Perceived landscape values in four Baltic Sea countries

Transcription

1 Perceived landscape values in four Baltic Sea countries Marianne Henningsson, Sofia Jönsson, Monika Borgö, Sweden Daiva Arbute, Lithuania Kasia Kopiec, Poland Berit Oline Pedersen, Denmark

2 Measuring landscape values Perceived values should be included in the planning process (according to ELC) Perceived values diffuse How to measure? 2 methods: Focus groups interviews 5-6 groups/country Questionnaire total 900 replies (4 countries)

3 Different landscapes One area chosen in each country: Sweden and Denmark wetlands, flat land, biodiv etc. Poland and Lithuania forest, ponds, biodiv, old buildings etc.

4 Sweden - Vombsänkan

5 Sweden - Vombsänkan

6 Denmark - Tude å

7 Denmark - Tude å

8 Poland - Tolkmicko

9 Poland Tolkmicko

10 Lithuania - Zemaitija

11 Lithuania - Zemaitija

12 Participants questionnaire study 900 people replied in total * Which country do you think collected most questionnaires? Choose between: 1=Poland, 2=Lithuania, 3=Sweden, 4=Denmark

13 Number of responses Poland = 341 (81 %) Lithuania = 269 (68 %) Sweden = 175 (34 %) Denmark = 115 (16 %) Congratulations Poland!!!

14 Gender Age Education (all countries together) 46 % men 51 % women (3 % missing) 34 % below 40 63% over 40 (3 % missing) 12 % elem. School 41 % sec. School 39 % university (8 % missing) Living within the areas: Sweden: 25 % Denmark: 10 % Lithuania: 36 % Poland: 87 %

15 Question 1: The area is important to me because

16 Question 1:The area is important to me because. all four countries together (900 replies) 1. It is beautiful 2. It has open water 3. There is a variation in the landscape 4. The area includes flora/vegetation 5. I feel good (relaxed and calm) when I visit the area 6. There is a birdlife 7. It includes meadows 8. There are wild animals 9. It is quiet and peaceful 10. The area is good for human health

17 Question 1: The area is important to me because.. (19 statements) Similarities Rank Poland Lithuania Sweden Denmark 1 There is a variation in the landscape It has open water It is beautiful There is a birdlife 2 It is beautiful There is a variation in the landscape There is a birdlife It includes meadows 3 It has open water It is beautiful The area includes flora/vegetation There are wild animals 4 I feel good (relaxed and calm) when I visit the area The area includes flora/vegetation It has grazing animals It is beautiful 5 There are old buildings (e.g. wind mills and farmhouses) The area is good for human health The area is good for human health It is quiet and peaceful

18 Important factors in the landscape - Differences Factor 1. (Priority 2) Social/Personal values I feel I am a part of nature when visiting the area I feel good (relaxed and calm) when I visit the area I have a personal connection to the area It is quiet and peaceful I have the possibility to visit the area with my friends The area is good for human health There is a variation in the landscape I can perform activities More important in Poland Factor 2. (Priority 3) Natural/cultural values It has grazing animals It includes fields There are wild animals There is a birdlife It has old trees The area includes flora/vegetation There are old buildings (e.g. wind mills and farm houses) More important in Sweden Factor 3. (Priority 1) Space/Aesthetic values It is available for everyone It is beautiful It has open water It includes meadows Important in all countries

19 Question 2: The following is important to preserve in the area of.(15 statements) all countries 1. Flora/vegetation 2. Quietness and peacefulness 3. Old trees and forest 4. Wild animals 5. Birdlife *Which country gave highest priority to preservation of wild animals? Choose: 1=Poland, 2=Lithuania, 3=Sweden, 4=Denmark

20 Question 2: The following is important to preserve in the area of.. Similarities? Rank Poland Lithuania Sweden Denmark 1 Quietness and peacefulness Flora and vegetation The wetlands Wild animals 2 Old buildings Birdlife Flora and vegetation Flora and vegetation 3 Paths and tracks Fish Public accessibility Birdlife 4 Old trees and forest Wild animals Grazing animals Fish 5 Bird watching places Grazing animals Quietness and peacefulness The wetlands

