Understanding what people want from the natural...

Understanding what people want

from the natural environment

using customer segmentation

October 2010

Contents

1. Executive summary 1

1.1 Why segmentation? 1

1.2 Methodology 2

1.3 The segmentation 4

1.4 Findings and cross-cutting themes 5

1.5 Recommendations 6

2. Introduction 7

2.1 Background 7

2.2 Project objectives and question 7

2.3 Definitions 7

2.4 Approach 8

2.5 Phase 1 – Scoping 9

2.6 Phase 2 – Exploration 10

2.7 Phase 3 – Quantitative analysis 11

2.8 Phase 4 – Enriching the segments 12

2.9 Phase 5 – Delivery 12

3. Overview of the segmentation 14

3.1 Prioritising dimensions 14

3.2 Attitudinal dimensions underlying the segmentation 16

3.3 Defining the segments 18

3.4 Descriptions of the age cohorts 22

4. Cross-cutting themes 27

4.1 Landscapes 27

4.2 Pro-environmental behaviours 32

4.3 Dog-ownership 35

4.4 Presence of children 36

5. The eight segments in depth 37

5.1 Segment 1: Good for the kids and me (9%) 37

5.2 Segment 2: Friends and sport (8%) 40

5.3 Segment 3: Locally limited (9%) 43

5.4 Segment 4: Pressured but engaged (13%) 46

2

5.5 Segment 5: Competing interests (18%) 49

5.6 Segment 6: Reluctant and uninspired (9%) 52

5.7 Segment 7: Mature explorers (22%) 55

5.8 Segment 8: Nostalgic inactives (12%) 58

6. Recommendations for taking the segmentation forward 61

6.1 Geographic mapping and analysis 61

6.2 Future quantitative research 61

6.3 Further qualitative research 62

6.4 Pro-environmental behaviours 63

6.5 Policy workshop 63

6.6 Segment naming session 64

Appendix 1: Quantitative analysis 65

Hybrid segmentation approach 65

Recreating the segments 69

Algorithm defining the segments 69

Appendix 2: Expert interview guide 71

Appendix 3: Qualitative design 73

Appendix 4: Stakeholder involvement 79

Appendix 5: Sources consulted in scoping phase 82

Addendum 1: Recruitment screeners and sample details

Addendum 2: Scrapbook template

Addendum 3: Segment summaries

© 2010 The Futures Company 1

1. Executive summary

In late 2009 Defra, with its partners Natural England, the Forestry Commission, the

Environment Agency and British Waterways, commissioned The Futures Company to

create a preliminary segmentation that would support service delivery, policy and social

marketing activities designed to understand and drive engagement with the natural

environment.

The work has been guided by the key project question, defined with Defra and its

partners: ‘What aspects of people’s lives, experiences and attitudes influence their

engagement with the natural environment?‟

1.1 Why segmentation?

Segmentation is a way of dividing up a particular audience or population into groups

according to their personal characteristics, needs, attitudes, capabilities and

behaviours. A segmentation can be produced through quantitative or qualitative

analysis, or through a combination of both as is the case here. The value of effective

segmentation lies in the ability to draw together a number of different dimensions in

order to understand people through multiple perspectives – often including behavioural,

attitudinal and demographic – rather than through the single demographic categories

commonly used to characterise groups of people such as age, gender, ethnicity, etc.

Segmentations have a wide range of applications depending upon an organisation‟s

needs: they support strategic thinking, policy making, communications and channel

strategy. In planning for this project, Defra and its partners determined that a

segmentation would be an essential foundation for their social marketing approach, for

example for communications and interventions aimed at making the natural

environment more interesting, accessible and relevant.

Specific behavioural objectives included increasing people's enjoyment, understanding

of and care for the natural environment, and inspiring people to value and conserve the

natural environment.

An important stage of any segmentation project involves identifying how a

segmentation will be applied once it has been developed, usually through consultation

with key internal and external stakeholders. During the scoping phase of this project, a

range of stakeholders provided specific detail on how they would use the

segmentation. Responses included; improving outreach work by speaking to people on

their own terms; broadening the user base by identifying ways of drawing in those who

are currently not engaged but could be; understanding which kinds of landscapes

appeal to different groups and why; and improving the environments which

disadvantaged segments are more likely to visit.

In addition to these social marketing goals, stakeholders also considered the

segmentation as a way of consolidating and extracting value from existing research

and knowledge. Thus, the project offered value by helping to organise information held

2

by multiple stakeholders, make new links between existing data sources and creating a

common language for use within and across organisations; to challenge or confirm

existing assumptions about why and how different groups value the environment and

whether attitudes match actual behaviours; and as a way to further explore what is

known about the relationship between pro-environmental behaviours and engagement

with the natural environment.

A key success factor in this research programme was the application of innovative

approaches to use existing evidence better. Following a literature scoping exercise that

identified key hypotheses regarding which groups engage with the natural environment

and why, it built on the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey

(MENE). Fieldwork for MENE began in March 2009. MENE provided information such

as the number of visits made to the natural environment by the adult population in

England, and the kinds of visits being made. In order to incorporate a wider range of

information into the segmentation, the team also identified and drew on additional

quantitative sources (explored further below), to create a „hybrid‟ segmentation.

Analysis, confirmed through stakeholder discussions and working sessions, determined

the fact that engagement with the natural environment is strongly correlated with life-

stage and socio-economic grouping. These dimensions have consequently played a

significant role in defining the segments. The final segmentation includes eight

segments falling into three broad age groups. The following report describes the

quantitative method used to create the segmentation, which was further brought to life

and enriched through qualitative exploration of triggers and barriers to engagement, as

well as further quantitative profiling.

1.2 Methodology

1.2.1 Scoping and exploration

The project began with a briefing meeting with the core client team to clarify terms of

reference and the scope of the project. During this set up meeting, the team began

drawing up a list of existing evidence and key stakeholders. The Futures Company

then held 15 stakeholder interviews to identify priority focus, objectives, and how the

segmentation will be used in practice by Defra and its partners. The Futures Company

also conducted a literature review to identify which datasets could be used in the

quantitative analysis, as well as to begin drawing up a long list of the key dimensions,

or „building blocks‟ upon which the segmentation would be created. A workshop with

the wider group of stakeholders was held to share preliminary findings and prioritise

which dimensions to take into the quantitative stage.

3

1.2.2 Quantitative analysis

A key part of the quantitative analysis was the cluster analysis to define the segments.

The initial scoping showed that the range of information desirable for the development

of the segmentation extended beyond the scope of the MENE survey, which is

focussed primarily on understanding people‟s behaviour in visiting the natural

environment. A hybrid segmentation approach was therefore adopted in order to draw

on additional information on other aspects of people‟s attitudes and behaviours from

external sources, in this case The Futures Company‟s own Planning for Consumer

Change (PCC) survey1.

This meant that the cluster analysis used information from both PCC and the MENE

surveys connected by „hook variables‟ to shape and refine the segments. The result of

this is that the segmentation is grounded in the attitudinal and behavioural

understanding built up across the two surveys, but that the final segments are defined

by a shorter set of demographic and behavioural variables in the weekly MENE survey.

The process followed to achieve this is described in greater detail in Appendix 1.

Following the agreement of the segmentation with Defra, each of the segments was

profiled in detail against all of the contents of the MENE survey and a wide range of

questions from the PCC / TGI survey.

1 Planning for Consumer Change is The Futures Company‟s main survey of UK consumers

which has been running for over 30 years, exploring how consumers across the UK are feeling,

what changes they are making in their lives and how they are thinking about a wide range of

issues. It includes many questions which have been tracked over three decades, as well as

questions that have evolved or been added to help us understand emerging trends and new

areas of consumer behaviour. For the last 10 years, PCC has been conducted as a postal re-

contact survey of Target Group Index (TGI) respondents, with a nationally representative

sample of adults aged 15 or over. This means that all of the questions on PCC can be analysed

against any of the information on TGI, including media usage, shopping habits, brands

purchased and other important demographic and lifestyle data. The latest survey was

conducted between the 3 April and 20 May 2009 with a sample of 2,222.

4

1.2.3 Qualitative analysis

Following agreement and finalisation of the segmentation solution, The Futures

Company conducted qualitative exploration of the individual segments to „bring them to

life‟ through greater emphasis on underlying attitudes, motivations and behaviours of

the segments themselves. The interlocking qualitative approach included eight „midi‟

groups (two hour groups, one per segment, six people per group), 24 pre-group

scrapbooks (three per group), and twelve depth interviews, in situ where possible (two

interviews with individuals from each of the six more „engaged‟ segments).

1.2.4 Interactive debrief

Prior to delivery of the final conclusions and recommendations, The Futures Company

ran an interactive debrief workshop with the wider stakeholder group to introduce the

segments in depth and begin surfacing thoughts on the implications of the findings for

policy, delivery and communications activities.

1.3 The segmentation

The segments can best be understood in terms both of their typical attitudes and

behaviours, and their typical demographic characteristics. There are eight segments

which fall within three broad age ranges:

Younger: 16-34 years old

Segment 1: Good for the kids and me – over three-quarters female, young mums

trying to give their children positive experiences of the natural environment, and

preferring landscapes which are child-friendly.

Segment 2: Friends and sport – over four-fifths male; young single men who see the

outdoors as an occasional venue for socialising with friends or having a kick-about.

Segment 3: Locally limited – a lower income group with little means or motivation to

explore much beyond their immediate environment.

Middle: 34-54 years old

Segment 4: Pressured but engaged – career-focussed and busy, they're switched

on to the environment and engage with it as much as they can – and wish it was

more.

Segment 5: Competing interests – lead busy lives but lack the motivation to get into

the outdoors more, often opting for a local, easy landscape.

5

Segment 6: Reluctant and uninspired – struggling with work, money and families,

they rarely engage with the natural environment, and don‟t miss it much.

Older: 55+ years old

Segment 7: Mature explorers – enjoying their retirement, or planning to, they

engage regularly with a variety of landscapes, and get plenty of enjoyment out of it.

Segment 8: Nostalgic inactives – despite fond memories of remembered

landscapes, they find today's options often fall short; frequently finding reasons not

to visit them.

The report provides summaries of the segments which describe their demographic

characteristics, their favourite activities in the natural environment, their motivations for

engaging with the natural environment, ideal landscapes and environments, and

information and awareness needs.

1.4 Findings and cross-cutting themes

The research shows how there are lower and higher engagement groups present

within each age range – see Figure 1. Engagement is also strongly correlated with

socio-economic grouping, and this has therefore also played a significant role in

defining the segments.

Figure 1: Engagement with the natural environment by age group

6

The research also examined two important cross-cutting themes: whether different

segments had preferences for different types of landscape, and whether there was a

correlation between greater engagement with the natural environment, and pro-

environmental behaviour.

