Images and Values of Nature

CITIZENS’ IMAGES
AND VALUES OF
NATURE IN EUROPE
A survey in nine EU Member States
Policy Study
Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe
A survey in nine EU Member States
Hans Farjon
Arianne de Blaeij
Tineke de Boer
Fransje Langers
Janneke Vader
Arjen Buijs
Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe Acknowledgements
A survey in nine EU Member States Special thanks are due to Georgia Lavinia Cosor (University of
© PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Bucharest, Romania), Anke Fischer (The James Hutton Institute,
The Hague, 2016 Scotland), Lubos Halada (Institute of Landscape Ecology SAS,
Slovakia), Agnieszka Malinowska, Trond Selnes, Laura Miguel
In cooperation with Wageningen UR Ayala (Wageningen UR), Antoine Legal and Kathrin Ludwig (PBL)
for their valuable comments on the questionnaire.
PBL publication number: 1662
Graphics
Production coordination PBL Beeldredactie
PBL Publishers
Layout
Corresponding author Xerox/OBT, Den Haag
Hans Farjon (hans.farjon@pbl.nl)
Authors
Hans Farjon (PBL), Arianne de Blaeij, Tineke de Boer,
Fransje Langers, Janneke Vader and Arjen Buijs (all Wageningen UR)
This publication can be downloaded from: www.pbl.nl/en.

Parts of this publication may be reproduced, providing the source is stated, in the form: Farjon H et al. (2016), Citizens’ Images and Values
of Nature in Europe; a survey in nine Member States, The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency is the national institute for strategic policy analyses in the fields of the
environment, nature and spatial planning. We contribute to improving the quality of political and administrative decision-making,
by conducting outlook studies, analyses and evaluations in which an integrated approach is considered paramount. Policy relevance is
the prime concern in all our studies. We conduct solicited and unsolicited research that is always independent and scientifically sound.
Contents
MAIN FINDINGS 7
Summary 8
FULL RESULTS 13
1 Introduction 14
1.1 Background 14
1.2 Aim 15
1.3 Approach 15
1.4 Reader 15
2 Conceptions of nature 16
3 How nature is valued 20

3.1 Results for all respondents 22
3.2 Variations between countries 23
3.3 Dynamics of the values of nature 24
4 Objectives for nature management 26
5 Responsibility for protection of nature 28
References 30
Annex 1 The survey in detail 32
Annex 2 Response to each question 38
Annex 3 Factor analyses 44
Annex 4 Empirical evidence from 20 years of NEP studies 48
Annex 5 Glossary of terms 50

SGNIDNIF NIAM
MAIN FINDINGS
Summary
People have different images of nature and value nature European citizens have a broad conception of
for various reasons. This is relevant for nature policies in nature
the EU as people with different beliefs and motives may In the first question, people were asked to give their
prefer different futures for nature and landscape. opinion about the degree of naturalness for certain types
However, the diversity in images and values is not well of nature. A majority of respondents considered all
known, as only very few Europe-wide surveys have been presented examples of nature to be natural to a greater
carried out on this subject. or lesser extent (Figure 1). Although city parks were rated
as the least natural, half of the respondents considered
This report presents the results of a European survey into them to be natural in some way. Primeval forests were
citizens’ images and values regarding nature. The survey seen as the most natural type of nature by 90% of the
was held in nine Member States of the European Union: respondents. This ranking by citizens closely matches
France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, that of experts, whose ranking was used for selecting the
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. types of nature. There was not much difference in ranking
By filling out an online questionnaire, a representative between the nine Member States.
sample of 1,000 respondents per country participated in
the survey. The majority of European citizens endorses the
intrinsic value of nature
The survey is part of the Nature Outlook project by The response to six propositions about moral issues
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency concerning the relationship between nature and humans
(www.pbl.nl/natureoutlook). It explores the multiple revealed that attitudes vary widely among European citizens
ways people view and value nature. The project aims to (Figure 2). However, most people (about 60%) agree more
provide building blocks for a new EU Biodiversity with an ecocentric view of nature. They more or less endorse
Strategy, as people with different beliefs and motives the intrinsic value of nature, which includes biodiversity,
may prefer different futures for nature. wilderness and the integrity of wild animals. There is far less
support (around 25%) for the anthropocentric notion that
nature should be used for meeting human needs rather than
be left in its natural state. This predominance of ecocentric
over anthropocentric views was found in all studied Member
States, which is in line with the findings of earlier surveys on
environmental attitudes and nature values.
8 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

Figure 1
Opinions about the degree of naturalness for certain types of nature, 2014
7 High degree of naturalness

Primeval forests
6
5
Birds of prey
4
Swamps 3
2
Meadows with flowers
and grazing cattle 1 No naturalness
Wild flowers at the road side Included countries:

France, Germany, The Netherlands,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
Forest plantations
Sweden, United Kingdom
Garden plants
Large crop fields
City parks
pbl.nl
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of respondents
Source: GfK; analysis by Wageningen UR
Figure 2 about the values of nature, 2014

Opinions
Opinions about the values of nature, 2014
Very much agree

Agree
Appreciate nature's Slightly agree
intrinsic value
Neutral
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Very much disagree
Appreciate nature
for meeting
human needs Included countries:
pbl.nl
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of respondents
Summary | 9
Figure 3
Opinions about the intrinsic values of nature, 2014
Total Included countries:

Age Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
Under 25
Over 49
Education
Primary education
Tertiary education
Living environment
Countryside
Cities
pbl.nl
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very much Neutral Very much
disagree agree
However, it should be noted that about half of the On this issue, the differences in opinion between Member
respondents to our survey did not show a strong States are rather small. Among the Slovaks and the Dutch,
preference. Possible explanations for this fact could be about one in five agreed with the proposition, whereas for
that people have no strong feelings on the issues, do not the Germans and the Swedes this was one in eight, while
consider themselves knowledgeable enough, or are simply the other nationalities scored somewhere in between.
very pragmatic.
The protection and management of nature is
Young people agree more with the intrinsic value mainly the responsibility of the government
of nature than do older people Two thirds of all survey respondents considered the
The survey shows that young people, people with a government as the main responsible actor with respect to
tertiary education and city dwellers agree more with the protection and management of nature and the
nature’s intrinsic values, compared to older people, those environment (Figure 5). Looking at levels of administration,
who have had only a primary education and those who the national governments were indicated as having far
live in the countryside. The differences between these more responsibility than the EU government or regional
groups (Figure 3) are statistically significant. The reverse and local governments. However, considerable differences
is also true; young, highly educated and urban members were found between Member States, reflecting the
of the population agree less with anthropocentric values. differences in governmental structure between them.
A review of other studies about shifts in cultural values The importance of the French arrondissements and German
and environmental attitudes showed that this difference Länder in the national government structures of these
in valuing nature between generations does not Member States is reflected is the stronger preferences for
automatically imply that the ecocentric view of nature will the responsibility of regional governments. The overall
become a more important motive for nature policies in picture is that a majority of EU citizens considered
the future. However, it is most likely that the current governments to hold the prime responsibility for the
majority having an ecocentric view will not decline. protection and management of nature.
Broad agreement exists on the need to preserve

nature
Two thirds of all respondents disagreed with the
proposition that too much emphasis is being placed
on nature conservation. This implies there is broad
agreement on the need to preserve nature (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Opinions
Opinions about
about nature
nature conservation,
conservation, 2014
2014
Too much emphasis has been placed on nature conservation
2%
5%
Very much disagree
9%
26 % Disagree
Slightly disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Slightly agree
17 % Agree
Very much agree
Included countries:
l
l.n
pb

24 %
17 % Sweden, United Kingdom
Figure 5
Opinions about the
whoresponsibility for protection
is mainly responsible and management
for protection of natureofand
and management the environment,
nature and 2014
the environment, 2014
2%
7% 15 % EU government
9% National government
Regional government
Local government
16 % Citizens
Conservation organisations
32 % Farmers, landowners, and hunters

