2006).

This need to differentiate between groups is alsoillustrated by our finding that directly affectedsocial groups, such as farmers and hunters, feelthreatened in their interests by the rise in politicalsupport for biodiversity conservation. Social repre-sentation research has suggested that threatenedgroups tend to develop competing social represen-tations of relevant concepts (Moscovici 2000). Werecognise this tendency also in our focus groups,as some people, especially farmers and criticalresident groups, tend to emphasise the diversityaspect of biodiversity, downplaying the biologicalaspects and sometimes even translating biodiversityinto cultural or landscape diversity. Throughanchoring their representation of biodiversity inmore familiar representations of nature and land-scape diversity, these groups tend to ‘neutralise’components of ecology-based representations ofnature that threaten certain valued aspects ofnature.

The framework we developed to organise themultitude of elements that formed biodiversityrepresentations is empirically grounded in thefocus group discussions. On the other hand, it alsoborrows concepts from previous studies and theo-ries on public understanding of nature (Van denBorn et al. 2001; Hunter and Rinner 2004; Buijset al. 2006, 2008 in press). A comparison of therepresentations described in this paper withdescriptions in the literature reveals furtherinsights. Our analysis showed that participants drewheavily on their representations of nature toaddress the biodiversity issues they were confrontedwith in the focus group discussion. The participantsthus made use of a much broader repertoire ofideas and experiences to reason about biodiversitythan assumed in many previous studies on the pub-lic understanding of biodiversity (Elder et al. 2002;Lindström et al. 2006). Attributes and values theyassigned to nature – such as balance in nature, itsdiversity and autarky – provided the participantswith a frame against which benefits of biodiversity



were considered. Previous research into images ofnature, i.e. networks of interrelated values andbeliefs people use to understand nature, has shownthe wide variety of values and beliefs that membersof the general public employ to understand nature(Buijs 2008, in press). Concepts such as health,naturalness, diversity and balance have also beenshown to play a role in the understanding andappreciation of nature (Hull et al. 2001; Fischer andBliss 2006). The prevalence of balance-relatednotions in the discussions might reflect the extentto which equilibrium theories for ecological think-ing in past decades have now reached educationalcurricula and popular scientific programmes(Wallington et al. 2005; Hovardas and Stamou2006; Fischer and Van der Wal 2007). This maybe an illustration of how scientific concepts aretransformed into social representations: the repro-duction of scientific concepts into common under-standing usually includes some adaptation of theoriginal scientific concept to the values and experi-ences of the general public (Moscovici 2000). Thedispersion of developing scientific knowledge onbiodiversity into social representations of bio-diversity requires time, as the scientific conceptneeds to be represented, for example, in schoolcurricula, media and the public discourse, in orderto be incorporated into the public’s representa-tions. The prominent place of a notion of ‘balance’in representations of biodiversity may be anexample of such time effects, as the dominant para-digm in ecology has already replaced such a notionwith the notion of nature in flux (Callicott 2002).

Research into attitudes towards biodiversity andnature have thus far focused either on the psycho-logical level of individual cognition and attitudes(Lindström et al. 2006; Fischer and Van der Wal2007; Buijs 2008, in press), or on the social level ofdiscursive actions (Morris and Wragg 2003). Tounderstand public perceptions of biodiversity, weneed to acknowledge both the individual level ofcognition, as well as the social level on which thecognitions are based and are used to reflect on con-crete biodiversity management. The theory ofsocial representations applied here is a novel way tobridge both perspectives. Future research couldexplore the extent to which group-specific

representations are embedded in and influencedby large-scale processes of paradigm change. Forexample, research on the New EnvironmentalParadigm suggests that, while dominant discoursesare changing, individuals may hold conflicting rep-resentations of nature and the human-nature rela-tionship, adopting a new paradigm while the oldone is still salient (Dunlap et al. 2000; Castro andLima 2001). Such processes of change, as well as thenotion of conflicting or contradictory representa-tions, have not been addressed here and certainlymerit further investigation.

Our data demonstrate that the participants’understanding of biodiversity is informed by muchmore than definitions of biodiversity or knowledgeabout endangered species. As such, providing‘the right information’ to the public from biolo-gists will not necessarily change public attitudes –there is much more to attitudes and related repre-sentations that needs to be considered, includingpersonal experiences, common sense beliefs andthe importance of different values attributed tobiodiversity, nature and the human– nature rela-tionship. Simple measures of awareness raising willthus likely fail if the diversity of representations thatmembers of the public use to form attitudestowards biodiversity policy and management is notunderstood and taken into account. Based on ourresults, we argue that discursive approaches thatrecognise and embrace the public’s multi-facetedand well-embedded views are required to improvepublic support for biodiversity management and toconstructively manage conflicts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to all participants of the group dis-cussions for their contributions. We would also liketo thank Bas Arts, Jaap Lengkeek, Colin Beale andseveral anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-ments on earlier versions of the manuscript, andJana Sedláková and Aili Pyhälä for inspiring discus-sions. This work was supported by ALTER-Net(A Long-term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Aware-ness Research Network), a Network of Excellencefunded by the 6th Framework Programme of theEuropean Commission (www.alter-net.info).