The segments themselves are not distinguished from one another according to

preferences for particular landscapes. Rather, the quantitative and qualitative material

revealed that segment preferences correspond closely to:

segment-specific understandings of what is/is not the „real‟ natural environment,

the kinds of barriers the segments face in engaging in any natural environment, and

the broader lifestyles and activities of each of the segments.

In terms of pro-environmental behaviour, it is difficult to draw many strong conclusions,

for while there does appear to be a correlation between interest in the natural

environment and pro-environmental behaviour at the extremes of engagement, for the

majority of people there does not seem to be a strong connection.

1.5 Recommendations

We have made a number of recommendations for taking this segmentation work

forward. We believe significant value could be gained should Defra opt to:

Conduct geographical mapping and analysis to determine locally-specific segments

and inform policy, delivery and communications planning.

Carry out further quantitative research to refine the definition of the segments in the

future and take the latest thinking into account.

Carry out further qualitative research to understand the segments in greater detail

and depth, and to offer more of an evidence base from which to draw conclusions

about the segments.

Further investigate the segments in relation to Defra‟s existing pro-environmental

framework in order to help understand pro-environmental values and behaviours in

relation to the natural environment in greater depth.

Hold a stakeholder workshop to start to prioritise potential interventions across a

range of areas, informed by the segmentation.

7

2. Introduction

This section introduces the background and context for this research, before outlining

the methodological approach taken by The Futures Company in delivering it.

2.1 Background

In late 2009, Defra, with its partners Natural England, Forestry Commission,

Environment Agency and British Waterways, commissioned The Futures Company to

create a preliminary segmentation that would support service delivery, policy and social

marketing activities designed to drive engagement with the natural environment. The

segmentation aimed to build largely on the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural

Environment (MENE) survey, which went to field in March 2009, as well as to identify

other relevant existing datasets.

2.2 Project objectives and question

The work aimed to develop a model for better understanding specific needs,

requirements, preferences, attitudes and underlying motivations of different groups as

regards the natural environment. The resulting segmentation offers a multi-dimensional

perspective on customer behaviours, attitudes and motivations toward the natural

environment in order to:

support objectives on engagement with the natural environment, such as

encouraging people to enjoy, understand and care for the natural environment

(Defra) and be inspired to value and conserve the natural environment (Natural

England);

inform policy-making on promoting engagement with the natural environment and

removing barriers to participation;

support social marketing activities through more efficient and effective audience

measurement and targeting of communication and intervention.

2.3 Definitions

Because we use the terms „engagement‟ and „natural environment‟ throughout this

report, it is important that we define them from the start.

8

SCOPING

•Briefing meeting

• Stakeholder

interviews

• Review of

existing evidence

EXPLORATION

• Quantitative

exploration

•Stakeholder

workshop

QUANTITATIVE

EXPLORATION

• Exploratory

analysis

• Segmentation

analysis

ENRICHING THE

SEGMENTS

• Focus groups

• Depth interviews

• Scrapbook

analysis

DELIVERY

• Interactive debrief

• Written report

• Resources to

support future

research

We understand engagement as having a range of meanings, where people enjoy,

value, experience and care for the natural environment to different degrees. The

segments demonstrate different levels and types of engagement and different reasons

for why they do or do not engage. The segment summaries (see Section 5) draw on

qualitative and quantitative evidence to explore in depth the motivations and barriers

behind different forms of engagement.

Within the MENE survey engagement is measured by respondents‟ agreement four

statements:

“Spending time out of doors (including my own garden) is an important part of my life”;

“I am concerned about damage to the natural environment”;

“There are many natural places I may never visit but I am glad they exist”;

“Having open green spaces close to where I live is important.”

These have formed our main reference point for assessing how engaged each of the

segments are with the natural environment. It is worth noting that

We did not enter into the work with an ideal or specific understanding of the natural

environment, but rather left it to respondents (both qualitatively and quantitatively) to

identify what they consider to be the „natural environment‟, as well as what it is not, and

why. In the qualitative research, however, we specified only that by „natural

environment‟ we meant many different things, including but not limited to local / urban

parks, woodland, fields, waterways, lakes and more. The only green space not

potentially included within that definition was one‟s own garden. (See discussion guide

in Appendix 3.)

2.4 Approach

We developed a five-phase approach for delivery of a tailored segmentation:

9

2.5 Phase 1 – Scoping

2.5.1 Briefing meeting

We held an initial briefing meeting with the core client team to clarify the scope of the

project, terms of reference, and to agree milestones and expectations. We used this

briefing meeting to begin drawing up a list of expert interviewees who served as a

stakeholder community to deliver consensus at key moments during the process. The

meeting was also used to begin generating a list of existing knowledge and key

sources of data.

2.5.2 Stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder engagement is sometimes treated as a discreet stage, but it is important to

prioritise stakeholder involvement and to consider it a vital and continuous part of a

segmentation process. In order for a project to be successful, stakeholder engagement

must stretch from before the project starts until after it ends.

Stakeholders were therefore engaged early and at all key moments of this project: as

part of formal interviews during the scoping stage to identify how the segmentation

might be put to use, when prioritising inputs into the quantitative foundation at an

exploration workshop, to inform qualitative focus, and to identify critical implications of

the findings.

The interviews that took place during the scoping phase were also designed to elicit a

deeper and more granular understanding of the specific applications that the

segmentation would serve, to surface the existing knowledge and hypotheses about

engagement and participation, and to begin to create shared interest in the project.

(See Appendix 2 for the stakeholder interview discussion guide and Appendix 3 for the

list of stakeholders involved in the project as both interviewees and workshop

participants.)

Interviews with stakeholder concluded that the segmentation would be used to

understand customers of the natural environment better by:

Challenging or confirming existing assumptions;

Broadening the user base, involving more people, and getting people „out there‟;

Improving outreach work by speaking to people on their own terms;

As a practical tool to drive better informed communication and marketing initiatives,

interventions and policy making;

Better understanding the significance of different types of landscapes, to different

groups;

10

Understanding more about the relationship between pro-environmental behaviours

and engagement with the natural environment;

Making sense of complexities and organising the wealth of data/information on

hand; and

Improving deprived environments.

2.5.3 Review of existing evidence

The scoping stage also dealt with the essential practical issues of establishing access

to the primary datasets to be used in quantitative analysis, and assessing what

additional data was available or desirable.

The final part of the scoping phase was to review existing published and unpublished

evidence on attitudes, drivers and barriers to engagement and existing segmentation

models which could be used to inform the analysis. These included Defra‟s

environmental segmentation model and other relevant research published by Defra

and its partners in this project. (See Appendix 5 for the list of sources reviewed during

the scoping phase.)

2.6 Phase 2 – Exploration

2.6.1 Quantitative exploration

This phase involved in-depth exploration of issues identified in the scoping phase, in

order to form a firm assessment of the dimensions that should be included in the

segmentation analysis and to reach the point where we could begin developing a

detailed analysis plan for the quantitative phase.

Our approach was based on making best use of existing research, both quantitative

and qualitative, and finding ways to merge data and key characteristics across different

sources. We began exploratory analysis of the quantitative data from the MENE survey

and other data sources, to identify which questions were likely to be most valuable in

defining the segmentation.

We explored correlations between attitudes and behaviour, and focused in particular

on hypotheses about engagement and possible dimensions of the segmentation that

had been identified in the scoping phase. We then took these forward in the analysis to

consider what role they could play in defining the segmentation.

2.6.2 Stakeholder workshop

An interactive stakeholder workshop was held at the end of the exploration stage to

review key themes and hypotheses emerging from the initial scoping phase and to

ensure that stakeholder interests had been fully incorporated. In addition to ensuring

the involvement of the stakeholder community, the workshop provided a set of priority

11

dimensions against which to assess the quantitative segmentation, ensuring that all

important drivers and significant groups with specific attitudes and needs were clearly

identified. (See Section 3 for further analysis of the priority dimensions that fed into

creation of the segmentation).

2.7 Phase 3 – Quantitative analysis

2.7.1 Exploratory analysis

Following on from our initial explorations in Phase 2, we looked at how best to

represent the different dimensions that were identified as important to include in the

segmentation and in profiling. We used factor analysis at this stage as a further

exploratory technique to help us to understand and identify dimensions, by grouping

together questions that represented patterns in the data. These groupings were

checked for their robustness using scale reliability analysis, both across the sample as

a whole and within sub-samples of the data (e.g. urban vs. rural, age, gender).

Composite measures were then created for use in developing the segmentation.

2.7.2 Segmentation analysis

After our exploration of the data and creation of key dimensions, we used cluster

analysis to identify groups within the sample with shared attitudes, preferences and

behaviours. The predominant algorithms used for cluster analysis in social and market

research are k-means clustering and Ward‟s hierarchical clustering. We based our

approach on the combination of these techniques.

At this stage we continually revisited project objectives and sought input from the client

team, to help us to determine which segmentation solutions were likely to be most

useful. The final set of dimensions in the segmentation was determined iteratively, with

various subsets of questions tested for discriminatory and predictive power and

homogeneity.

2.7.2.1 Initial segment profiling and interpretation

As we progressed with the cluster analysis, we developed segment descriptions and

top line profiles for alternative segmentation solutions which we felt would benefit from

further exploration and consideration from the core project team. This included creating

tables for a wide range of questions and measures beyond those used to drive the

segmentation, which enabled us to ensure that the final solutions were relevant and

insightful across the full range of project objectives.

The results of this initial profiling, together with outputs from scoping and exploration,

formed the basis of a recommendation for a segmentation solution which was

presented and deliberated at a core project team meeting before finalising the

segmentation.

12

2.8 Phase 4 – Enriching the segments

Our final research phase was in-depth qualitative exploration of the segments. The

objectives of this phase were to:

explore the segments identified in more detail and better understand underlying

attitudes, experiences, motivations and behaviours, with concrete examples to

„bring the segments to life‟;

allow identification of segment characteristics not measured in the survey but

potentially important for social marketing programmes;

identify key triggers to participation which would increase the likelihood of individuals

within segments more positively and consistently engaging with the natural

environment; as well as barriers which may prevent them from doing so or cause

the experience to be less positive and therefore not repeated.

Based on the resulting eight segments, we developed a simple interlocking three-stage

approach to the qualitative research:

eight „midi‟ focus groups (two hour groups, one per segment, six people per group);

every group participant completed an „outdoors diary‟ of the past year, or a typical

year of activity;

24 pre-group scrapbooks (three per group); scrapbooks were A3 size books mailed

to three people from each segment group, to be filled in and delivered at the group

session. The revealing and emotive form of „self expression‟ in the scrapbooks

offered rich insights – both verbal and visual. Analysis of the scrapbooks

contributed to the debrief presentation and in creation of the segment summaries;

twelve depth interviews, in situ where possible (two depths for each of the six more

„engaged‟ segments); every interviewee completed an „outdoors diary‟ of the past

year, or a typical year of activity. Where possible, interviews were conducted in the

respondents‟ local, natural environment.