Businesses and companies
l
l.n
pb
10 %
Included countries:
France, Germany,
9%
The Netherlands, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
Source: GfK; analysis by Wageningen UR Sweden, United Kingdom
Summary | 11
| 13
STLUSER LLUF
FULL RESULTS
ONE
Introduction
1.1 Background This report presents the results of a survey on motives

and beliefs regarding nature in nine EU Member States
People value nature for various reasons. One person is along with a systematic literature review of
enchanted by nature’s beauty while another appreciates representative surveys about attitudes towards nature
nature’s ability to produce timber or clean air. How and the environment. In addition, the dynamics of
people value nature is partly based on their beliefs and motives and beliefs over time receives special attention,
motives. Basic questions are whether one considers since this is relevant in outlook studies.
humans to be superior to nature or an inseparable part of
nature and whether nature is resilient or fragile in the face This survey is part of the Nature Outlook project by PBL
of human pressure. People’s beliefs and motives are Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which
dynamic and have changed over the last century. Even explores the multiple ways people view and value nature.
though only very few Europe-wide, longitudinal surveys The project aims to provide building blocks for a new EU
of images and values of nature have been carried out, it is Biodiversity Strategy, as people with different beliefs and
possible to deduce the dynamics of these changes from motives may prefer different futures for nature.
research into related subjects, such as cultural values The Nature Outlook develops pathways that may
(Inglehart, 1997, 2008), environmental attitudes (Dunlap, contribute to realising the 2050 vision of the EU
2008; Dunlap and York, 2008; Hawcroft and Milfont, Biodiversity Strategy (European Commission, 2011).
2010) and the awareness of nature policies and their The design of these pathways starts with contrasting
underlying motivations. (Küchler-Krischun, Schell, perspectives on nature. The survey of citizens’ nature-
Erdmann and Mues, 2014; Natural England, 2014; Opačić, related beliefs and motives is one of the tools used in the
2014; TNS Political and Social, 2013; 2015; Union for Ethical development of these different perspectives.
BioTrade, 2014).
This report uses the concept of images of nature to describe the
People’s beliefs and motives concerning nature do, more nature-related beliefs and motives of European citizens. Images of
or less subconsciously, influence how people discuss nature are cognitive reflections of prior experiences with nature and
nature and act in relation to it. Although the relationship discourses about nature that direct and structure perception and
between beliefs and behaviour is not straightforward, appreciation (Buijs, 2009; Buijs et al., 2012; Keulartz, Van der
insights into the connection are relevant for the debate Windt and Swart, 2004). The concept not only considers
on the future of nature policies. cognitive aspects but also takes into account the normative
dimension or values of nature. In the survey, the focus is on

ENO
individually held images and values, not on those held by The questions were based on earlier surveys carried out in
social groups or entire societies. Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
The Dutch version was compiled jointly by GfK and the
The survey considers four aspects: authors of this report. GfK was responsible for the
• the cognitive dimension, referring to the way people translations, using translators to convert the Dutch
define or understand nature; questionnaire into English and then into the seven other
• the normative dimension, referring to the way people languages. Subsequently, proofreaders were hired to review
value nature in general; the spelling and grammar. Furthermore, PBL consulted
• the objectives for management of nature areas with a native speaking nature experts in each country to check the
specification of values in terms of their functions and translation of terms related to nature and the environment.
ecosystem services; The full questionnaire is reproduced in Annex 1, and Annex 2
• the responsibility for nature management, asking who is details the response to the questions.
in charge of nature preservation.
1.4 Reader
1.2 Aim
Section 2 presents and discusses the cognitive dimension
The aim is to provide an overview of the diversity of of images of nature and Section 3 deals with the value
images and values of nature held by EU citizens, dimension. The preferred functions of nature, and the
including: responsibility for nature preservation follow in Sections 4
• the present-day images and values of nature in the EU; and 5, respectively. Each section highlights the overall
• the differences and similarities between different survey scores, the variations between Member States and
Member States with regard to images and values; between people of similar age, who have a similar
• an insight into the characteristics of individuals, such as educational background and living environment.
age, education and living environment, that may A glossary of terms can be found in Annex 5.
influence the dynamics of the images and values of
nature.
1.3 Approach
A representative survey was performed in nine Member
States: France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United
Kingdom. This selection is considered to be
representative for the diversity in language groups
(Germanic, Romance and Slavic), as well as the various
spatial planning and governance traditions and cultural
values. The international market research bureau GfK
executed the survey, inviting members of their internet
panels from the nine countries to participate in an online
survey from 3 to 16 September 2014. Of all the invited
panel members, 15% returned a completed
questionnaire. This means a total of 9,021 European
citizens, roughly 1,000 in each country, participated in the
survey. The sample is representative for age, gender and
education and there was sufficient response from rural
areas to perform a statistical analysis on differences
between environments (cities, towns, villages and
countryside). Annex 1 gives a more detailed explanation
of the survey approach.
Introduction | 15
TWO
Conceptions of nature
The cognitive dimension of images of nature reveals what The average scores on naturalness awarded to these two
people consider real nature. The respondents had to groups are a good illustration of the variation between
examine nine examples of nature and indicate the extent countries (Figure 2.2, Annex 3). First of all, in all countries
to which they considered each example to be ‘real’ nature respondents rate the very human-dependent group as
(Figure 2.1). The results show that the respondents have a less natural than the less human-dependent group, with a
broad image of nature: a majority considers all examples mean rating of 4.8 against 5.9. This finding corresponds
to be real nature, to a greater or lesser extent. Although with the results a series of Dutch surveys on the cognitive
city parks are rated as the least natural, 30% consider them dimensions of images of nature (Buijs and Volker, 1997; De
to be natural or very natural. Primeval forests are seen as Bakker, Van Koppen and Vader, 2007; De Boer et al., 2014).
the most natural type of nature in the survey, with 82% of
respondents rating them as natural or very natural. These Secondly, there are some differences between Member
results agree closely with the ranking by the authors that States in the ranking of meadows and wild flowers.
was used to choose the nine examples of nature. The French consider their meadows to be more natural
than average, while the Polish, the British and the Dutch
The response, both overall and within the individual rate them less natural than average. These three
countries, leads to the following characterisation of two nationalities also give wild flowers at the roadside a lower
nature groups: (see Annex 3 for a description of the rating than the other countries. Perception is one
methodology): explanation for the difference in ranking, and varying
• The group of less human-dependent nature includes ‘naturalness’ between countries could be another
primeval forests, birds of prey, swamps and wild flowers explanation. For example, Dutch meadows are less
at the roadside. Experts consider these to be represen- natural because to a large extent they are intensively
tative of nature which develops with very little human managed, while French meadows are generally less
interference. intensively used.
• The group of very human-dependent nature includes
city parks, large crop fields, garden plants and timber Finally, it is striking that the differences in perceived
forests. These types are referred to as human- naturalness between the two groups of nature are
dependent nature since they are intensively used relatively small in Romania, Spain, Poland and the United
and managed by humans. Kingdom where citizens rate human-dependent nature
higher and autonomous nature lower than their
Meadows with grazing cattle are seen as belonging to counterparts in Germany, Slovakia, Sweden, the
both groups. Netherlands and France.

OWT
Figure 2.1
Opinions about the degree of naturalness for certain types of nature, 2014
7 High degree of naturalness

Primeval forests
6
5
Birds of prey
4
Swamps 3
2
Meadows with flowers
and grazing cattle 1 No naturalness
Wild flowers at the road side Included countries:

Forest plantations
Garden plants
Large crop fields
City parks
pbl.nl
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of respondents
Figure 2.2
Opinions about the degree of naturalness of nature, per country, 2014
Romania Very human-dependent nature

Spain Less human-dependent nature
Poland
United Kingdom
Slovakia
Germany
Sweden
Netherlands
France
Total
pbl.nl
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Very much so
Source: GfK; analysis Wageningen UR
Conceptions of nature | 17
TWO
Figure 2.3 about the degree of naturalness of nature, per age, 2014
Opinions
Opinions about the degree of naturalness of nature, per age, 2014
Very human-dependent nature
Under 25 Less human-dependent nature
Included countries:
25 – 49 Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
Over 49
pbl.nl
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Very much so
Older people give higher ratings than younger people to

the naturalness of both autonomous and human-
dependent nature (Figure 3). The differences between the
three age groups are statistically significant and a
possible explanation is that longer experience with
nature promotes the appreciation of naturalness. In
contrast, the analyses show that the influence of
education and living environment on opinions about
naturalness is less pronounced.

THREE
How nature is valued
Europeans have contrasting opinions on the right way of An explorative factor analysis revealed the three factors
dealing with nature. Ethical views on nature differ. that account for the variation in the response to these
This section explores the normative dimension of propositions, (see Annex 3):
citizens’ images of nature and measures the variety • an anthropocentric factor in propositions b and c that
among opinions about values of nature in a more indicates to what extent the respondents agree with
comprehensive way through an analysis of the response utilitarian values of nature;
to six propositions. The question was to what extent the • an ecocentric factor in propositions a and d that reveals
respondents agreed with the propositions that: to what extent respondents appreciate the intrinsic
a. Vulnerable nature areas should be closed to leisure and value of nature;
recreational activities. • a holistic factor in propositions e and f that shows to
b. We should use nature in such a way that we get the what extent the respondents agree with a vision that
most economic value from it. nature comprises much more than the fate of an
c. Too much emphasis has been placed on nature individual animal or plant and that nature conservation
conservation. should focus on the preservation of habitats and
d. Hunting is cruel and inhumane to animals. ecosystems rather than the protection of individuals.
e. It is natural that wild animals sometimes starve to death
or are injured by other animals, and we should accept This section presents the results of the comprehensive
that. analysis. The results for the individual propositions are
f. Trees may be felled if needed to increase the diversity of given in Annex 2. These show that there occasionally is a
species in a forest. striking variation in opinion as can be seen in Box 1 with
the proposition on hunting. The variations are slightly
less pronounced in the comprehensive presentation.
Section 3.1 describes and discusses the overall results for

all respondents and Section 3.2 details the differences the
survey revealed between Member States. Finally, Section
3.3 looks at the dynamics of these values.

