Same river, different values and why it matters

Eloise Seymour, Allan Curtis, David J. Pannell, Anna Roberts, Catherine Allan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Examination of the values that people assign to specific natural places is likely to be useful for environmental decision-making but is an underdeveloped area of socio-psychological research. A mail survey was used to examine the differences and similarities in values assigned by people to the Loddon River in south-eastern Australia. Environmental, social and economic values were explored across five different community types: urban residents, rural residents, natural resource management (NRM) professionals, environmental group members (EGM) and landholders. While urban residents, rural residents and landholders had similar responses, NRM professionals and EGM placed much stronger emphasis on environmental values derived from the river, and much less emphasis on economic values. Members of two community types (EGM and NRM professionals) responded in a relatively homogenous way, within a narrow range of response options. By contrast, three community types (urban residents, rural residents and landholders) responded in more diverse ways. There were similarities in the social values (historical and aesthetic) expressed by the different community types, suggesting common points for stakeholder engagement in the management of the river. Results point to the need for environmental managers to ensure that consultation is not limited to the most actively engaged sectors of the community, as their responses may not be representative of other groups.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)207-213
Number of pages7
JournalEcological Management and Restoration
Volume12
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2011

Fingerprint

natural resource management
resource management
natural resource
social benefit
ecological value
economic valuation
rivers
river
environmental values
aesthetics
esthetics
economics
stakeholders
decision making
managers
stakeholder

Cite this

Seymour, Eloise ; Curtis, Allan ; Pannell, David J. ; Roberts, Anna ; Allan, Catherine. / Same river, different values and why it matters. In: Ecological Management and Restoration. 2011 ; Vol. 12, No. 3. pp. 207-213.
@article{8111bfe390d946d18d4b0c83ad66e5cb,
title = "Same river, different values and why it matters",
abstract = "Examination of the values that people assign to specific natural places is likely to be useful for environmental decision-making but is an underdeveloped area of socio-psychological research. A mail survey was used to examine the differences and similarities in values assigned by people to the Loddon River in south-eastern Australia. Environmental, social and economic values were explored across five different community types: urban residents, rural residents, natural resource management (NRM) professionals, environmental group members (EGM) and landholders. While urban residents, rural residents and landholders had similar responses, NRM professionals and EGM placed much stronger emphasis on environmental values derived from the river, and much less emphasis on economic values. Members of two community types (EGM and NRM professionals) responded in a relatively homogenous way, within a narrow range of response options. By contrast, three community types (urban residents, rural residents and landholders) responded in more diverse ways. There were similarities in the social values (historical and aesthetic) expressed by the different community types, suggesting common points for stakeholder engagement in the management of the river. Results point to the need for environmental managers to ensure that consultation is not limited to the most actively engaged sectors of the community, as their responses may not be representative of other groups.",
keywords = "Assigned values, Communities, Loddon catchment, Regional NRM, River frontage values",
author = "Eloise Seymour and Allan Curtis and Pannell, {David J.} and Anna Roberts and Catherine Allan",
note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = December, 2011; Journal title (773t) = Ecological Management and Restoration. ISSNs: 1442-7001;",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00605.x",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "207--213",
journal = "Ecological Management and Restoration",
issn = "1442-7001",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Same river, different values and why it matters. / Seymour, Eloise; Curtis, Allan; Pannell, David J.; Roberts, Anna; Allan, Catherine.

In: Ecological Management and Restoration, Vol. 12, No. 3, 12.2011, p. 207-213.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Same river, different values and why it matters

AU - Seymour, Eloise

AU - Curtis, Allan

AU - Pannell, David J.

AU - Roberts, Anna

AU - Allan, Catherine

N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = December, 2011; Journal title (773t) = Ecological Management and Restoration. ISSNs: 1442-7001;

PY - 2011/12

Y1 - 2011/12

N2 - Examination of the values that people assign to specific natural places is likely to be useful for environmental decision-making but is an underdeveloped area of socio-psychological research. A mail survey was used to examine the differences and similarities in values assigned by people to the Loddon River in south-eastern Australia. Environmental, social and economic values were explored across five different community types: urban residents, rural residents, natural resource management (NRM) professionals, environmental group members (EGM) and landholders. While urban residents, rural residents and landholders had similar responses, NRM professionals and EGM placed much stronger emphasis on environmental values derived from the river, and much less emphasis on economic values. Members of two community types (EGM and NRM professionals) responded in a relatively homogenous way, within a narrow range of response options. By contrast, three community types (urban residents, rural residents and landholders) responded in more diverse ways. There were similarities in the social values (historical and aesthetic) expressed by the different community types, suggesting common points for stakeholder engagement in the management of the river. Results point to the need for environmental managers to ensure that consultation is not limited to the most actively engaged sectors of the community, as their responses may not be representative of other groups.

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

KW - Assigned values

KW - Communities

KW - Loddon catchment

KW - Regional NRM

KW - River frontage values

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82455220331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82455220331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00605.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00605.x

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 207

EP - 213

JO - Ecological Management and Restoration

JF - Ecological Management and Restoration

SN - 1442-7001

IS - 3

ER -