Recruitment of the respondent sample for the groups and depth interviews was guided

by a set of „golden questions‟ including demographics, socio-economics, life stage,

behaviour and attitudes. (See Appendix 2 for the discussion guide used for groups and

depths; Addendum 1 includes the screener and sample details; and Addendum 2

includes the scrapbook template).

2.9 Phase 5 – Delivery

2.9.1 Interactive debrief

During the final stages of the project, a debrief workshop was held to present the

integrated qualitative and quantitative findings, to introduce the segmentation and

create an opportunity to „get to know‟ the segments in greater detail through small

13

group discussion. The workshop also sought to reach shared agreement on segment

names, and to surface initial thoughts on the implications of the findings for policy,

delivery and communications activities.

14

3. Overview of the segmentation

This section explains more about the process of developing the segmentation,

including a discussion of the most relevant characteristics, attitudes and behaviours to

be considered. The resulting segments are then introduced and examined in terms of

the three age cohorts within which they can be grouped.

3.1 Prioritising dimensions

In order to provide a clear focus for the development of the segmentation, it was

targeted at addressing the key question: ‟What aspects of people‟s lives, experiences

and attitudes influence their engagement with the natural environment?‟.

Through the initial phases of desk research, stakeholder interviews and stakeholder

workshop we had identified the type of dimensions (demographic characteristics,

attitudes and behaviours) which would be most relevant to answering this question,

and which should therefore form the starting point for defining the segments. These

were summarised following the stakeholder workshop as follows:

Most important dimensions

Attitudes to „the outdoors in particular‟

Space and safety

Proximity

Cultural background

Also significant

Lifestage and demographic factors

Awareness, access to information, education

Socio-economic deprivation

Physical ability / disability

Transport

Dimensions missing from initial list

Dog ownership

Sense of place or local engagement (what people want from a landscape)

User conflict

Type of activity taking place

Aspirations

Cost of engagement

Time pressure

This showed that the range of information desirable for the development of the

segmentation extended beyond the scope of the MENE survey, which is focussed

primarily on understanding people‟s behaviour in visiting the natural environment. A

15

hybrid segmentation approach was therefore taken in order to draw on additional

information on other aspects of people‟s attitudes and behaviours from external

sources, in this case The Futures Company‟s own Planning for Consumer Change

(PCC) survey2. See Appendix 1 for further background on our approach to hybrid

segmentation.

The process of developing the segmentation is described in detail in Appendix 1, but

can be summarised in the following stages:

Step 1: Creating key attitudinal dimensions in Planning for Consumer Change

survey

Step 2: Using cluster analysis to create initial segments based on PCC dimensions

Step 3: Modelling the initial segmentation into the MENE dataset using hook

variables

Step 4: Refining the segmentation using additional MENE variables on key attitudes

and behaviours in relation to the natural environment

Step 5: Modelling the final MENE segmentation back into PCC to validate the

relationship between the segments, the original PCC dimensions and other lifestyle

variables.

The result of this process is that the segmentation is grounded in the attitudinal and

behavioural understanding built up across the two surveys, but that the final segments

are defined by a shorter set of demographic and behavioural variables in the weekly

MENE survey. Mapping the segments back into PCC shows that the final segments still

show strong differences in the original attitudinal dimensions, but by defining the

segments in this way they can be more easily identified both in MENE and in future

research.

2 Planning for Consumer Change is The Futures Company‟s main survey of UK consumers

which has been running for over 30 years, exploring how consumers across the UK are feeling,

what changes they are making in their lives and how they are thinking about a wide range of

issues. It includes many questions which have been tracked over three decades, as well as

questions that have evolved or been added to help us understand emerging trends and new

areas of consumer behaviour. For the last 10 years, PCC has been conducted as a postal re-

contact survey of Target Group Index (TGI) respondents, with a nationally representative

sample of adults aged 15 or over. This means that all of the questions on PCC can be analysed

against any of the information on TGI, including media usage, shopping habits, brands

purchased and other important demographic and lifestyle data. The latest survey was

conducted between the 3 April and 20 May 2009 with a sample of 2,222.

16

3.2 Attitudinal dimensions underlying the segmentation

The segmentation has been created to deliver segments which would show greater

similarities in certain key dimensions than would be found in the general population.

These were defined in the PCC survey to cover as many of the priority areas as

possible using a combination of PCC and TGI variables, as described in Table 1.

As well as being the starting point for developing the segmentation, we have also used

these dimensions to help describe them, as together they provide an easy to read

attitudinal overview for each segment.

Table 1: Dimensions from PCC that were used to create the segmentation

Dimension Variables from survey

Risk and adventure seeking

I like taking risks

I like to pursue a life of challenge, novelty and change

I have a keen sense of adventure

Physical activity

I do some form of sport or exercise at least once a week

Number of days a week exercise (sports, walking etc) to the point you feel

at least slightly out of breath (0-7 days)

Health focus

What I want most is to be fit and active

Whether done anything to maintain or improve your general health and

fitness in the last 12 months (no/yes)

I really look after my health

I never take steps to improve my health VS. I am constantly trying to

improve my health (6 point scale)

Curiosity / nature and

environment focus

I like to understand about nature

It is important to be well informed about things

It is important to continue learning new things throughout your life

I am prepared to make lifestyle compromises to benefit the environment

Local community satisfaction

Satisfaction with your residential area and its atmosphere

I love where I live

17

There is a sense of community where I live

Community commitment

Frequency undertaken voluntary work or activity for a charity (Never to At

least once a month)

Frequency organised a local community activity (e.g. for a school, council

or religious group) (Never to At least once a month)

Frequency attended a community event (e.g. fireworks, fete, etc.) (Never

to At least once a month)

I would be willing to volunteer my time for a good cause

Amount that the following motivate to become more involved in local

community: Desire to improve or maintain my local area

Good physical health NO: Barrier to pursuing regular exercise: I have a medical condition which

prevents me from exercising

I consider my health to be poor VS. I consider my health to be excellent (6

point scale)

How much energy have (Too little to Too much)

DISAGREE: I never seem to have enough energy to get things done

Time pressure I never seem to have enough time to get things done

How much time have (Too much to Too little)

There are not enough hours in the day to do everything I would like

I am so tired in the evenings I often don't have the energy to do much

Family focus I enjoy spending time with my family

My favourite pastime is spending time with my family

My family is more important to me than my career

Friend focus I spend a lot of my spare time with friends every day

18

3.3 Defining the segments

The process used to define the segments was based on Ward‟s hierarchical followed

by K-means cluster analysis. This is a well established method for developing

segmentations based on survey data and overcomes some of the problems of using

either technique on its own.

The more innovative application of this hybrid approach meant the cluster analysis

used information from both PCC and the MENE surveys connected by „hook variables‟

to shape and refine the segments. This ensured that the final segments can be

identified easily across the entire MENE sample.

The process followed to achieve this is described in greater detail in Appendix 1, but

the key MENE variables used are summarised in Table 2. The „hook variables‟ used to

link the surveys were gender, age, marital status, children, social grade, disability and

frequency of exercise, and these together with the number of visits to the natural

environment in the last 7 days and the types of places visited (town, countryside,

seaside town or resort, other seaside/coastal area) define the final segmentation.

19

Table 2: Questions from MENE survey used in development of the segmentation

MENE variables used in final definition of segmentation (asked weekly)

Gender

Age

Marital status

Social grade

Disability

Frequency of exercise

Car ownership / access

Dog ownership

Number of visits to the natural environment in the last 7 days

Places visited in the natural environment in the last 7 days (town, countryside, seaside town or

resort, other seaside/coastal area)

Additional MENE variables used in development process only (asked quarterly)

Attitudes relating to the natural

environment

Spending time out of doors (including my own garden) is

an important part of my life

I am concerned about damage to the natural environment

There are many natural places I may never visit but I am

glad they exist

Having open green spaces close to where I live is

important

Types of activity undertaken

related to the natural environment

„Passive‟ activities: Watching or listening to nature

programmes on the TV or radio, looking at books, photos

or websites about the natural world, looking at natural

scenery from indoors or whilst on journeys, watching

wildlife

Home-based activities: Sitting or relaxing in a garden,

gardening

Choosing to walk through local parks or green spaces on

my way to other places

20

Several cluster solutions were examined based on different numbers of clusters and

including or excluding different dimensions before deciding on the final segmentation in

conjunction with Defra. An important part of this process was checking the emerging

segments against insights from previous research to ensure that known key issues

were evident for relevant segments. At a more fundamental level, the segments were

checked to ensure that they were clearly different from each other in the underlying

dimensions and that each segment was robust in terms of sample size.

Within each of the segments identified, respondents tend to have a similar response on

a number of the dimensions, and therefore to share key attitudes and behaviours in

relation to the natural environment. This enables each segment to be described with

reference to those characteristics as well as their demographics, although because of

the hybrid approach followed to develop the segmentation, each also has distinct

demographic characteristics. These are a result of the original attitudinal variables

having been modelled using other questions, including demographics, in the process of

developing the segmentation. This has the disadvantage of „diluting‟ the attitudinal

differences but also the advantage of ensuring that the segments are easy to identify

and target, both in future research and in communications and policy initiatives. In a

„pure‟ attitudinally-based segmentation, demographic differences between the

segments would be less clear cut, but the segments are also likely to be harder to

target for intervention.

The segments can be best understood by thinking about them in relation to both their

typical attitudes and their demographic characteristics, and have been named

accordingly in order to make them easier to work with.

There are eight segments in total, within three broad age ranges:

Younger: 16-34 years old

Segment 1: Good for the kids and me

Segment 2: Friends and sport

Segment 3: Locally limited

Middle: 35-55 years old

Segment 4: Pressured but engaged

Segment 5: Competing interests

Segment 6: Reluctant and uninspired

Older: 55+ years old

Segment 7: Mature explorers

Segment 8: Nostalgic inactives

21

An overview of these segments is shown in Figure 1, plotted against two axes – „age‟

and „engagement with the natural environment‟. This shows how lower and higher

engagement groups can be found within each age band, which also correlate strongly

with pre-family, family and post-family lifestages.

Figure 1: Engagement with the natural environment by age group

In the figure above, the „engagement‟ axis is defined by an index based on the percentage strongly

agreeing with each of the following statements:

“Spending time out of doors (including my own garden) is an important part of my life”;

“I am concerned about damage to the natural environment”;

“There are many natural places I may never visit but I am glad they exist”;

“Having open green spaces close to where I live is important.”

Engagement is strongly correlated with socio-economic grouping and this has therefore

also played a significant role in defining the segments. This can be seen clearly in the

make-up of each of the segments as shown in the Table 3.

22

Table 3: Socio-economic grouping by segment

Total S1:

Good for

the kids

and me

S2:

Friends

and sport

S3:

Locally

limited

S4:

Pressured

but

engaged

S5:

Moderately

interested

S6:

Reluctant

and

uninspired

S7:

Mature

explorers

S8:

Nostalgic

inactives

AB 22% 9% 8% 0% 100% 0% 1% 36% 0%

C1 28% 60% 49% 0% 0% 58% 0% 36% 1%

C2 20% 31% 44% 0% 0% 42% 1% 27% 1%

DE 29% 0% 0% 100% 1% 0% 98% 0% 98%

Bases 37,192 3,270 2,594 3,359 3,529 6,074 3,523 8,837 6,006

The red and green figures are significantly different from the total population at the

95% confidence level.