EERHT
Box 1: Opinions about hunting diverge widely
Figure 3.1
Opinions about hunting, per country, 2014
How do you feel about the proposition that hunting is cruel and inhumane to the animals?
Spain Very much agree

United Kingdom Agree
Romania Somewhat agree
Germany Neither disagree nor agree
France Somewhat disagree
Poland Disagree
Slovakia
Very much disagree
Netherlands
Sweden
Total
pbl.nl
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of respondents
The extent to which ethical views differ between persons and countries is clearly illustrated by the response to the
proposition that hunting is cruel and inhumane to animals. Of all respondents, 54% agree to a certain point with
this proposition, which underpins the predominance of ecocentric over anthropocentric values. In some countries,
this moral issue, which centres around animal rights, hunting methods and the motives for hunting, generates
heated debates. A survey in the Netherlands showed that hunting is more widely accepted when done to prevent
the starvation of wild animals than to prevent wildlife causing damage to crops or danger to traffic
(Natuurmonumenten (Dutch nature conservation society), 2014). In Sweden, only 25% of the respondents agree to
some extent with the proposition. The familiarity of the Swedes with hunting and the local consumption of game
meat could be an explanation for the broad acceptance there (Svenska Jägareförbundet, 2014). At the other end of
the spectrum is the United Kingdom, where 69% agree to some extent with the proposition. This may be a
reflection of the ongoing intensive public debate about fox hunting with hounds which started ten years ago
(Mason, 2015). The Netherlands seems to be the most divided country when it comes to hunting with 40% of
respondents agreeing with the proposition and 40% disagreeing.
How nature is valued | 21

THREE
3.1 Results for all respondents Kunze, Muhar, Yoshida and Penker, 2013). Nevertheless,
the few quantitative surveys of attitudes towards nature
Though the response to the propositions varies widely, it that are available in Europe are in line with the findings
is clear that in the European citizens’ appreciation of published in this report. A representative survey in France,
nature, ecocentric and holistic values carry more weight Germany and the Netherlands (De Groot, Drenthen and De
than anthropocentric values (Figure 3.2). Around 40% of Groot, 2011) revealed that almost all respondents adhered
respondents agree or very much agree with propositions to non-anthropocentric values of nature. Less than 15% of
drawn up to measure ecocentric and holistic values and the respondents in that survey adhere to the
around 14% disagree or very much disagree. In the same anthropocentric attitude called ‘mastery over nature’
vein, 40% disagree or very much disagree with which holds that humans stand above nature, may act as
propositions that measure anthropocentric values and they please, and are not bound by moral restraints or
around 14% agree or very much agree. Finally, half of all awareness of nature’s fragility. All other attitudes can be
respondents indicate no strong preferences on any of the considered ecocentric because they conceive of humans as
three response scales, neither agreeing nor disagreeing part of nature, making them responsible for preserving the
with the propositions, or only somewhat. The following intrinsic value of nature, now and for future generations,
section discusses three of the findings. but attitudes differ in the way they feel connected to
nature In a Polish survey, Hunka, De Groot and Biela (2009)
3.1.1 Predominance of ecocentric values found that most respondents agree with ecocentric rather
Most of the research literature supporting the measured than with anthropocentric values of nature.
predominance of ecocentric or non-anthropocentric values
does not focus on values of nature, but on the related 3.1.2 Anthropocentric values
subject of environmental attitudes. Many studies use the The identification of a distinct but much smaller group of
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale to characterise respondents who hold evident anthropocentric or
environmental attitudes of preservation versus utilisation non-ecocentric values confirms the findings of De Groot
(Milfont and Duckitt, 2004; Milfont and Duckitt, 2010; et al. (2011) which point to the existence of a group of
Wiseman and Bogner, 2003). Preservation refers to the people that can be typified as following the principle of
belief that nature and biodiversity should be preserved in ‘mastery over nature’. It also confirms the results of the
their original state. To achieve this, it is assumed that nature Flash Eurobarometer on Biodiversity (TNS Political and
has to be protected from use and alteration by humans. Social, 2015) concerning the proposition that ‘Sometimes
Utilisation refers to the belief that the use and alteration of economic development results in damage or destruction
nature and biodiversity is legitimate and necessary for of nature protection areas’. In this survey, 7% of EU
human development (Milfont and Duckitt, 2010). The NEP citizens indicated that the assertion closest to their
scale corresponds more or less with the ecocentric and opinion was ‘acceptable because economic development
anthropocentric factors applied in the survey. takes precedence’. On the other hand, 46% of the
respondents in the Flash Eurobarometer indicated that
Over the past 25 years, surveys of environmental attitudes these economic developments should be prohibited. The
around the world using the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) pragmatic middle, 41% of the respondents, indicated that
scale have clearly shown that European citizens have a damage was only acceptable for developments of major
preference for preservation rather than utilisation of the public interest and when fully compensated for.
environment (Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010). Several
European publications confirming this are: Bauer, Wallner 3.1.3 The pragmatic middle
and Hunziker (2009), Bonnes, Passafaro and Carrus (2011), The implications of the fact that about half of the
Gesis (2013), Hedlund-De Witt, De Boer and Boersema respondents seems to have no strong value preferences at
(2014), Jiménez Sánchez and Lafuente (2010), Sevenant and all are not so unequivocal. Could it be that people do not
Antrop (2010) and Bozonnet (2014). Dunlap, Schmidt and care about the issues? Do they not feel knowledgeable
Guerra (2011) demonstrated that at present a enough to react to these normative propositions? Do they
preservationist attitude towards the environment weigh values pragmatically? De Groot et al. (2011)
predominates in all European countries except Azerbaijan. estimated that 91% of their respondents can be typified as
‘guardians of nature’. This attitude is characterised by a
However, the predominance of a preservationist attitude strong agreement with propositions such as ‘we have to
does not necessarily imply that people adhere to ensure that we leave enough nature intact for future
ecocentric or non-anthropocentric values of nature. Most generations’, ‘we must not set ourselves above nature, but
research on values of nature has been carried out in the must work together with it’, ‘human beings are part of
21st century and been based on samples that are not nature (and are also responsible for it)’ and ‘human beings
statistically representative for the whole population (Flint, have a responsibility to conserve the nature environment’.

EERHT
Figure 3.2
Opinions about the values of nature, 2014
Very much agree

Appreciate
Agree
anthropocentric
values Somewhat agree
Appreciate Somewhat disagree
ecocentric Disagree
values
Very much disagree
Appreciate
Included countries:
holistic
values
pbl.nl
0 20 40 60 80 100
%
Figure 3.3
Opinions about
Opinions about the
the values
values of
of nature,
nature, per
per country,
country, 2014
2014
Appreciate anthropocentric values

France
Appreciate ecocentric values
Germany Appreciate holistic values
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Total
pbl.nl
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
disagree agree
Bron: GfK; analysis by Wageningen UR

THREE
Figure 3.4
Opinions about the antropocentric values of nature, 2014
Total Included countries:

Age Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
Under 25
Over 49
Education
Primary education
Tertiary education
Living environment
In the countryside outside villages
In a large city with more
than 60.000 inhabitants pbl.nl
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
disagree agree
Therefore, according to this 2011 study, the general ranking on the anthropocentric scale and comes second
population is more ecocentric than anthropocentric. on the ecocentric scale.
On the other hand, Bozonnet (2005, 2014) concluded that
three quarters of the Europeans are not very committed Secondly, a systematic difference between countries was
or even indifferent to all the grand narratives about the expected, based on their material wealth. This
environment, and therefore neither ecocentric nor assumption is based on Inglehart’s finding that in
anthropocentric. His conclusion is founded on the high countries with a higher GDP per capita, the more
percentage of Europeans that did not answer the non-materialistic cultural values predominate (Inglehart,
questions of the NEP scale in the European Value Study. 2008). The correlation did not reveal a statistically
significant relationship between any of the three factors
from this survey and GDP per capita.
3.2 Variations between countries
The variation in opinions about values of nature as
presented in Section 3.1 is observed in most Member 3.3 Dynamics of the values of nature
States, although there are differences between countries.
In all countries, the respondents on average disagree with In the past decades, cultural values in Europe have not
anthropocentric values and agree with ecocentric values remained static, but changed drastically from
(Figure 3.3). Only with regard to holistic values, the predominantly materialistic to post-materialistic
response that does not conform to the overall picture is (Inglehart, 2008). In addition, Inglehart expects a further,
from Romania and Spain where respondents slightly but less pronounced, shift in values in the decades ahead,
disagree with the propositions. Most of these citizens do because the cultural values of today’s youngest generation
not agree with proposals to fell trees to benefit the are still less materialistic than those of older generations.
ecological development of the woods or to leave starving The question now is whether values concerning nature and
animals to their lot. the environment have changed as well and how they may
change in the future. Future developments are inherently
Although the differences between Member States are uncertain, but highly relevant when rethinking nature
statistically significant, the survey analysis does not policies for the decades ahead. Since intergenerational
provide a systematic explanation of the rankings. A low differences have been a driver for changing cultural values
ranking on the anthropocentric scale was expected to be in the past (Inglehart, 2008), a summary of the survey’s
coupled to a high ranking on the ecocentric scale. While results regarding differences between generations is
this is the case for Germany for instance, for most provided first. A discussion of the implications follows in
countries this assumed relationship was not found. This is the form of a systematic literature review of quantitative
most clearly observed in France, which has the highest surveys on values of nature and the environment.