21 Factors Important to preserve Factor 1 (Priority 1) Natural values Birdlife Wild animals Wetlands Flora/Vegetation Fish Bird watching places More important in Denmark, Lithuania, Sweden Factor 2 (Priority 2) Social and cultural values Old buildings Paths and tracks Public accessibility Old trees and forest Quietness and peacefulness Places for public activities Beautiful areas for recreation More important in Poland Factor 3 (Priority 3) User values (cultivation) Grazing animals Farming More important in Sweden and Lithuania

22 Choose: 1=Natural values *Which factor did women prioritize higher than men did? (Important to preserve) 2=Social/cultural values 3=User values

23

24 Question 3: (22 statements) I would like to see the following be developed in the area 1. More nature conservation/preservation 2. Resoration of natural values (e.g. species, habitats) 3. More quiet areas 4. Better cooperation between stakeholders 5. More facilities (e.g. toilets and shelters) 6. Better roads 7. More information signs in the area 8. Reconstruction of old buildings 9. Better involvement of the public in planning processes * Which issue above was among the five most important to develop in all countries?

25 Question 3: I would like to see the following be developed in the area similarities Rank Poland Lithuania Sweden Denmark 1 Better roads Better roads More facilities (e.g. toilets and shelters) More nature conserv./preservation 2 Reconstruction of old buildings More facilities (e.g. toilets and shelters) More nature conserv./preservation More wild animals 3 More quiet areas Restoration of nat. values (e.g. species, habitats) 4 Restoration of nat. values (e.g. species, habitats) Restoration of nat. values (e.g. species, habitats) More quiet areas More quiet areas More quiet areas Restoration of nat. values (e.g. species, habitats) 5 More facilities (e.g. toilets and shelters) More areas for relaxing More wild animals Better cooperation

26 Not very important to develop in the areas Restaurant/cafe Paths for horse riding Cleaning up more

27 Participation Statements Rank M (all) More important in People living close to the area (within 10 km) should be more involved in the planning process People living in the area should decide about the use of the area and what to preserve Poland Poland Participation increases if people can profit from it Poland Experts (decision makers and planners) should decide about the use of the area and what to preserve 4 3,73 Poland and Lithuania I would like to be involved in the planning process of Poland I have been involved in the planning process of Sweden (felt least involved)

28 Question 5: The following actions increase public participation i decision making and planning (18 statements) 1. Nature guidance in schools 2. Information in schools about flora and fauna 3. Explanation on how different activities impact nature 4. Websites with information about the area 5. More cooperation with local people 6. More education about the area 7. Local press coverage 8. Communication through all stages of the planning process 9. Free excursions for local people/guided tours 10. Information signs within the area

29 Question 5: The following actions increase public participation i decision making and planning - similarities Rank Poland Lithuania Sweden Denmark 1 Information in schools Explanation on how different activities impact nature Nature guidance in schools Websites with information about the area 2 Nature guidance in schools Free excursions for local people/guided tours Information in schools Information in schools 3 Websites with information about the area Websites with information about the area More education about the area Nature guidance in schools 4 Local press coverage Nature guidance in schools More cooperation with local people More cooperation with local people 5 More education about the area More education about the area Meetings in small groups Meetings in small groups

30 Factors Information Dialogue Education Factor 1 Information (Priority 2) Factor 2 Dialogue (Priority 3) Factor 3 Education (Priority 1) Local TV Meetings in small groups Nature guidance at schools Information signs Collecting ideas Web sites Local press Information brochures Communication through the whole process Activity day Information in schools Large information meetings Explain how activities affect nature An office to visit Involved form the beginning Poland Poland and Lithuania Poland and Lithuania

31 Conclusions Different areas - different values - differences in planning structures Importance: Space/aesthetic values important in all countries Preservation: Flora/vegetation, birdlife, quietness Development: More quiet areas, restoration of natural values Participation: Important to involve people within and close to the area few felt involved Strategies to increase public participation: Education most important

32 Thank you for your cooperation! For more detailed result please visit our workshop later this afternoon!