Once the segments were finalised, each was profiled in depth against all available

quantitative data to provide a detailed description of how it differed on a wide range of

attitudinal, behavioural and demographic variables. This has involved making use of

the information available from the Planning for Consumer Change survey to enhance

the profiles initially developed using MENE.

This information was then brought together with the findings from qualitative research

to provide a detailed overview of each of the segments. This was refined and enriched

following the debrief workshop.

3.4 Descriptions of the age cohorts

Please note that more detail about the segments can be found in Section 5 and in

Addendum 3 (Segment summaries).

23

3.4.1 Younger cohort: 16-34 years old

Good for the kids and me (S1), Friends and sport (S2) and Locally limited

(S3)

Although sharing a similar life stage and age range, these three segments are

distinguished demographically and attitudinally as regards the natural environment.

Good for the kids and me - are predominantly female and nearly two thirds have

children – they are the segment of young mums. Friends and sport are the opposite of

this group in many respects: primarily male, child-free and single. Though parents may

have introduced the environment to them, they don‟t see it as particularly relevant to

them in their current life stage, and engagement in the natural environment is not yet

something that they are seeking independently. That said, they do acknowledge that

their engagement is likely to increase as they get older.

Good for the kids and me speak of precedent in the natural environment – from when

they were children – and are now looking to pass that on. Entertaining and occupying

their children, and socialising with other mums, are the biggest drivers. For Friends and

sport it is more about hanging out with friends and taking part in some activities. For

both groups the local park is the preferred option – it is easy to access, provides some

amenities and requires little forward planning. The local park is also the most likely

environment for the Locally limited.

The Friends and sport segment, whilst enjoying different activities, don‟t always make

the connection between the natural environment and possible activities. The natural

environment is one of many venues for entertainment and fun. Good for the kids and

me are likely to mention a wider range of environments that they visit as they look for

experiences and entertainment for both themselves and their children.

Locally limited are quite distinct from the other two in the younger age cohort. Where

the others have some financial pressures, it is often due to having children or being

relatively young and not yet a solid income provider. Locally limited are more likely to

be in long-term poorly paid occupations, or unemployed with less opportunity for

advancement. They are likely to be living in more deprived areas; 50% have children,

but 60% are single.

Locally limited have less of a familial precedent in the natural environment and are

more likely to live in urban areas. They lack the curiosity in the natural environment that

the other groups have, and view the natural environment in narrow terms. Though the

Friends and sport segment do not currently venture far afield, they anticipate and

sometimes aspire to spend more time in the natural environment „some day‟. In

contrast, Locally limited show little interest in unfamiliar environments.

Knowledge is a barrier for all three groups but whereas Good for the kids and me and

Friends and sport segments are interested in increasing their knowledge to some

degree, the Locally limited are quite content with their lack of engagement and

24

awareness. They are more likely to be playing computer games, going to the pub or

listening to music, and express little desire to change their behaviours.

Combined with knowledge, amenities of varying sorts also have an impact on attitudes

towards and engagement with different environments. None of these segments is likely

to engage with the more challenging environments of coasts or uplands. They are

impractical for Good for the kids and me, uninteresting to the Locally limited, and overly

complex and / or inaccessible to the Friends and sport group.

3.4.2 Middle cohort: 35-55 years old

Pressured but engaged (S4), Competing interests (S5) and Reluctant and

uninspired (S6)

These three groups occupy the middle age bracket. Marriage and children are common

across all three: two thirds are married, and just under half have children. However the

Reluctant and uninspireds are more likely to be single, divorced or widowed. The

biggest demographic difference between these groups relates to affluence. Pressured

but engaged earn higher incomes and tend to have busy and demanding careers, as

well as young families. This has a negative impact on the amount of time that they

have available to take part in activities or engage with the natural environment, but they

are the most likely to seek out the natural environment in their limited free time. They

are likely to have spent a lot of time in their youth in the natural environment and see it

as an ideal, enjoyable behaviour.

Reluctant and uninspireds are at the opposite end of the spectrum: rather than seeing

the natural environment as somewhere for them, they lack interest and are less likely to

have had a precedent of spending time there whilst growing up. They consider the

natural environment to be immediate and local, partly due to limited mobility and cost

issues, and partly because lack of enjoyment and care for the natural environment

means that they are unwilling to travel distances to experience it.

Competing interests are in some ways more similar to the Pressured but engaged

segment. They are interested in the natural environment, spend time there, and

consider it to be an important part of their life. Their jobs are likely to be neither senior

enough to take up all of their time and energy – as in the case of Pressured but

engaged – nor low skilled or low paid enough to equate to a lack of financial resources

for leisure.

While time and money then, are not significant barriers, Competing interests consider

the natural environment as one of a string of different activities that are important to

them and as such it competes with activities such as socialising, DIY and family for

time, energy and money. They have a precedent in the natural environment that the

Reluctant and uninspireds lack, but do not get as much enjoyment out of engaging as

the Pressured but engaged segment. This means that, while they do engage, it tends

25

to be on a more local level, and barriers such as mobility or weather are less likely to

be overcome or challenged.

All three segments seek out amenities or activities in the natural environment – either

because the natural environment is not enough of a draw in itself, or because they or

their children require refreshments, toilets or parking.

Pressured but engaged and Competing interests both have a broad definition and

experience in the natural environment, seeking substitutes when they cannot reach the

„real‟ outdoors. This means that a riverside spot in a busy city centre is an acceptable

proxy for Pressured but engaged, and a pub garden or adventure playground is still

considered „natural‟ by Competing interests. Reluctant and uninspireds have a more

narrow definition of the natural environment: they lack both the interest and knowledge

to venture further afield.

Knowledge is a potential barrier for Competing interests. They are engaged, but often

more on local levels. Awareness is high about which natural environment resources are

available locally. The opposite is perhaps true for the Pressured but engaged, who are

likely to be knowledgeable about – and potentially to idealise – natural environments

around and across the country, but who may have less knowledge about locations

closer to home.

3.4.3 Older cohort: 55+ years old

Mature explorers (S7) and Nostalgic inactives (S8)

These two older segments share a life stage and generational profile, but there are

many significant differences between them. They are both over the age of 55 and have

a fairly equal split between men and women. They are also similar in terms of the

proportion who are married, divorced, single or who have children. The frequency of

BME members is also similarly low in each group at 3% and 4% respectively.

Mature explorers are predominantly more affluent and feel liberated in their lives and

lifestyle options. They are likely to be retired or working part time through choice. Their

children, if they had them, are grown and have left home. They have a strong social

network and plenty of activities to keep them busy. There is a real sense that they are

enjoying themselves and this has a strong impact on their engagement with the natural

environment.

In contrast, Nostalgic inactives are less content in retirement, face greater physical and

financial barriers, and are less likely to seek enjoyment in the natural environment.

Nearly half of them have some form of disability or mobility issue, and they are also

more likely to spend time caring for a partner or other relative. Though they are also

often retired or working part time this may be as a result of their own, or their partner‟s

health, and not because they are financially comfortable. Money and finance is much

more likely to be a concern in the household.

26

Yet both older segments share an appreciation for and a pride in the British

countryside and all that it has to offer. In particular, the Nostalgic inactives are likely to

reminisce about the time that they spent in the natural environment „when they were

younger‟. However, where the Mature explorers are looking to embrace it and

overcome any potential barriers, the Nostalgic inactives take this idealised view as a

measure against which to compare their current situation and are sometimes

disappointed when they do engage. This means that they are far quicker to focus on

the negatives of a particular environment and use that as an excuse not to engage with

it. Both segments are particularly sensitive to crowds and commercialisation, which

they seek to avoid.

Mature explorers are upbeat, and seek the best out of each situation, enjoying the

natural environment „while they still can‟. They are extremely literate about the range of

places they can visit in the UK, and travel significant distances to reach natural

destinations. This contrasts with the Nostalgic inactives who, while proud of the British

countryside, are slightly dismissive of anything that doesn‟t match up to their

expectations.

Both groups share a love of the natural environment, but the Mature explorers are

more likely to act on it.

In summary, the research findings indicate that in terms of demographics and attitudes,

there are both similarities and differences within the three age cohorts. Segments

clearly engage with the natural environment to varying degrees within each age range.

The level of engagement is also strongly correlated with socio-economic grouping.

27

4. Cross-cutting themes

This section considers in more detail how the different segments responded to

important cross-cutting themes such as the type of landscape they prefer, and the

extent to which they each display pro-environmental behaviour.

See „The eight segments in depth‟ (Section 5) and „Segment summaries‟ (Addendum

3), which provide further detail on both of these themes according to segment.

4.1 Landscapes

One aim of the project was to better understand if, and how, different segments of the

population prefer different kinds of landscapes. The research revealed certain

preferences, although there is more to do to understand detail around activities by

landscape, frequency of visits, and the role of proximity and access (see

Recommendations, Section 6).

Two sources of evidence offer insight on landscape preference:

a question in the MENE survey about „types of landscapes visited in the last week‟

(see Table 4), and

an exercise during both qualitative group discussions and depth interviews which

used images of five different landscapes to surface barriers and triggers to „getting

outdoors‟.

4.1.1 The role of barriers and lifestyle in landscape preference

Our analysis suggests that preferences correspond closely to:

segment-specific understandings of what is/is not the „real‟ natural environment,

the kinds of barriers the segments face in engaging in any natural environment, and

the broader lifestyles and activities of each of the segments.

For example, Pressured but engaged and Nostalgic inactives are equal in their high

expectations and broad definitions of the natural environment, but Pressured but

engaged are more likely to seek out and travel to more rugged landscapes. In contrast,

28

Nostalgic inactives would be more likely to identify a range of barriers – poor health,

cost, complexities, „bother‟ – of accessing uplands or coastal areas.

For the younger segments their engagement with landscapes is strongly influenced by

the activities that they engage in: for Good for kids and me their desire for convenience

and facilities for children shapes their preferences. Sport and friends are motivated by

places where they perceive that they can engage in activities which appeal to them,

e.g. mountain biking. Landscapes where they do not know what they would do are

often seen as „boring‟.

Therefore, whilst a segment might idealise a particular landscape because it is

perceived as more „natural‟ or „real‟, real and perceived triggers and barriers, and

lifestyle, more strongly shape willingness and ability to engage.

4.1.2 Qualitative data on landscape preference

The following section offers preliminary analysis of the appeal of different landscapes.

Uplands

Uplands are perceived as the most challenging landscape and were unappealing to

Good for kids and me, Locally limited and Reluctant and uninspired segments who felt

that they were overly complicated and physically demanding.