EERHT
The survey shows that the values of the youngest However, the uncertainties about a possible future trend
generation differ significantly from those of older citizens towards less anthropocentric values are considerable.
(Figure 3.4). The respondents younger than 25 disagree First of all, as suggested by De Groot and Van den Born
more with anthropocentric values than those over 49. (2003), Van den Born (2008) and Hunka et al. (2009),
Similar marked, although less strong relationships were no evidence was found for a shift in values of nature in
found between age and ecocentric and holistic values. the past, simply because the systematic literature review
The differences between educational levels are even of representative quantitative surveys revealed no
larger than between age groups: people who have longitudinal data on nature values. Furthermore,
attained higher levels of education agree less with a secondary analysis, described in Annex 4, of worldwide
anthropocentric values and more with ecocentric and quantative monitoring data based on the NEP scale
holistic values. shows no statistically significant increase of
preservationist values at the expense of utilitarian values
These findings are in line with a study by Inglehart (2008) during the 1987–2007 period in Europe. On the other
who, on the basis of a 35-year-long monitoring hand, the International Social Survey Programme
programme of cultural values, convincingly revealed a slight decline in preservationist values during
demonstrated how today’s young generation in Europe the first decade of the 21st century (Franzen and Vogl,
agrees more with post-materialistic values than older 2013).
generations do. Although with less pronounced
differences than in the previous 35 years, Inglehart Ecocentric values will probably remain predominant over
believes that the same process will cause post- anthropocentric values of nature, but there is insufficient
materialistic values to become even more predominant. evidence to affirm that they will become more important.
His records revealed a drastic shift from materialist to
post-materialist values, caused by a process of
intergenerational change. Values are often specific to a
certain generation, as these are formed in people’s early
years and stay with them throughout their lives.
This means that the predominant values held by a
particular generation become less prevalent as this
generation ages and ultimately dwindles in size. In the
past, this intergenerational shift in values was caused by
the dramatic rise in existential security after World War II.
In the coming years, people in Europe may become even
less anthropocentric than they are today, assuming that
values of nature change in the same way as cultural
values have changed during the past decades, and will
continue to do so in the future, according to Inglehart’s
expectations. Increasing numbers of people attaining
higher education may further support a trend towards
non-anthropocentric or preservationist values (Franzen
and Vogl, 2013).

FOUR
Objectives for nature
management
The management of nature areas may have various The results show that the respondents have a broad,
objectives, which are detailed specifications of the values of multi-objective perspective on nature. On average, all
nature. Two people can share a strong preference for presented objectives are considered important to very
ecocentric values but disagree on the functions of a certain
nature area. For instance, one can be in favour of preserving important (Figure 4.1). Even the least important objective,
pristine areas while the other loves cultural landscape the maximisation of the provision of goods and services,
heritage. As these preferences are not always mutually was rated as important to some extent by a majority of the
compatible within a single nature area, an insight in the array respondents.
of preferred objectives for management is required.
The variation in responses can be summarised in a more
The opinion of the respondents was estimated by asking comprehensive way into three groups that were revealed
them to value the importance of ten management by an explorative factor analysis (see Annex 3 for a
objectives which promoted values ranging from detailed description):
unambiguously ecocentric to clearly anthropocentric: • Multiple objectives, a group with the most important
objectives, including intrinsic values (the diversity of
• the diversity of species and plants animal and plant species, the conservation of pristine
• the conservation of pristine areas areas, beautiful landscapes, the conservation of old and
• beautiful landscapes characteristic landscape features) and the regulating
• the conservation of old and characteristic landscape ecosystem services (e.g. flood prevention, clean air and
features clean water). Figure 12 shows that this group is conside-
• the identity of local communities red to be more important than the other two groups.
• the contribution to flood prevention • Utilitarian objectives, a group with clear utilitarian motives
• the production of clean air and clean water aiming to maximise the provision of goods and services,
• the attractiveness for recreation prevent damage to agriculture and other forms of land use
• the maximum provision of goods and services, such as by pest species, and contribute to flood prevention.
by forestry, hydroelectric power stations and wind farms • Cultural objectives, a group relating to cultural ecosystem
• the prevention of damage to agricultural and other land services involving beautiful landscapes, the attractiveness
uses by, for example, predators, pests and weeds for recreational activities and the identity of local
communities.

RUOF
Figure 4.1
Opinions
Opinions about
about objectives
objectives for
for nature
nature management,
management, 2014
2014
How important do you consider the objectives for nature management?
Clean water and air

Conservation pristine areas
Diversity of species
Conservation landscape heritage
Contribution to flood prevention
Beautiful landscapes
Prevention of damage to economic activities
Identity of local communities
Maximum provision of goods
Attractiveness for recreation
pbl.nl
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of respondents
Very important Not very important Included countries:

Important Not important France, Germany, The Netherlands,
A little bit important Not important at all Sweden, United Kingdom
Neutral
Figure 4.2
Opinions about objectives for management of natural areas, per country, 2014
Romania Multiple objectives
Poland Utilitarian objectives

Slovakia Cultural objectives
Spain
France
Germany
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Sweden
Total
pbl.nl
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not important Neutral Very
at all important
The variation in ranking of objectives between countries Individual traits have a limited influence on the valuing of
is summarised in Figure 4.2. Citizens from Germany, the objectives. Only age has a distinct weight as older people
Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom rate all were found to rate the objectives more highly. This seems
objectives as slightly less important than average, but the to be in line with what the survey revealed about age and
Eastern European Member States rate them as slightly the valuing of the naturalness of nature types.
more important.
Objectives for nature management | 27

FIVE
Responsibility for protection
of nature
To gain insight into who is responsible for the protection Considerable differences between countries do exist.
and management of nature and the environment, As for the levels of administration, citizens from Germany,
respondents were asked to rank eight groups of actors. France and Slovakia assign less responsibility to national
and more responsibility to regional governments than
Two thirds of all respondents in this survey consider people in the other Member States. This seems to reflect
governments as the most responsible actor in the the importance of the French arrondissements and
protection of nature and the environment (Figure 5.1). German Länder in their national government structures.
Of all levels of administration, national governments are
pointed to as having far more responsibilities than the EU Of all respondents, the Dutch and the British consider
or regional and local governments. Furthermore, the national governments the most, and the European Union
respondents rank individual citizens as the second most the least responsible for the protection and management
responsible actor. What is remarkable is that local actors of nature. This may reflect a wish for their national
such as landowners, farmers and hunters, are hardly governments to gain more control.
considered to bear any responsibility. Businesses and
companies are believed to be the least responsible. The Romanians and the Slovaks, more than citizens from
other Member States, pointed to individual citizens as the
most responsible actors, revealing a relative preference
for individual action as compared to the other countries.