http://www.alter-net.info

REFERENCESBryman A. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford

University Press; 2004Buijs AE, Pedroli B and Luginbühl Y. From hiking

through farmland to farming in a leisure land-scape: changing social perceptions of the Euro-pean landscape. Landscape Ecology 2006;21:375–89

Buijs AE. Lay people’s images of nature. Frameworksof values, beliefs and value orientations. Society andNatural Resources 2008; in press

Callicott JB. Choosing appropriate temporal andspatial scales for ecological restoration. Journal ofBiosciences 2002;27:409–20

Castro P and Lima M. Old and New ideas about theEnvironment and Science: an exploratory study.Environment and Behavior 2001;33:400–23

DEFRA. Survey of public attitudes to quality of life and theenvironment – 2001. London: DEFRA. 2002

Dunlap R, Van Liere K, Mertig A, Catton Jr W andHowell R. Measuring Endorsement of the NewEcological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journalof Social Issues 2000;56:425–41

Elder J, Coffin C and Farrior M. Engaging the public onbiodiversity – a road map for education and communica-tion strategies. Madison: The Biodiversity Project.1998 http://www.biodiversityproject.org/roadmap.pdf, accessed February 2008

Eurobarometer: Attitudes of Europeans towards the issueof biodiversity 2007. Flash Eurobarometer 219. TheGallup Organization; 2007

Fischer P and Bliss JC. Mental and biophysical terrainsof biodiversity: conserving oak on family forests.Society and Natural Resources 2006;19:625–43

Fischer A and Van der Wal R. Invasive plant suppressescharismatic seabird – the construction of attitudestowards biodiversity management options. Biologi-cal Conservation 2007;135:256–67

Gobster PH. Visions of nature: conflict and compati-bility in urban park restoration. Landscape andUrban Planning 2001;56:35–51

Halfacree KH. Locality and social representation:space, discourse and alternative definitions of therural. Journal of Rural Studies 1993;9:23–37

Hovardas T and Stamou GP. Structural and narrativereconstruction of rural residents’ representationsof ‘nature’, ‘wildlife’ and ‘landscape’. Biodiversityand Conservation 2006;15:1745–70

Hull RB, Robertson DP and Kendra A. Public under-standings of nature: a case study of local knowl-edge about “natural” forest conditions. Society andNatural Resources 2001;14:325–40

Hunter L and Brehm J. Qualitative insight into publicknowledge of and concern with biodiversity.Human Ecology 2003;31:309–20

Hunter LM and Rinner L. The association betweenenvironmental perspective and knowledge andconcern with species diversity. Society and NaturalResources 2004;17:517–32

Lindström M, Johansson M, Herrmann J andJohnsson O. Attitudes towards the conservation ofbiological diversity – A case study in KristianstadMunicipality, Sweden. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management 2006;49:495–13

Marshall K, White R and Fischer A. Conflicts betweenhumans over wildlife management: On the diver-sity of stakeholder attitudes and implications forconflict management. Biodiversity and Conservation2007;16:3129–46

Miller JR. Biodiversity conservation and the extinctionof experience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2005;20:430–4

Moscovici S. Social Representations. Explorations in SocialPsychology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2000

Morris C and Wragg A. Talking about the birds andthe bees: Biodiversity claim making at the locallevel. Environmental Values 2003;12:71–90

Owens S. ‘Engaging the public’: information anddeliberation in environmental policy. Environmentand Planning A 2000;32:1141–8

Strauss A and Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research.Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.Newbury: Sage Publications; 1990

Stoll-Kleemann S. Barriers to nature conservation inGermany: A model explaining opposition to pro-tected areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology2001;21:369–85

Van den Born RJG, Lenders RHJ, de Groot WT andHuijsman E. The new biophilia: An explorationof visions of nature in western countries. Environ-mental Conservation 2001;28:65–75

Wallington TJ, Hobbs RJ and Moore SA. Implica-tions of Current Ecological Thinking for Bio-diversity Conservation: A Review of the SalientIssues. Ecology and Society 2005;10:15–24

Warren C. Managing Scotland’s environment.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2002

Wynne B. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive viewof the expert–lay knowledge divide. In Lash S,Szerszynski B and Wynne B (eds), Risk, environmentand modernity, towards a new ecology. London: SagePublications; 1996:44–83



http://www.biodiversityproject.org/roadmap.pdf

http://www.biodiversityproject.org/roadmap.pdf

Documents

Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding public … · Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding public representations of biodiversity Arjen E. Buijs