In contrast, Pressured but engaged considered them ideal, „real‟ natural environments

and would spend more time in them if they could.

Urban parks

Urban parks are popular with almost all of the segments, particularly Locally limited,

who value how close they are to home, their affordability and the entertainment they

provide.

29

Pressured but engaged share a tendency to engage in urban parks with the Locally

limited segment, however their motivations are due more to lack of time than a

preference for urban parks. They perceive urban parks more as a substitute or „second

best‟ to more rural and rugged landscapes.

Although urban parks are the most accessible to all, they are not appealing to

Nostalgic inactives – in spite of the fact that they use them regularly – who seek to

avoid crowds, noise and are concerned about safety.

Woodlands

The qualitative research found that woodlands were the most popular landscape

amongst the segments, valued for natural beauty, delivering solitude.

Existing evidence suggests that woodlands give rise to mixed feelings, including fear.

This feeling was echoed by some of our respondents, particularly Good for kids and

me, however, woodlands came across as the most „flexible‟ landscape because they

are often accessible to all kinds of groups, while simultaneously representing real

„nature‟.

Indeed, segments otherwise differentiated according to social grade, physical health

and enjoyment of the natural environment, all identified something to enjoy in the

woodlands.

Canals / waterways

Canals and waterways are popular with Mature explorers, because they offer a place

to walk, rest and fish – and in a classic „English‟ setting.

In contrast, the waterways did not appeal to Locally limited because they were seen as

boring and far from home.

30

Beaches

Beaches are extremely popular, particularly for Good for kids and me, Locally limited

and Competing interests (although for different reasons). Generally, beaches are seen

as child-friendly, but also offering relaxation for adults.

Generally, older segments (Mature explorers and Nostalgic inactives) spoke in

qualitative groups / interviews of getting less enjoyment on beaches because of

crowds, commercialisation and potential expense.

Coastal areas

Coastal areas were especially popular with Pressured but engaged because they

offered a challenge, but were also healthy and fun for the entire family.

As with the beach, Nostalgic inactives associate „coastal‟ areas with crowds and

commerce, and, additionally, perceive the coast as too physically challenging and, for

most, too distant.

31

4.1.3 Quantitative data on landscape

Although limited in scope, quantitative material on „types of landscapes visited‟ is

consistent with the preliminary qualitative findings.

Table 4: Types of landscapes visited in the last week

Total S1:

Good for

the kids

and me

S2:

Friends

and sport

S3:

Locally

limited

S4:

Pressured

but

engaged

S5:

Moderately

interested

S6:

Reluctant

and

uninspired

S7:

Mature

explorers

S8:

Nostalgic

inactives

Town or city 23% 33% 26% 28% 26% 23% 22% 18% 14%

Seaside

resort or

town 6% 6% 4% 4% 6% 8% 5% 6% 5%

Other

coastal

landscape 3% 3% 1% 2% 4% 4% 3% 4% 2%

Countryside 23% 18% 13% 11% 34% 27% 19% 28% 15%

Bases 37,192 3,270 2,594 3,359 3,529 6,074 3,523 8,837 6,006



It is worth noting that although in some cases the percentage of each segment visiting

different types of landscape does not vary greatly, because of the restriction of the

question to visits made in the last week, this is not a full reflection of the differences in

engagement between the segments. These can also be understood through the

attitudinal questions in Table 5:

32

Table 5: Percentage strongly agreeing with statements about engagement with the

natural environment

Total S1:

Good for

the kids

and me

S2:

Friends

and sport

S3:

Locally

limited

S4:

Pressured

but

engaged

S5:

Moderately

interested

S6:

Reluctant

and

uninspired

S7:

Mature

explorers

S8:

Nostalgic

inactives

Spending time out of

doors (including my

own garden) is an

important part of my

life 44% 38% 26% 27% 55% 46% 41% 58% 39%

I am concerned about

damage to the natural

environment 38% 35% 23% 27% 54% 39% 30% 45% 33%

There are many

natural places I may

never visit but I am

glad they exist 46% 42% 27% 31% 57% 49% 36% 59% 40%

Having open green

spaces close to where

I live is important 50% 44% 28% 34% 62% 53% 44% 64% 45%

Bases 2,686 611 455 452 251 243 261 214 199

4.2 Pro-environmental behaviours

One of the objectives for this project was to understand pro-environmental behaviour

within the natural environment segments, and whether there was any evidence for a

relationship between increased engagement with the natural environment and the

adoption of pro-environmental behaviours.

We have addressed this through examining quantitative data on a limited number of

behaviours collected through the MENE survey and our exploratory qualitative

research with each of the segments. Answers to the question „Which of the following

environment-related activities do you do?‟ are shown in Table 6.

33

It is difficult to draw many strong conclusions in this area and although there does

seem to be a correlation between interest in the natural environment and pro-

environmental behaviour at the extremes of engagement, for the majority of people

there does not appear to be a strong connection. For many, other interests and barriers

to change are perhaps more powerful forces than their interest in the natural

environment. This is summarised for each of the segments in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Summary of pro-environmental behaviour by segment

34

Table 6: Pro-environmental behaviours as defined by segments

Total S1:

Good for

the kids

and me

S2:

Friends

and sport

S3:

Locally

limited

S4:

Pressured

but

engaged

S5:

Moderately

interested

S6:

Reluctant

and

uninspired

S7:

Mature

explorers

S8:

Nostalgic

inactives

I usually recycle

items rather

than throw them

away 74% 73% 61% 57% 88% 80% 57% 83% 69%

I usually buy

eco-friendly

products and

brands 25% 23% 15% 12% 38% 27% 13% 36% 14%

I usually buy

seasonal or

locally grown

food 37% 30% 15% 18% 47% 41% 25% 52% 38%

I choose to walk

or cycle instead

of using my car

when I can 41% 38% 38% 32% 57% 45% 42% 44% 27%

I encourage

other people to

protect the

environment 28% 23% 15% 17% 41% 30% 19% 38% 24%

I am a member

of an

environmental

or conservation

organisation 8% 8% 0% 4% 10% 8% 1% 16% 5%

I volunteer to

help care for the

environment 5% 3% 3% 5% 5% 4% 5% 6% 5%

None of these 11% 13% 17% 20% 3% 6% 16% 7% 16%

Bases 1,156 128 85 100 136 221 73 282 131



35

In summary, while the research revealed some preferences and correlations in

connection with landscape preference and pro-environmental behaviour, more work

would need be done to understand fully the detail around both these cross-cutting

themes.

4.3 Dog-ownership

Dog walking is a common motivation for visits to the natural environment and or all

segments, dog owners tend to visit the outdoors more often than those without dogs.

The difference in frequency is greatest for the less engaged segments and among dog

owners, the less engaged segments also visit the outdoors less often.

Table 7: Frequency of visits to the natural environment by dog-ownership and segment

Frequency

of visits to

the natural

environment

S1:

Good for

the kids

and me

S2:

Friends

and sport

S3:

Locally

limited

S4:

Pressured

but

engaged

S5:

Moderately

interested

S6:

Reluctant

and

uninspired

S7:

Mature

explorers

S8:

Nostalgic

inactives

Have a dog

None 34% 43% 50% 27% 33% 40% 34% 48%

1 to 2 36% 31% 30% 30% 27% 21% 20% 15%

3+ 30% 25% 20% 43% 41% 39% 46% 37%

No Dogs

None 52% 63% 65% 46% 55% 64% 58% 74%

1 to 2 38% 29% 28% 38% 33% 28% 29% 19%

3+ 10% 7% 8% 16% 11% 8% 13% 7%



36

4.4 Presence of children

Another common motivation for visits to the natural environment is to entertain or

provide exercise, play or „fresh air‟ for children. Across the segments, Parents are more

likely to visit the outdoors once or twice a week, except for those in Reluctant and

uninspired. However, having children does not appear to be a driver of more frequent

visits (3 or more times per week), other than for the Moderately interested.

Table 8: Frequency of visits to the natural environment by presence of children and

segment

Frequency of

visits to the

natural

environment

S1:

Good for

the kids

and me

S3:

Locally

limited

S4:

Pressured

but engaged

S5:

Moderately

interested

S6:

Reluctant

and

uninspired

Have children

None 46% 56% 36% 47% 55%

1 to 2 39% 31% 41% 35% 27%

3+ 15% 13% 23% 18% 17%

Do not have

children

None 51% 66% 46% 51% 57%

1 to 2 35% 25% 33% 29% 25%

3+ 14% 8% 21% 21% 19%


95% confidence level. Segments where a small minority of respondents have children

have been excluded.

37

5. The eight segments in depth

This section considers the eight segments in greater detail, looking in turn at their

distinctive demographic characteristics, their attitudes to the natural environment, and

the types of landscape they prefer to engage with.

Segment summaries have been drawn together from analysis of the quantitative and

qualitative findings. These are also available in PowerPoint format (Addendum 3) and

can be circulated and published internally, and drawn on for further use in identifying

implications of the segmentation to policy, communications and service delivery.

5.1 Segment 1: Good for the kids and me (9%)

Age 16-34

Gender 77% female

Children in household 61%

Socioeconomic group 91% C1C2, 9% AB

BME groups Above average 21%

Disabilities Below average 2%

Access to a car Average 75%

Dog ownership Average 23%

Visits to the natural

environment

Slightly above average; more likely to visit a park or

playground; less likely to visit countryside or coast.

Attitudes to the

environment

They enjoy spending time in the natural environment but it

is not generally a priority for them; average interest in pro-

environmental actions.

About them:

This segment, typically young mothers, tend to plan their lives around their families.

They live busy lives, often combining parenting, work and socialising.

38

Attitudes to the natural environment:

This segment sees the natural environment both as a potential means to entertain

children and a source of nostalgia for themselves. They draw on rich childhood

experiences centred around day trips, visits to seaside towns and large urban parks.

This tends to have involved different types of entertainment (rides, amusement) and

the beach. Those positive memories are something they now seek to revive.

For many, parenthood has reinvigorated an interest in these environments, which may

have declined before becoming parents, driven by a desire to give their children the

positive experiences that they themselves enjoyed, and to get them „out of the house,

into the fresh air‟, and generally foster children‟s wellbeing. However, for parents and

non-parents, the environment can also provide a means to gentle physical exercise

and a sociable experience for themselves.

The natural environment competes for the time and interest of this segment with ample

home entertainment and formalised indoor and outdoor „entertainment‟, e.g.

amusement parks, theme parks, attractions, visits to seaside towns and shopping trips.

More „eventful‟ activities also often take precedent over the natural environment.

Landscape preferences:

This segment tends to prefer organised leisure, with plenty of facilities and activities for

children. They are likely to be put off by a lack of amenities (like toilets and parking), a

lack of activities or things to do, anything too physically strenuous, and any perceived

risk to child safety. Their ideal environments are the beach in seaside towns, large

landscaped urban parks, and visitor attractions – providing nature and things to do in a

safe and familiar environment.