EVIF
Figure 5.1
Opinions about the responsibility for protection and management of nature and the environment, 2014
Opinions about the responsibility for protection and management of nature and the environment, 2014
2%
7% 15 %
2% EU government
7% 15 %
9% National
EU government
government
9% Regional government
National
Local government
Regional government
Local government
16 % Citizens
16 % Conservation organisations
Citizens
32 % Farmers, landowners,
Conservation and hunters
organisations
32 % Businesses
Farmers, and companies
landowners, and hunters
l
l.n l.n
pb pb
10 % Businesses and companies

l
Included countries:
10 % France, Germany,
9% Included countries:
France, Germany,
9% Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
Responsibility for protection of nature | 29

References
Bauer N, Wallner A and Hunziker M. (2009). De Groot M, Drenthen M and De Groot WT (2011). Public
The change of European landscapes: Human-nature Visions of the Human/Nature Relationship and their
relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, Implications for Environmental Ethics. Environmental
and the implications for landscape management Ethics 33 (1), pp. 25–44.
in Switzerland. Journal of Environmental De Groot WT and Van Den Born RJG. (2003). Visions of
Management 90 (9), pp. 2910–2920. doi: nature and landscape type preferences: an
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.021 exploration in The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban
Bonnes M, Passafaro P and Carrus G. (2011). Planning 63 (3), pp. 127–138. doi: http://dx.doi.
The Ambivalence of Attitudes Toward Urban Green org/10.1016/S0169–2046(02)00184–6
Areas: Between Proenvironmental Worldviews and Dunlap RE. (2008). The new environmental paradigm
Daily Residential Experience. Environment and scale: From marginality to worldwide use. Journal of
Behavior 43 (2), pp. 207–232. doi: environmental education (40), pp. 3–18.
10.1177/0013916509354699 Dunlap RE, Schmidt L and Guerra J. (2011). Searching for
Bozonnet JP. (2005). L’écologisme en Europe: les jeunes an ecological worldview in Europe. Fundação Calouste
désertent. In: Galland O and Rudet B. (eds.), Les Gulbenkian, Lisbon.
jeunes Européens et leur valeurs. La Découverte, Dunlap RE and Van Liere KD. (1978). A proposed
Paris. measuring instrument and preliminary results:
Bozonnet JP. (2014). L’écocentrisme en Europe: une The New Environmental Paradigm. Journal of
mise en récit de la nature, postindustrielle et Environmental Education (9), pp. 10–19.
post-religieuse. In: Bréchon P and Gonthier F. (eds.), Dunlap RE and York R. (2008). The globalization of
Les valeurs des Européens, Évolution et clivages. environmental concern and the limits of the post-
Armand Colin, Paris, pp. 89–104. materialist explanation: Evidence from cross-national
Buijs AE. (2009). Lay People’s Images of Nature: surveys. Sociological Quarterly (49), pp. 529–563.
Comprehensive Frameworks of Values, Beliefs, and European Commission (2011). Our life insurance, our
Value Orientations. Society & Natural Resources 22 natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.
(5), pp. 417–432. doi: 10.1080/08941920801901335 Brussels.
Buijs AE, Hovardas T, Figari H, Castro P, Devine-Wright P, Flint CG, Kunze I, Muhar A, Yoshida Y and Penker M.
Fischer A and Selge S. (2012). Understanding People’s (2013). Exploring empirical typologies of human–
Ideas on Natural Resource Management: Research on nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem
Social Representations of Nature. Society and Natural services concept. Landscape and Urban Planning
Resources 25 (11), pp. 1167–1181. (120), pp. 208–217. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Buijs AE and Volker CM. (1997). Publiek draagvlak voor landurbplan.2013.09.002
natuur en natuurbeleid [Public support for nature and Franzen A and Vogl D. (2013). Two decades of measuring
nature management (in Dutch)]. Staring Centrum, environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of
Wageningen. 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23 (5),
De Bakker HCM, Van Koppen CSA and Vader J. (2007). pp. 1001–1008. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Het groene hart van burgers; Maatschappelijk gloenvcha.2013.03.009
draagvlak voor natuur en natuurbeleid [Social support Gagnon Thompson SC and Barton MA. (1994). Ecocentric
for nature and nature management (in Dutch)]. and anthropocentric attitudes toward the
WOt report 126. Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology
Natuur & Milieu, Wageningen. 14 (2), pp. 149–157. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
De Boer TA, De Blaeij AT, Elands BHM, De Bakker HCM, S0272–4944(05)80168–9
Van Koppen CSA and Buijs AE. (2014). Maatschappelijk Gesis J. (2013). European Values Study: 2008 variable
draagvlak voor natuur en natuurbeleid in 2013 report of integrated dataset. Leibniz Institute for the
[Social support for nature and nature management Social Sciences.
in 2013 (in Dutch)]. WOt document. Wettelijke
Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu, Wageningen.

Hawcroft LJ and Milfont TL. (2010). The use (and abuse) Opačić B. (2014). Informiranost i stavovi javnosti o
of the new environmental paradigm scale over the zaštiti prirode: Rezultati istraživanja javnog mnijenja
last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of o stavovima vezanim uz zaštitu prirode. Drzavni
Environmental Psychology, 30 (2), pp. 143–158. zavod za zastitu prirode, Zagreb.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003 Sevenant M and Antrop M. (2010). Transdisciplinary
Hedlund-De Witt A, De Boer J and Boersema JJ. (2014). landscape planning: Does the public have aspirations?
Exploring inner and outer worlds: A quantitative study Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders,
of worldviews, environmental attitudes, and Belgium). Land Use Policy 27 (2), pp. 373–386. doi:
sustainable lifestyles. Journal of Environmental http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.05.005
Psychology 37 (0), pp. 40–54. doi: http://dx.doi. Svenska Jägareförbundet (2014). Sweden – a country
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.005 of endless hunting opportunities. Svenska
Hunka AD, De Groot WT and Biela A. (2009). Visions Jägareförbundet, Stokholm.
of Nature in Eastern Europe: A Polish Example. TNS Political & Social (2013). Attitudes towards
Environmental Values 18(4), pp. 429–452. doi: biodiversity Flash Eurobarometer, p. 89. European
10.3197/096327109x12532653285777 Commision, Brussels.
Inglehart RF. (1997). Modernization and TNS Political & Social (2015). Attitudes of European
Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political towards biodiversity. Flash Eurobarometer nr 436.
Change in 43 Societies (Vol. null). European Commision, Brussels.
Inglehart RF. (2008). Changing Values among Western Tosics I, Szemző H, Illés D, Gertheis A, Lalenis K and
Publics from 1970 to 2006. West European Politics 31 Kalegris D. (2010). National spatial planning policies
(1–2), pp. 130–146. doi: 10.1080/01402380701834747 and governance typology. PLUREL Deliverable report
Jiménez Sánchez M and Lafuente R. (2010). Defining and (Vol. 2.2.1).
meausring environmental consiousness. Revista Union for Ethical BioTrade (2014). UEBT Biodiversity
Internacional de Sociología, 68 (3), pp. 731–755. Barometer 2009–2014. Union for Ethical BioTrade,
doi: doi:10.3989/ris.2008.11.03 Amsterdam.
Keulartz J, Van Der Windt H and Swart J. (2004). Van Den Born RJG (2008). Rethinking Nature: Public
Concepts of nature as communicative devices: Visions in the Netherlands. Environmental Values
the case of Dutch nature policy. Environmental Values 17(1), pp. 83–109. doi: 10.3197/096327108x271969
(13), pp. 81–99. Wiseman M and Bogner FX. (2003). A higher-order
Kortenkamp KV and Moore CF. (2001). Ecocentrism model of ecological values and its relationship to
and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about personality. Personality and Individual Differences
ecological commons dillemmas. Journal of (34), pp. 783–794.
Environmental Psychology 21 (3), pp. 261–272. Zweers W. (2000). Participating with Nature:
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0205 Outline for an Ecologization of Our World View.
Küchler-Krischun J, Schell C, Erdmann KH and Mues AW. International Books, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
(2014). Naturbewusstsein 2013: Bevölkerungumfrage
zu Natur und biologischer Vielfalt. Bundesamt für
Naturschutz, Bonn.
Mason R. (2015, 14 July). Government shelves foxhunting
vote after SNP opposition. The Guardian.
Milfont TL and Duckitt J. (2004). The structure of
environmental attitudes: a first and second-order
confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology (24), pp. 289–303.
Milfont TL and Duckitt J. (2010). The environmental
attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to
assess the structure of environmental attitudes.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 (1),
pp. 80–94.
Natural England (2014). Monitor of engagement
with the natural environment. Natural England.
Natuurmonumenten (2014). Resultaten groot
wild enquete.
References | 31
Annex 1
The survey in detail
A 1.1 Selection of countries A 2.2 Data collection: the survey

For practical reasons, PBL could not carry out the survey The survey was executed by GfK, an international market
in all EU Member States and, therefore, selected the research bureau, using online panels in the nine selected
following countries: countries. The aim was to prompt a response of 1,000
• France questionnaires in each country, completed by a
• Germany representative sample of the population between 16 and 74
• Netherlands years old. The panel members were invited to submit their
• Poland questionnaires between 3 and 16 September 2014. While the
• Slovakia population sampling was stratified on age, education and
• Spain gender, the response to the question about living
• Sweden environment was also monitored to ensure sufficient
• Romania response was gathered from rural areas. During the course
• United Kingdom of the survey, a one-time reminder was sent to participants
who had not yet responded by a certain date. All participants
The selection was based on the following criteria: received a symbolic compensation of about one euro.
• a more or less equal distribution over major language
groups in Europe (Romance, Germanic and Slavic); In total, 74,248 European citizens were invited to take part,
• a selection of countries in each language group so as to but two thirds did not accept the invitation. One fifth of the
represent the variation in citizen opinion of the relation- responses received was rejected, either because the
ship between economy and ecology, citizen involvement questionnaire was submitted too late or because the
in nature and the potential strength of government established quota for age, gender or education had been
regulations on land-use change. The choice was based on reached. Of all invited panel members, a relatively low share
information from the Flash Eurobarometer (TNS Political (12%) returned a fully completed questionnaire. That is to
& Social, 2013: questions 11-1 and 13-3) and on planning say, a total of 9,021 Europeans, roughly a 1,000 in each
policies (Tosics et al., 2010). country, participated in the survey. (Figure A 1.1).
• the possibilities for internet surveying. Furthermore, certain countries had a rather high percentage
of rejected responses, such as Poland with 39%. This high
figure is to some extent explained by the GfK strategy to
ensure enough response from groups that are known to
react poorly. A large number of citizens were invited, but
could only participate in the survey as long as the quotas for
the strata they belong to had not been reached yet.

Figure A 1.1
Response of panel members to invitation, per country, 2014
Netherlands Full response

Sweden Rejected responses
Germany (too late, full quota,
incomplete)
Poland
No response
Slovakia
France
Spain
Romania
United Kingdom
Total
pbl.nl
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of invitations
Source: GfK
A 1.3 Representativeness
Great effort was made to gather a sufficient amount of
fully completed questionnaires but this may have had the
consequence that the sampling of participants, in spite of
the applied quota for age, education and gender, was
skewed instead of random. In some countries, involving
certain groups proved to be a challenge. Table A 1.1
compares the response per country with census data to
highlight underrepresented or overrepresented groups in
the survey. It is safe to conclude that the response is
representative for the population insofar as gender and
age are concerned.
However, the response from people with a low level of

education is rather poor in most countries, with the
exception of Germany and Slovakia. The largest
discrepancy occurs in the response from Romania. People
who have attained low levels of education are less well
represented in online panels as access to the internet is
less common in this group.
Limited internet access may also explain the considerable

underrepresentation of people living in rural areas in
Poland and Slovakia. On the other hand, the urban
population in the Netherlands and France is also
markedly underrepresented. Nevertheless, in all cases
there are enough respondents to perform statistical
analyses and tests.
Annexes | 33
Table A 1.1
Respondents’ individual characteristics compared with population data
United
Germany Spain France Netherlands Poland Romania Slovakia Sweden Kingdom
population
response
population
response
population
response
population
response
population
response
population
response
population
response
population
response
population
response
Gender1
Male 49% 49% 49% 49% 48% 48% 50% 50% 48% 48% 49% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 49% 49%
Female 51% 51% 51% 51% 52% 52% 50% 50% 52% 52% 51% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 51% 51%
Age 1
16–24 13% 13% 12% 12% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 14% 14% 13% 13% 16% 16% 16% 16%
25–49 46% 46% 53% 52% 46% 46% 46% 46% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 46% 46% 48% 47%
50–74 41% 41% 35% 35% 38% 38% 39% 39% 37% 36% 37% 37% 39% 39% 38% 38% 36% 37%
Education1
Low 18% 18% 25% 16% 28% 9% 29% 17% 16% 5% 28% 6% 19% 18% 23% 14% 22% 4%
Middle 57% 52% 44% 45% 43% 52% 42% 48% 61% 69% 58% 75% 57% 54% 46% 47% 43% 51%
High 25% 29% 31% 39% 29% 38% 29% 35% 23% 26% 14% 19% 24% 28% 31% 39% 36% 44%
Living environment 2
Urban 74% 70% 77% 85% 86% 56% 83% 69% 61% 83% 53% 86% 55% 60% 85% 74% 80% 77%
(cities & towns)
Rural (villages & 26% 30% 23% 15% 14% 44% 17% 31% 39% 17% 47% 14% 45% 40% 15% 26% 20% 23%
countryside)
Source: 1 Eurostat; 2 World Fact Book

A 1.4 The questionnaire
The Dutch version of the questionnaire was compiled
jointly by GfK and the authors of this report. Taking
charge of the translations, GfK employed translators to
convert the Dutch questionnaire into English and then
from English into the seven other languages.
Subsequently, GfK hired proofreaders who reviewed the
spelling and grammar. Furthermore, PBL consulted
native-speaking nature experts from each country to
check the translations of terms related to nature and the
environment.
Values of nature in the EU

35834
Version 1
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency would like to know your opinion about nature,
landscape and the environment.
For this reason PBL regularly surveys the Dutch population. But we are also interested in the opinion
of people in other European countries about these subjects.
We would like to invite you to participate in this survey. It is not relevant whether you are familiar
with these subjects or not.
Thank you kindly – in advance – for your cooperation!
DEALING WITH NATURE

Selection: ALL
Q1. The following propositions concern how society should deal with nature.
How do you feel about these propositions? [S]
Grid, answers in column Grid, in row: RANDOMIZE
1. Very much disagree a. Vulnerable nature areas should be closed for leisure and
2. Disagree recreational activities.
3. Somewhat disagree b. We should use nature in such a way that we get the
4. Neither disagree nor agree most economic value from it.
5. Somewhat agree c. Too much emphasis has been placed on nature
6. Agree conservation.
7. Very much agree d. Hunting is cruel and inhumane to animals.
e. It is natural that wild animals sometimes sterve to death
or are injured by other animals, and we should accept
that.
f. Trees may be felled if needed to increase the diversity of
species in a forest.
Annexes | 35
Selection: ALL
Q2. Here you find some examples of what one could consider nature. Please indicate for all examples
to what extent you consider it to be real nature. [S]
1. Not at all a. Swamps

2. b. Birds of prey
3. c. City parks
4. d. Garden plants
5. e. Wild flowers at the roadside
6. f. Meadows with grazing cattle and flowers
7. Very much so g. Large crop fields
h. Timber forests
i. Primeval forests
Selection: ALL
Q3. How do you feel about the following propositions?

[S]
1. Very much disagree a. If nature areas are allowed to develop freely according
2. Disagree to natural processes, their quality will improve.
3. Somewhat disagree b. Careful human guidance will improve the quality of
4. Neither disagree nor agree nature areas
5. Somewhat agree
6. Agree
7. Very much agree
Selection: ALL
Q4. The management of nature areas has different goals and functions. How important do you consider a focus of this
management on:
[S]
1. Not important at all a. … the diversity of species and plants

2. Not important b. … the conservation of pristine areas
3. Not very important c. … beautiful landscapes
4. Neutral d. … the attraction for recreation
5. A little bit important e. … the contribution to flood prevention
6. Important f. … the production of clean air and clean water
7. Very important g. … t he maximum provision of goods and services through
e.g. forestry, hydroelectric power stations and wind farms
h. … the prevention of damage to agricultural and other
land uses by species, e.g. predators, pests and weeds
i. ... the identity of the local communities
j. … the conservation of old and characteristic landscape
features

Selection: ALL
Q5. In your view, who is responsible for the protection and management of nature and the environment
in your country? Please rank 1–9: 1=most responsible, 9= not responsible at all)
[Q]
EU Local government
National government Conservation organisations
Regional government Businesses and companies
Farmers, landowners, and hunters Individual civilians
CRUCIAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Selection: ALL
Q6. Where do you currently live? Please choose the best option. [S]
1. In a large city or metropolitan area (more than 60,000

inhabitants)
2. In a medium or large town (10,000–60,000 inhabitants)
3. In a village (less than 10,000 inhabitants)
4. In the country side outside towns and villages
Selection: ALL
Q7. What is the highest level of education you have completed? [S]
1. Primary school
2. Left school after age 14 without qualification
3. Secondary school
4. University
• Don’t know
Selection: ALL
Q8. What is your age?