Coasts and uplands are likely to be seen as impractical for prams and small children,

while waterways can be seen as potentially dangerous. Even for those without

children, they may be seen as too inaccessible and strenuous and option to be

appealing.

This segment is willing to travel moderate distances for activities and entertainment.

Information and access needs: They learn about where to go and what to do through word of mouth (especially

parenting circles) and often return to places they visited as children.

Pro-environmental behaviour:

Their interest in environmental behaviour is largely passive (for most not extending

beyond recycling and saving on energy), but more than half of parents in the segment

39

agree that they have become more environmentally aware since having children. They

are unlikely to feel that they are experts in this area, but they are likely to be open to

doing more if it can be made easy and affordable for them.

Triggers to engagement: A desire to entertain children is a key driver of engagement for this segment, as is a

desire to foster children‟s sense of emotional wellbeing, and reliving or passing on

childhood experiences. Other triggers include gentle physical exercise (for self and

children) and social connection and people watching.

Barriers to engagement: This segment is unlikely to engage if they have concerns about child safety, a lack of

amenities, a lack of activities, a lack of „things to do‟ or concerns about their kids

potentially being bored. They are also deterred by physically strenuous activities.

Thought starters for delivery, communications and policy:

Although they already visit the natural environment, this is not necessarily a conscious

choice to engage with nature; they are more likely to go there to entertain their children

or socialise with friends. There is therefore the possibility of extending their experience

and enjoyment of the natural environment by finding ways to engage them within the

areas they are visiting. Tapping into their enjoyment of nostalgia and childhood

interests could also be a useful trigger to further engagement.

Providing extra activities or facilities such as games, bike hire and interactive displays

at relevant locations would act as a honey pot to this group. Educational and practical

amenities such as cafes and toilets are also likely to be a strong draw.

Providing information and reassurance about safety such as marked paths, fencing

and park wardens is likely to be well received and encourage visits from those who are

more easily discouraged.

Given their current information seeking behaviours, appropriate word-of-mouth

channels such as existing parenting or child-based groups and possibly even social-

networking are likely to be effective ways of reaching this audience.

40

5.2 Segment 2: Friends and sport (8%)

Age 16-35

Gender 86% male


Socioeconomic group 83% C1C2, 8% AB

BME groups High 25%

Disabilities 6%

Access to a car 64%

Dog ownership 22%


environment

About average; more likely to visit a park in town and to use

public transport.

Attitudes to the

environment

They enjoy spending time in the natural environment but it

is not generally a priority for them; average interest in pro-


About them:

This segment, typically young single males, are busy and sociable. In their leisure time

they play computer games, football, tennis and socialise (both virtually and physically)

with friends. Their current life stage is one of having fun and socialising with few

responsibilities. Lots of time is spent socialising with friends, typically in pubs or bars.


Parents or older relatives may have introduced this segment to the natural environment

by taking them on camping or fishing trips when they were younger, but these are not

activities that they tend to do independently. They are more likely to live in an urban

area and spend their leisure time there as well, placing a low value on spending time in

the natural environment for its own sake. Though it does appeal to their imagination in

terms of „Bear Grylls‟-type activities, in reality there is often little engagement. However,

many feel that they will take more interest in the outdoors as they get older.

Most of their leisure activities take place in the home or urban settings, and their

definition of what counts as the natural environment tends to be influenced by what

41

they themselves have experienced: outdoor music festivals, zoos and theme parks are

more likely to feature.


The ideal environment for this segment is the local park, which can be accessed easily

and is seen an important place to hang out with friends or „have a kick-about‟, though

also occasionally to get away from the urban environment and have some time to

themselves. More challenging environments such as uplands and coasts are often

recognised as being interesting and different to their more normal urban environment,

but are more likely to be seen as too distant and too difficult to reach, with not enough

to do once they are there.

Beaches hold some appeal, but this is often due to the social aspect of beaches and

the activities that the beach involves, rather than the landscape itself. Waterways are

recognised as manageable and interesting, but ultimately hold little appeal.

In general, they are not well travelled either in the UK or abroad, and are unlikely to

have been to many different kinds of landscapes across the country.

Information and access needs:

Online activities are important for this segment. Forty-three percent spend more than

30 hours a month online compared to an average of 30%. Though confident with the

internet, they lack some basic knowledge about what to search for: better information

about activities such as climbing, abseiling, adventure trains and so on would be of

interest.


Friends and sport has a relatively low level of knowledge of, and concern with,

environmental issues. They tend not to be overly concerned about the environment

and to have a relatively low level of knowledge of environmental issues. They are less

likely to feel that they have a responsibility to make changes to their behaviour. Only

26% of this segment are interested in the environment as a newspaper topic against an

average of 46%.

Triggers to engagement:

As in all parts of their lives, Friends and Sport are driven by opportunities to socialise

with their friends. They also value fresh air, solitude and relaxation. Related to this,

they like to experience a change of scenery, health and exercise.

42

Barriers to engagement:

A key barrier to engagement for this segment is lack of interest and high numbers of

other activities that compete for their time and attention. They often don‟t own cars, and

would be put off by having to get to distant natural environments. Finally, a lack of

awareness and information about what their options are currently serves as a

significant barrier.


The majority of this segment do not readily or spontaneously engage with the natural

environment. However, some of the activities that they are interested in do take place

there, and this offers the potential for making a stronger connection the natural

environment.

Lack of knowledge is a major barrier, so providing information in accessible, relevant

and targeted ways could make a real difference to this group. Communicating using

their own language and through channels such as social media or colleges and youth

centres could make unfamiliar landscapes and activities more accessible and

approachable for this segment.

Promoting engagement through group activities, which can be shared with their friends

could also help make the natural environment a realistic alternative to current locations

and activities for socialising such as the pub, shopping centres and friends‟ houses.

43

5.3 Segment 3: Locally limited (9%)

Age 16-34

Gender Male and female


Socioeconomic group 100% DE

BME groups High 24%

Disabilities 7%

Access to a car 47%

Dog ownership 25%


environment

Below average; more likely to visit parks, playing fields or

playgrounds; less likely to visit remote places.

Attitudes to the

environment

They show low levels of curiosity about the natural

environment; limited interest in pro-environmental actions.

About them:

This segment is likely to be distinguished by their low income status, which often

confines them to a relatively small local area, with less than half having access to a car.

They tend to have a low level of interest in health, and limited interest in physical

activity, displaying instead an enthusiasm for socialising, watching television and going

out.


This segment tends to have little curiosity about the natural environment, reflecting a

tendency to see the natural environment as innately boring or a „task‟. They are also

generally dissatisfied with the cleanliness and safety of their own local area. Their

experience of the outdoors in childhood has typically been restricted to the local area,

with these narrow horizons continuing into adulthood. Parenthood encourages a

greater interest in the natural environment for some. The segment is likely to consider

managed, cultivated environments as natural, rarely registering wilderness and open

country at all. Though they show only limited interest in environmental issues, they are

the segment least likely to be satisfied with the local environment and as such are more

likely to be concerned about issues such as litter, cleanliness and vandalism.

44

The natural environment competes with television as a leisure activity. Thirty-three

percent agree that they would describe themselves as a TV addict compared to an

average of 18%. Going out to the pub also figures as a prime focus of entertainment

and socialising.


For this segment, proximity is frequently a bigger factor in choosing a landscape than

anything else. Those who live near the beach or countryside, for instance, will find

these environments more familiar and practical than those who live in cities. There is

likely to be a common desire for entertainment or activities, as the natural environment

of itself is rarely considered sufficient. Urban parks and local woods are often seen as

manageable and appealing, with other landscapes considered inaccessible,

challenging or unsafe. Their ideal environment is the well-tended, safe, familiar urban

park, with catering and facilities. The beach can appeal as the focus for a relatively rare

day out.


Given the local focus of this segment, local newspapers, bus shelters, and word of

mouth could play an important role for this segment. Public sector hubs such as the

GP‟s surgery, schools, post offices, nurseries would also be relevant.

Those with children seek child-oriented facilities and entertaining events within easy

local access or affordable reach for a day out. Reassurance about safety (wardens,

police) is also a prominent need.

More generally, they could benefit from information about less well known natural

environments within relatively easy reach, going beyond the obvious local parks.


This segment displays limited interest in pro-environmental behaviour beyond

recycling, which is also below average. However, their high use of parks and

dissatisfaction with their local environment means they are often concerned about

issues such as litter, cleanliness and vandalism.


There is often a social element such as seeing friends or playing football which is the

real driver for visits to the natural environment. They also seek to entertain children.

They find an „escape‟ from domestic pressures, and see the natural environment as a

way of improving their, and their children‟s, emotional wellbeing. They also engage to

get gentle physical exercise, connect with their community, people watch, and

sometimes to dog walk.


In addition to a general lack of energy and motivation to engage with the natural

environment, the Locally Limited face practical barriers around cost of transport, fears

45

for personal safety and low awareness of reachable outdoors. They also do not enjoy

the physical strenuousness of some landscapes.


This segment has little in the way of precedent for engagement with the natural

environment and there are few motivating hooks that can be used to draw them in.

Some of the changes that would be required to make wilder landscapes appealing to

this group may be off putting to those in other segments.

Communications with this segment may be best used to educate and inform and to

give permission for them to spend time in the natural environment as it is not always on

their radar as a leisure activity.

Local pubs, schools or sports teams could be used to highlight what is available on

their doorstep as travelling beyond their local area may be seen as risky – will it be

worth it? – or unrealistic.

46

5.4 Segment 4: Pressured but engaged (13%)

Age 25-54



Socioeconomic group 100% AB

BME groups Average 12%

Disabilities 8%

Access to a car Above average 88%



environment

Above average; more likely to visit countryside locations;

woodland, farmland, mountains.

Attitudes to the

environment

The natural environment is incorporated as much as

possible, but is often hard to fit in; above average interest in

pro-environmental actions.

About them:

Pressured but engaged are typically career-focused high achievers, working long

hours. Family and friends are important to them, and they are generally in good health

and enjoy physical activity.


Though this group tend to see themselves as „outdoors people‟, their current lifestyle

often makes it difficult for them to engage as much as they would like. Parental

influence may have encouraged them to try a range of activities and sports when

younger, but engagement with activities like bird watching, fishing, rambling, and horse

riding may well have taken a back seat as their own careers and families began taking

up more time.

They are likely to still have a desire to „be outdoors and doing something‟, and those

with children are also often looking to pass on an appreciation for the natural

environment. Unlike some of the other segments, they have few safety concerns and

like to get out as much as time permits, preferably with their family but also with friends.

Day-to-day engagement is frequently determined by where they live, as they may not

have time to travel very far.