[Q]
years
END OF QUESTION
Annexes | 37
Annex 2
Response to each question
Question 1
The following propositions concern how society should deal with nature.
How do you feel about these propositions?
Vulnerable natural areas should We should use nature in such a way Too much emphasis has been
be closed for leisure and that we get the most economic value placed on nature conservation
recreational activities from it
France France France

Germany Germany Germany
Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands
Poland Poland Poland
Romania Romania Romania
Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia
Spain Spain Spain
Sweden Sweden Sweden
United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom
pbl.nl pbl.nl pbl.nl
0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100

% of respondents % of respondents % of respondents
Hunting is cruel and inhumane It is natural that wild animals starve Trees may be felled if needed
to the animals sometimes to death or are injured to increase the diversity of
by other animals, and we should species in a forest
accept that
Spain Spain Spain
0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100

Very much agree Somewhat disagree

Agree Disagree
Somewhat agree Very much disagree
Source: GfK 2014; analysis Wageningen UR

Question 2 part 1
Here you find some examples of what one could consider nature.
Please indicate for all examples to what extent you consider it to be real nature.
Swamps Birds of prey City parks

Spain Spain Spain
0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100

Garden plants Wild flowers at the roadside Meadows with grazing cattle
and flowers

Spain Spain Spain
0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100


Agree Disagree
Annexes | 39
Question 2 part 2
Here you find some examples of what one could consider nature.
Please indicate for all examples to what extent you consider it to be real nature.
Large crop fields Timber forests Primeval forests

Spain Spain Spain
0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100


Agree Disagree
Question 3
How do you feel about the following propositions?
If natural areas are allowed to develop freely Careful human guidance will improve the quality
according to natural processes, their quality of natural areas
will improve
France France
Germany Germany
Netherlands Netherlands
Poland Poland
Romania Romania
Slovakia Slovakia
Spain Spain
Sweden Sweden
United Kingdom United Kingdom
pbl.nl pbl.nl
0 50 100 0 50 100
% of respondents % of respondents

Agree Disagree

Question 4 part 1
The management of natural areas has different goals and functions.
How important do you consider a focus of this management on the following goals and funtions?
Focus on the diversity of species Focus on the conservation of Focus on beautiful landscapes
and plants pristine areas

Spain Spain Spain
0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100

Focus on the attraction for recreation Focus on the contribution to Focus on the production of clean air
flood prevention and clean water

Spain Spain Spain
0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100

Very important Not very important

Important Not important
A little bit important Not important at all
Neutral
Annexes | 41
Question 4 part 2
The management of natural areas has different goals and functions.
How important do you consider a focus of this management on the following goals and funtions?
Focus on the maximum provision of Focus on the prevention of damage Focus on the identity of the local
goods and services through to agricultural and other land uses communities
e.g. forestry, hydroelectric power by species, e.g. predators, pests
stations and wind farms and weeds
Spain Spain Spain
0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100

Focus on the conservation of old and

characteristic landscape features
France
Germany
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
pbl.nl
0 50 100
% of respondents
Very important Not very important

Important Not important
A little bit important Not important at all
Neutral

Question 5
In your view, who is responsible for the protection and management of nature and
the environment in your country?
France EU government
National government
Germany
Regional government
Netherlands
Local government
Poland
Individual civilians
Romania Conservation organisations
Slovakia Farmers, landowners and hunters
Spain Businesses and companies
Sweden
United Kingdom
pbl.nl
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of respondents
Source: GfK 2014; analysis by Wageningen UR
Annexes | 43
Annex 3
Factor analyses
A 3.1 Introduction The following sections show the results of the factor
analysis for each dimension, overall and per Member
Factor analyses can be used to empirically test a State. In each section, the first table gives the overall
hypothesis, for instance to test whether a proposition fits values of the explained variance of the significant factors
in a theoretical model or to explore similarities in (eigenvalue>1, in order of the explained variance) and the
agreement with the various propositions at the level of extent to which the survey propositions contribute to a
the individual respondent. In this survey, factor analyses factor. Only factor loadings >0.4 with p<0.001 are
were conducted to reveal the variation in the cognitive displayed. The second table in each section displays the
and normative dimensions and in the objectives for results by Member State, showing how the composition
nature management. First, a hypothetical model of of a particular factor in a single country deviates from its
images of nature was tested. The analysis confirmed the equivalent in the overall results. For an explanation of the
model only partly, probably because the chosen results, see the main text and the notes under the tables.
propositions did not adequately address the cultural
differences between Member States or because of the The value of each factor is the mean of all variables that
wording or even the way they were translated. Therefore, contribute to the variation of the factor. The value ranges
explorative factor analyses were carried out only to from 1 (not natural at all / very much disagree / very
describe the measured variations. The factor analyses unimportant), through 4 (neutral) to 7 (very natural / very
were executed per country and for all countries as a much agree / very important).
group.

A 3.2 Cognitive dimension
Table A 3.1
Two factors in the cognitive dimension, all respondents
Factor 1: Factor 2:
Proposition
Human-dependent nature Autonomous nature
d. Garden plants .806
g. Large crop fields .790
c. City parks .744
h. Timber forests .646
f. Meadows with grazing cattle and flowers .552 .488
b. Birds of prey .845
i. Primeval forests .801
a. Swamps .786
e. Wild flowers at the roadside .580
Explained variance (total: 58.7%) 38.6% 20.1%
Table A 3.2
Deviations from factor analysis of the cognitive dimension per country, compared with a factor
analysis for all respondents
Swamps Spain: in human-dependent nature factor
Wild flowers at the roadside Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom: in human-dependent nature
factor
Meadows with grazing cattle and flowers France: limited to autonomous nature factor
Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom: limited to human-dependent
nature factor
A 3.3 Values of nature

Table A 3.3
Three factors in the normative dimension, all respondents
Proposition 1: Holistic factor 2: Anthropocentric 3: Ecocentric factor
factor
It is natural that wild animals sometimes starve 0.819
to death or are injured by other animals, and we
should accept that (e)
Trees may be felled if needed to increase the 0.739
diversity of species in a forest (f)
We should use nature in such a way that we get 0.805
the most economic value from it (b)
Too much emphasis has been placed on nature 0. 773
conservation (c)
Hunting is cruel and inhumane to animals (d) 0.813
Vulnerable nature areas should be closed to 0.714
leisure and recreational activities (a)
Explained variance (total 66.8%) 27.3% 21.9% 17.6%
Annexes | 45
Table A 3.4
Factor analysis of the normative dimension, per country
Country Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Explained variance
Total e, f b, c d, a 66.8
France b, c e, f, a d, a 68.5
Germany e, f d, a c, b 68.8
Netherlands b, c e, f a, d 65.7
Poland d, a b, c e, f 52.2
Romania e, a, f b, c d 48
Slovakia e, f b, c d, a 64
Spain b, c a, d e, f 53.2
Sweden d, a c, b e, f 67.2
United Kingdom e, f b, c d, a 52.3
Note: In each country a factor is explained by the same pairs of propositions except for France and Romania where slight
deviations were observed. The differences in the order of the factors reflect the contribution of each factor to the explained
variance. For instance, in Poland the ecocentric factor (a, d) is more important than the factor analysis for all respondents,
while the holistic factor (e, f) is less important.
Table A 3.5
Factor analysis of objectives for the management of nature areas for all respondents
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Multiple objectives Utilitarian Cultural objectives
Proposition objectives
b...the conservation of pristine areas .822
a...the diversity of species and plants .803
f...the production of clean air and clean water .781
j...the conservation of old and characteristic landscape features .769
c...beautiful landscapes .549 .501
g...the maximum provision of goods and services through e.g. .783
forestry, hydroelectric power stations and wind farms
h...the prevention of damage to agricultural and other land uses, .761
e.g. by predators, pests and weeds
e...the contribution to flood prevention .563 .571
i...the identity of the local communities .784
d...the attractiveness for recreation .705
Explained variance (total 68.2 %) 47.7% 13.4% 7.2%

Table A 3.6
Factor analysis of objectives for nature management, by country
Factor 1: Factor 2: Factor 3: Explained
Multiple Utilitarian Cultural variance
objectives objectives objectives
Total a, b, c, e, f, j d, e, g, h c, d, i 68.2%
France a, b, c, e, f, i, j d, e, g, h d, i 70.7%
Germany a, b, e, f, j d, e, f, g, h c, d, i 67.3%
Netherlands a, b, c, e, f, i, j e, g, h c, d, i, j 63.8%
Poland a, b, c, f, j e, g, h c, d, i 70.0%
Romania a, b, c, e, f, j d, e, g, h c, d, i 70.4%
Slovakia a, b, c, e, f, j d, e, g, h a, b, d 61.8%
Spain a, b, c, h, i, j g, h d, i 74.2%
Sweden a, b, c, e, f, j d, e, g, h d, i 70.8%
United Kingdom a, b, c, d, e, f, i, j d, g, h, j a, e, f 67.5%
Note: In all Member States except Romania, some deviations in factor loading by objectives occurred, compared with the analysis of the
overall results. Examples are the lack of beautiful landscapes (c) in factor 1 in Germany, and the contribution of diversity of species and
plants (a) to factor 3 in Slovakia and the United Kingdom.
Annexes | 47
Annex 4
Empirical evidence from
20 years of NEP studies
Over the past decades only very few longitudinal • gather a response from over 100 individuals;
representative surveys have been carried out which • include information on publication year, authors,
reveal changes in values of nature. However, there is a country of residence of respondents, and
large body of information about the changes in representativeness of the sample.
environmental attitudes, involving much more than
nature alone. This includes a data record of 20 years of For the trend analysis, representative samples from
figures on environmental attitudes that have been Europe would have provided the most interesting data,
collected through surveys using the New Environmental but only seven were available, which is not sufficient for
Paradigm, the NEP scale, developed by Dunlap and Van statistical analyses. Therefore, the number was expanded
Liere (1978). It measures a respondent’s agreement with to 114, by including samples from other continents as well
various statements concerning human attitudes towards as convenient samples that were not representative for
the environment on a scale from 1 (totally disagree), to 5 the total population. Most samples come from North
(totally agree). The average of all statements also ranges America (44%), followed by Europe (22%) and the other
from 1 to 5 (strong preference for utilitarian view to continents, except Africa.
strong preference for preservationist view of the
environment), with 3 being the neutral position. A trend analysis compared the year of publication with
Examples of NEP statements are: ‘Humans have the right the average NEP score for all samples and different
to modify the natural environment to suit their needs’ subsets which were established according to continent
and ‘Plants and animals have as many rights as humans and representativeness. In each case, the date three years
to exist.’ prior to a survey’s year of publication was used as a proxy
for the date of execution..
Hawcroft and Milfont (2010) published the dataset
mentioned above, but an analysis of trends in the data The analysis shows that the mean NEP score varies
has not yet been made. However, the authors executed a between 2.9 and 4.7, and has an average value of 3.8
secondary analysis on the database to reveal trends in the which is markedly higher than neutral (3). This means that
NEP scale during the 1987–2007 period. The analysis in almost all samples preservationist values of the
looked at samples which met the following criteria: environment predominate over utilitarian values (Figure
• use a minimum of five items from the original, A 4.1). Over the 20 year period, the NEP score decreased
shortened or revised NEP scale; slightly. This was tested by calculating Spearman
• always include adults; correlations between the survey year and the mean NEP
• include the mean NEP score; score for different subsets (Table 4.1). The calculated

Figure A 4.1
Preservationist/utilitarian view of the environment, 1987 – 2007
New Environmental Paradigm scale (NEP score)

5
Preservationist view
3
Neutral
Utilitarian view
pbl.nl
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year of publication
Source: Hawcroft and Milfont 2010; analysis by Wageningen UR
correlation coefficients are mostly negative, and only ecocentric world view. This correlation is not significant
significant when considering all samples worldwide or either. To conclude, this secondary analysis shows that
datasets combining all representative and convenient support for a preservationist attitude towards the
student samples worldwide. A half to two thirds of the environment is stronger than support for a utilitarian
samples are not representative for the population of a attitude. There was a slight decline in support for a
country, region or city. When only representative samples preservationist point of view between 1987 and 2007,
are taken into account (n=36), the correlation appears to which suggests that worldwide attitudes may be
be positive instead of negative, referring to a more changing.
Table A 4.1
Correlation between mean NEP score and year of publication for different subsets between 1987 and 2007
Number of samples Correlation Significance
Included samples (n) (R) (P)
Sample size >100, all continents, all backgrounds 114 -0.353 0.000
Sample size >100, all continents, only representative and 72 -0.295 0.012
students
Sample size >100, all continents, only representative 36 0.211 n.s. (0.194)
Sample size >100, only Europe, all backgrounds 25 -0.375 n.s. (0.065)
Sample size >100, only Europe, only representative and 16 -0.296 n.s. (0.266)
students
Sample size >100, only Europe, only representative 9 0.365 n.s. (0.334)
Annexes | 49
Annex 5
Glossary of terms
Anthropocentric values of nature An anthropocentric point of view puts human beings at the centre of attention and
holds that nature deserves moral consideration because it is instrumental to human
well-being, providing goods and services that enhance quality of life for humans.
(Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Gagnon Thompson and Barton, 1994; Kortenkamp and
Moore, 2001) (Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001; Thompson & Barton, 1994).
The opposite of anthropocentric value is ecocentric value.
Biocentric values of nature Biocentric values are a specification of ecocentric values focusing on the importance of
the well-being of individual animals and plants instead of on the principles of abstract
concepts such as biodiversity and ecosystem. This distinction reflects long-standing
debates in environmental ethics (Leopold, 1949; Taylor, 1986; Callicott, 1989;
Stenmark, 2002). The opposite of biocentric value is the holistic value of nature.
Ecocentric values of nature Ecocentric values do not focus on the usefulness of nature for humans, but on the
intrinsic value of nature, the notion that it is valuable in itself, and therefore should be
treated as such. (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Gagnon Thompson and Barton, 1994;
Kortenkamp and Moore, 2001)
Environmental attitudes See New Environmental Paradigm scale
Guardian of nature In the guardian attitude, humans are part of nature and responsible for conserving the
natural environment to ensure enough is left intact for future generations. Humans
are not placed above nature, but are seen as part of it and should work together with
it (De Groot et al., 2011). This attitude is related to traditional stewardship but has a
more ecocentric content.
Holistic values of nature Holistic values are a specification of ecocentric values that focus on the importance of
the quality and integrity of ecosystems. In the protection of nature, the well-being of
individual animals and plants is considered subordinate to the value of natural
processes. (Leopold, 1949; Taylor, 1986; Callicott, 1989; Stenmark, 2002). The
opposite of holistic value is biocentric value.
Human attitudes toward nature A commonly used scale to define the relationships between people and nature is the
Humans and Nature (HAN) scale (Flint et al., 2013). Inspired by the work of Zweers
(2000), it largely builds on qualitative studies and non-representative surveys (De
Groot and Van den Born, 2003; Van den Born, 2007). The scale is meant to distinguish
between varying attitudes towards nature, such as master, steward, guardian, partner
and participant.

Intrinsic value Nature is valuable in itself, and should be treated as such.
Master over nature In the master attitude, humans stand above nature and may do whatever they please,
not bothered by moral restraints or awareness of nature’s fragility. The master
attitude trusts economic growth and technology will solve all environmental
problems.
New Environmental Paradigm scale Research on environmental attitudes has led to the development of the New
Environmental Paradigm (NEP). Commonly used since the 1970s, it provides a
framework and a scale to measure environmental attitudes. (Dunlap and Van Liere,
1978; Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010; Milfont and Duckitt, 2010)
Participant in nature The participant attitude considers humans to be part of nature; not just biologically,
but with a sense of (spiritual) belonging. Being a part of nature is important in the
human identity. Humans are not inferior to nature, but have the ability to participate
in it.
Partner with nature In the partner attitude, nature has its own status, not inferior to, but rather on a par
with humans. Nature develops according to its own independent values. Humans and
nature work together in a dynamic process of interaction and mutual development.
Preservationist view The preservationist view expresses the belief that priority should be given to
preserving nature and the diversity of species in their original state, protected against
human pressure. (Milfont and Duckitt, 2010).
Steward of nature The steward attitude considers that humans are superior to nature but have a
responsibility to ensure enough nature is left intact for future generations.
Utilitarian view A utilitarian view refers to the belief that it is legitimate, appropriate and necessary for
humans to use and alter nature and all natural phenomena and species for their own
benefit. (Milfont and Duckitt, 2010).
Annexes | 51
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Mailing address
PO Box 30314
2500 GH The Hague
The Netherlands
www.pbl.nl/en

Images and Values of Nature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Images and Values of Nature

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Images and Values of Nature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITIZENS’ IMAGES

This publication can be downloaded from: www.pbl.nl/en.

3 How nature is valued 20

4 Objectives for nature management 26

5 Responsibility for protection of nature 28

Annex 1 The survey in detail 32

Annex 2 Response to each question 38

Annex 3 Factor analyses 44

Annex 4 Empirical evidence from 20 years of NEP studies 48

Annex 5 Glossary of terms 50

8 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

7 High degree of naturalness

Wild ﬂowers at the road side Included countries:

Large crop ﬁelds

Figure 2 about the values of nature, 2014

Very much agree

Total Included countries:

Source: GfK; analysis by Wageningen UR

Broad agreement exists on the need to preserve

10 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,

Source: GfK; analysis by Wageningen UR

32 % Farmers, landowners, and hunters

1.1 Background This report presents the results of a survey on motives

14 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

16 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

7 High degree of naturalness

Wild ﬂowers at the road side Included countries:

Large crop ﬁelds

Romania Very human-dependent nature

Very human-dependent nature

Under 25 Less human-dependent nature

Older people give higher ratings than younger people to

18 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

Section 3.1 describes and discusses the overall results for

20 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

Box 1: Opinions about hunting diverge widely

Spain Very much agree

How nature is valued | 21

22 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

Very much agree

Appreciate anthropocentric values

How nature is valued | 23

Total Included countries:

Source: GfK; analysis by Wageningen UR

24 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

How nature is valued | 25

26 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

Clean water and air

Very important Not very important Included countries:

Source: GfK; analysis by Wageningen UR

Romania Multiple objectives

Poland Utilitarian objectives

Source: GfK; analysis by Wageningen UR

Objectives for nature management | 27

28 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

10 % Businesses and companies

Responsibility for protection of nature | 29

30 | Citizens’ images and values of nature in Europe

Q3. How do you feel about the following propositions?

Q8. What is your age?