47


This segment is likely to enjoy a wide range of activities in a variety of natural

environments, from city centre walks to hill walking, coastal paths, visiting stately

homes and grounds, and going for short breaks to places like the Lake and Peak

Districts. Though their preference tends to be for the „real‟ – if slightly idealised –

outdoors (more rugged environments like uplands and coasts), time constraints mean

that in practice they often opt for „second best‟ landscapes, such as urban parks. Their

ideal environment is likely to be the local countryside – easily accessible and offering

the sense of escapism that they are looking for. Infrequent but longer trips are also

taken, and these take them further afield, particularly to places where they have links.


They are generally knowledgeable about the natural environment from previous

experience. They are confident in finding out about information from a range of sources

but are also keen to know more.


This segment tend to have a real concern for the environment and are aware of and

concerned about many of the issues. Although recycling is the most common

behaviour, as it is for all segments, this group is also more likely to buy eco-friendly

products or brands and are willing to make other lifestyle changes.


Enjoyment, escapism and relaxation are the main drivers for engagement in addition to

fresh air, health and sport. They also want to make sure that their children appreciate

the natural environment.


The key barrier for Pressured but engaged is time, leading to competing priorities and

an inability or unwillingness to travel.


Pressured but engaged are a large group with a positive story to tell about the natural

environment, and a strong desire to engage. This means that it might only take small

communication changes to increase their involvement and contact.

48

Providing information about more local amenities to minimise travel requirements could

help overcome the main barrier for this group and encourage them to reduce carbon

emissions.

Suggesting local points of contact as part of a routine, rather than the more „full scale‟

engagement that they idealise, might also help them perceive activities in the natural

environment as achievable on an everyday basis.

49

5.5 Segment 5: Competing interests (18%)

Age 35-54



Socioeconomic group 100% C1C2

BME groups Average 11%

Disabilities 10%




environment

Slightly above average; slightly more likely to visit

countryside locations, woodland and beaches.

Attitudes to the

environment

They like the natural environment and spend time there, but

other activities and interests are seen as equally important;

average interest in pro-environmental actions.

About them:

This segment are typically busy with work, children, and lots of projects like DIY or

maintaining gardens and allotments. They are likely to enjoy social outings, the pub,

cinema, or reading, as well as activities centred around exercising and entertaining

children and dogs. They are mostly still in work, although they may be looking forward

to retiring and having more time to themselves.


Competing interests are likely to have grown up with parents who encouraged some

engagement with the natural environment. This was likely to be the local woods or the

beach. The arrival of children or dogs often helps re-establish this interest to a certain

extent. They tend to like the natural environment and spend time there on a regular

basis, but view other activities and interests as equally important. They often have

broad definitions of the natural environment, covering local woodlands and parks as

well as less managed heath lands or moors. While they admire more untamed

environments, lower levels of enjoyment mean they are more likely to want to „look at

the mountain rather than climb it‟. They often feel that there is probably more that they

could be getting out of the natural environment, but lack the motivation or knowledge to

pursue this.

50

An active social life sometimes takes priority over the natural environment. Entertaining

children is also important – sometimes in the outdoors, but more often not.


While this segment do engage with a mix of landscapes, more frequently these will be

local environments, with locations further afield visited only occasionally. This is partly

about a lack of interest but also often due to time pressure and competing social

interests. They tend not to have the impetus to visit less managed landscapes as often

as they would like, but enjoy parks, woodlands and waterways instead, because they

can be combined with other activities and socialising. Their ideal environment is likely

to be local woods: quiet but sociable, easy to find and get to, and easy to dip in and out

of rather than making a big investment or taking a risk.

Information and access needs: Lack of information is a big barrier to engagement. When they do engage, it is often

local, or they have not arranged it themselves. They are confident online searchers, but

when it comes to the natural environment, they are not sure where to start or what to

look for. In the more challenging environments, amenities such as benches, visitor

centres and activity trails would give them more of a reason to engage.


This segment tend to consider themselves as environmentally aware and see pollution

and littering as barriers to enjoying the natural environment. However they do report

more pro-environmental activity than average beyond recycling.


Competing interests are motivated to get into the natural environment when there is an

„accompanying activity‟, such as sports, a pub to drop in on, or villages to see. They

also value the opportunity to get fresh air, solitude, and relax. They are driven by a

need to walk the dog, entertain children, visit with family, and for health and exercise.


This segment is put off by poor weather, a lack of knowledge, competing interests and

activities, and a lack of amenities once in the natural environment (which would prevent

them from returning).

51


This segment are one of the largest and offer a real opportunity to increase

engagement with the Natural Environment. It is something that they are already doing

and gaining enjoyment from.

Information about less immediate environments is one of the biggest barriers for this

group so simply making this information more readily available, and taking it to them

could provide the small nudge that is required.

Small adaptations to environments could make a big difference, providing the

reassurance that this group needs to take their existing engagement further. This could

simply be information boards or information at „starting points‟ or signposting en route.

Making the engagement part of a story (i.e. within a narrative of a day‟s itinerary) would

also add to the incentive of extending what they are already doing.

52

5.6 Segment 6: Reluctant and uninspired (9%)

Age 35-54



Socioeconomic group 1% AB, 1% C1C2, 98% DE

BME groups Above average 15%

Disabilities High 24%

Access to a car 63%

Dog ownership 32%


environment

About average; more likely to visit a park within a short

distance of home.

Attitudes to the

environment

They lack interest and curiosity in the natural environment,

and spending time there is not part of their routine.

About them:

This segment tend to struggle with routine worries over health, money and family

issues. This is typically the poorest segment and monetary value is usually carefully

calculated. Busy with work, and some with children, they are likely to have little in the

way of free time, and life can feel challenging for them on a day-to-day basis.

Socialising and doing house work are often prioritised over finding time for the natural

environment.


This segment tends to lack interest and curiosity in the natural environment, with time

spent outdoors not part of their day-to-day routine. As children though, they may have

spent more time in the natural environment, but they don‟t tend to idealise this kind of

childhood like other segments. A lack of mobility and interest now means that some

engage very little with the natural environment. Getting out of the house and enjoying

fresh air are likely to be seen as beneficial for dogs and children, but these needs are

often felt to be satisfied by basic local landscapes, with little further enjoyment gained

from engaging with challenging or varied environments. They may feel that they should

spend some time in the natural environment, but tend to treat the prospect of this

engagement more with reluctance than enthusiasm.

53

Concerns for safety are relatively high and this can stop them from going to some

places. Fifty percent feel at significant risk from young people hanging around,

compared to an average of 33%.


They are likely to use local parks and woodlands for their ease of access but are not

inspired by doing so. Their ideal environment tends to be the local park or open spaces

where they can walk the dog or take young children. Ideally, terrain should be

unchallenging, and amenities and shops should be in close proximity.


Access can be a problem for those who lack a car, as is lack of confidence about

where to go. For those with disabilities, better foot paths, hand rails and benches for

resting would help.


This segment are not particularly interested in environmental issues. Apart from having

limited awareness, and more immediate concerns, they also often profess some

cynicism as to the truth behind environmental claims.

Triggers to engagement: Dog walking is likely to be a main reason for getting out of the house. The other key

trigger to engagement is entertaining kids, socialising and getting a change of scenery.

Barriers to engagement: Reluctant and uninspireds face more barriers than triggers to engagement. They

generally don‟t appear to enjoy the natural environment, and poor weather can easily

deter them.

Practical barriers include fear (of people in environments closer to them, such as urban

parks), physical restrictions such as poor health, and the cost of public transport or

parking. Perceived distance and lack of access to a car are also practical barriers.

Finally, this segment is likely to have slightly older children whose unwillingness and

disinterest in the natural environment prevents engagement.

Thought starters for delivery, communications and policy Reluctant and uninspireds have more significant barriers such as disability or living in

deprived areas. This means that multiple interventions are likely to be needed as there

is no single issue that needs to be dealt with to resolve all their problems.

For BMEs, who make up a larger than average percentage of this segment, the lack of

precedent means that an „external animator‟ or community champion could be used to

help shift the norms within the community and make engaging with the natural

environment something that is seen as being an option.

54

For many, a lack of willingness to engage is down to their own experiences of their

local natural environments which may be run down, in need of investment or simply

unsafe. Improving these through community projects could be a good first step to

increasing both awareness and engagement.

55

5.7 Segment 7: Mature explorers (22%)

Age 55+


Children in household Very few

Socioeconomic group 36% AB, 64% C1C2

BME groups Low 3%

Disabilities 31% above average

Access to a car 83%

Dog ownership 18%


environment

Slightly above average; more likely to visit woodland, coast,

and less formal countryside.

Attitudes to the

environment

They are comfortable and confident spending time in the

natural environment; above average interest in pro-


About them:

This segment are likely to be contented, fulfilled and have a busy schedule. They are

typically retired or nearing retirement, their children have left home, and their

grandchildren range in age from small babies to teenagers. They tend to have wide

networks of friends with whom they spend most of their time.


Mature explorers are likely to be comfortable and confident in the natural environment.

They may have spent time in the countryside with their own parents, and while as

parents themselves they may not have been able to spend as much time outdoors as

they would have liked, they are likely to have consistently involved their own children in

sport and outdoor activities. In many ways their current life stage can therefore be seen

as a liberation. Typically, spending time outdoors is now an essential part of their

routines, driven by a strong personal interest and an appreciation for the natural

environment, as well as a desire to stay healthy. Even when some face increasing

physical limitations, this is not generally perceived as a barrier to accessing most

landscapes.

56

Their definition of the natural environment ranges from ideals of rugged terrain to

idyllic, „authentic‟ market towns situated within the English countryside.


Perhaps more than any other, this segment is likely to gain real enjoyment by

accessing different natural environments. They tend to prefer isolated, quiet, natural

landscapes, and to avoid crowds and commercialised outdoor spaces unless

entertaining grandchildren. Though they often admire uplands and hills, they are

realistic about their increasing inability to access these environments, and tend to visit

more managed spaces. Twenty percent have visited the National Trust in the last 12

months as compared to an average of 11%.

Woodlands and waterways are also appreciated for being less commercialised and

„managed‟ and as allowing for a slower pace. Woodlands and waterways are also often

familiar to this segment from their younger days and offer a welcome sense of

nostalgia.

They are literate about the natural environment and know what is available to them and

the wide range of possible destinations in the UK. Of all the segments, Mature

explorers are the most likely to travel distances to experience the natural environment,

and they are generally well-travelled both at home and abroad. Their ideal environment

is likely to be quiet, relaxing, and scenic, but not too physically challenging.


Their main source of information is from personal connections and experiences, but

they would be creative in seeking out ideas from the internet, travel agents, books,

magazines and occasionally bus stations.

Pro-environmental behaviour: Environmental issues are a concern for this group, who cite high rates of recycling, campaigns against litter, and environmental consciousness in purchasing decisions.


Mature explorers are motivated to engage with the natural environment for pure

enjoyment as well as health and exercise, fresh air, solitude, relaxation, diversion and

change of scenery and to entertain grandchildren.


The potential for crowds and commercialisation put this segment off from some natural

environments, as do sensitivities to costs (notably parking). A key practical barrier is

increasing physical limitation due to age – either their own or their partner‟s.

Companionship is important here.

Thought starters for delivery, communications and policy: People in this segment are active and engaged with the local environment and

community, and they enjoy what they do: 34% are satisfied with community groups in

57

their local area against an average of 23%. So engaging this group locally and through

local activities offers real opportunities.

However they are increasingly aware of the realities of their age and the implications

for their ability to get „out and about‟. Providing information and reassurance about

amenities and transport could help this segment maintain or increase their levels of

engagement. Benches, resting points and toilet facilities are all appreciated, although

a balance also needs to be struck between meeting people‟s needs and risking

compromising the less managed environments that they prefer.

Offering opportunities within environments to engage at different levels could allow

those who are less fit and mobile to continue to enjoy the more challenging

environments – i.e. walks around the bottom of the hill or getting a lift to the top, rather

than struggling with the climb.

Although this group enjoys the natural environment when they are on their own or with

peers, children and grandchildren are also drivers of engagement. As such activities

that can be enjoyed across the generations should also be highlighted.

58

5.8 Segment 8: Nostalgic inactives (12%)

Age 55+


Children in household Very few

Socioeconomic group 98% DE, 2% C1C2

BME groups Low 4%

Disabilities High 45%




environment

Below average; more likely to visit somewhere within two

miles of starting point.

Attitudes to the

environment

They have a strong appreciation for the natural

environment, and high expectations - that are often not met;

largely passive interest in pro-environmental actions.

About them:

This segment is largely retired or nearing retirement. Their children have almost all left

home, although some still live close by, enabling them to see their grandchildren often.

Their commitments to family and friends, and as carers to other family members, often

limit their leisure activity.


Nostalgic inactives are likely to be deeply proud of a somewhat idealised British

countryside. They may engage with the outdoors to stretch their legs, relax and clear

their heads, acknowledging its health and educational benefits. But they tend to have

high expectations for a low cost, peaceful and accessible natural landscape, which are

rarely met. They often have positive memories from childhood and youth of walks with

older family members in the countryside and parks. As young parents, they are likely to

have walked and been active with their own children, but as they grew older, many

became unwell, with physical limitations preventing them from continuing to engage

with the natural environment.

Although they may aspire to spend time there, they tend to encounter numerous

barriers to such engagement, notably the weather and their own or a partner‟s ill

health. They spend time in the natural environment with grandchildren, but imagine that

59

this will decrease as the children grow older. They will often find a reason not to go,

staying close to home and walking only short distances instead.

When not taking care of themselves or family members, they enjoy visiting friends,

reading and watching television programmes, including Country File and Autumn

Watch. They also enjoy gardening and caravanning and generally „taking it slowly‟, with

49% agreeing that „the pace of life is too much for them these days‟.


Although they are likely to profess an admiration and nostalgia for the „untainted

countryside‟, in reality many of these types of natural environment are now seen as too

challenging. Parks „don‟t really count‟. They avoid crowds and commercialism. Their

ideal environment tends to be a safe, warm and peaceful place to walk in the

countryside, with flat and smooth terrain.

Well managed woodlands with accessible pathways, potentially offer some of the best

opportunities for engagement.


They learn about where to go by word-of-mouth and from their own experiences. They

need well-kept footpaths, sitting and viewing areas. They are not opposed to cafes and

facilities, but prefer to avoid having to spend money.


Typically, this segment are put off by perceived litter and mess in the natural

environment, and express strong wishes for a tidier outdoors. They also tend to recycle

and worry about pollution.


Nostalgic inactives will engage for peace, quiet, relaxation, mild exercise, fresh air and

an „escape‟. They also engage with the natural environment in order to entertain their

grandchildren. Nice weather is also a trigger.


This segment is easily deterred by a number of practical concerns, such as the

physical restrictions and poor health they often face, cost (notably parking), perceived

distance and the travel and transport that might require, and safety concerns. They will

not venture out in poor weather. They do not like crowds and commercialisation, and

even if they did have more time and energy for engagement, often find themselves

busy with other commitments.

60

Thought starters for delivery, communications and policy: While they have a well developed interest in the natural engagement, this segment can

be particularly hard to please. Their idealised expectations are often not met and are

then used as an excuse for not engaging more. Many factors will cause disappointment

to this group (or be used as pretexts not to engage), ranging from the weather to litter,

to over-commercialisation or crowds.

Their age and deteriorating health means that although this group do aspire to spend

time outdoors, the reality is that all but the most accessible of environments can be

beyond their abilities on a practical level. For example, only 13% are free from a

significant medical condition compared to a norm of 41%.

Stable footpaths and amenities that could help them overcome mobility issues, such as

frequent rest points or hand rails, are often welcome – although their high expectations

and nostalgia for „unspoilt countryside‟ may mean that people in this segment do not

always appreciate changes made for their benefit.

Communication is perhaps best received through existing community networks that can

offer reassurance about the suitability and quality of the environment.

61

6. Recommendations for taking the

segmentation forward

Here follow several recommendations for further work which could add breadth and

depth to the research already carried out. These include areas we have not been able

to cover within the scope of this study, as well as ideas for longer-term quantitative

work, more in-depth qualitative work, and ways to further tackle some key cross-cutting

themes. There is also a suggestion for following up the work to specifically consider its

practical policy, communications and delivery implications.

6.1 Geographic mapping and analysis

Geography is necessarily a key part of understanding how people engage with the

natural environment. This is an aspect which we have not been able to explore in depth

as part of this project, apart from the inclusion of satisfaction with the local environment

as a dimension in driving the development of the segments.

The type of landscapes accessible within a local area will clearly play a significant role

in determining how individuals in all the segments behave, and this could be a useful

area for further qualitative exploration.

In addition, some segments are likely to be found in higher concentrations within

different local areas. Mapping these patterns is a possible next step for quantitative

analysis – and one which could yield direct links to implementation. An initial high-level

mapping exercise may be possible using internal resources to carry out geographical

analysis of the MENE dataset.

However, ultimately it may be most valuable to use third-party geodemographic data to

model the segments for the entire population. This would then offer the potential to

provide tools which partner organisations could use to understand the segments which

are most prevalent in their local areas, and which could form the target for a

communications campaign, improved service delivery or other intervention.

6.2 Future quantitative research

One of the benefits of the approach we have taken to delivering the segmentation is

that a relatively small number of questions are required in order to identify the

segments. This means not only that future quantitative research to explore the

segment is more feasible, but also that there is considerable flexibility to revise the

MENE questionnaire to address new priorities without losing the continuity of the

segmentation. Specifically, all the monthly and quarterly sections can be revised

without any impact on the segmentation. The questions which are required are those

from the weekly MENE survey as shown in Table 1 in Section 3.

62

Possible areas for further exploration could include:

Greater detail around activities undertaken in the natural environment, especially

more detailed exploration of informal activities such as sports, dog-walking and

entertaining children, which account for a large percentage of visits to the natural

environment;

Capturing more information on less frequent visits and activities such as those that

might take place on holiday but which may be missed in the current structure

focussing on activities that have taken place in the last week;

Reviewing the questions on engagement and interest in the natural environment to

extend understanding of this area;

Aligning questions on pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours with latest

thinking from other parts of Defra.

Further quantitative research in these areas may lead to the opportunity to refine the

definition of the segments in the future. We would anticipate that this might mean a

shift in the definition of the segments away from being tied so closely to demographic

and lifestyle variables, to include more attitudes and behaviours relating directly to the


Every effort should be made to avoid changes to MENE that could potentially affect the

longitudinal analysis it provides beyond the scope of the natural environment

segmentation programme of work.

6.3 Further qualitative research

For reasons of time and budget, the qualitative component of the segmentation was

broad and shallow: we held only one midi group per segment, whereas ordinarily we

would prefer to base findings on three or four groups per segment. We recommend

that further qualitative research be undertaken to understand the segments in greater

detail and depth, and to offer more of an evidence base from which to draw

conclusions about the segments. The qualitative research contributed to our

understandings of the quantitative foundations in important ways, but Defra and its

partners would benefit from additional investigation.

Qualitative material contributes insights not available from quantitative surveys: in the

case of this work, it offers data on motivations for engagement in the natural

environment, the meaning and relative value of the natural environment, and the

position of the natural environment within the broader life context, such as how

engagement has changed (increased or decreased) over time.

Further qualitative exploration would also contribute greater understanding of complex

issues that are at the heart of this project, such as:

The significance of different landscapes to different segments;

63

Connections or disconnections between engagement in the natural environment and

pro-environmental behaviours;

„Transformative moments‟ which may lead to greater contact with the natural

environment over the long term;

In particular, we would recommend conducting more in-depth research with some of

the segments that value the environment, but have competing interests or sizeable

constraints. These include Friends and sport (segment 2), Competing interests

(segment 5) and Nostalgic inactives (segment 8).

6.4 Pro-environmental behaviours

There are two main ways in which further work could be undertaken to understand the

segments‟ relationship with pro-environmental behaviours. First as an area for

qualitative exploration as described above, and second, to investigate the segments in

relation to Defra‟s existing pro-environmental segmentation. The segments could be

mapped to this survey using demographic hooks with a fairly high degree of accuracy.

This would enable the overlaps between the two segmentations to be investigated, and

pro-environmental values and behaviours to be understood in greater depth.

6.5 Policy workshop

In the interactive debrief which took place in the final stages of the project, the team

began to surface hypotheses around the implications of the findings from this study, to

policy, delivery and communications activities. However, this initial exploration was

limited due to time and the need to focus on the primary workshop objective of raising

familiarity and understanding of the eight segments amongst stakeholders who were

being exposed to them properly for the first time.

We believe there would be value in following up this session with a further stakeholder

workshop, involving many of the same people, in order to start to prioritise potential

interventions across a range of areas. In this workshop, it may be appropriate to

introduce a behaviour change framework and to consider behavioural levers and

barriers across a range of levels. (Examples of frameworks already exist within Defra

64

and further examples are referenced in the Cabinet Office report Mindspace3, as well

as the COI guidance, Communications and Behaviour Change.4)

6.6 Segment naming session

Throughout this report we have referenced the segment names that emerged

immediately following the interactive debrief workshop in late March 2009. We are

conscious that these have not been finally agreed and that potentially there are

weaknesses associated with these names which have yet to be addressed. For

example, some names may carry overtly negative connotations (e.g. segment 6:

Reluctant and uninspired). As such, we feel that it would be useful to organise a

separate focused meeting, building on the debrief workshop, to reach final agreement

on segment names. In preparing for this session, it would be useful to agree some

common principles for effective segment names – e.g. that names are memorable,

resonate, constructive, can exist as „stand alone reference points‟ or exist as proper

nouns.

3 http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/MINDSPACE-Web-01-03-10_tcm6-35936.pdf

4 http://coi.gov.uk/documents/commongood/commongood-behaviourchange.pdf

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/MINDSPACE-Web-01-03-10_tcm6-35936.pdf

http://coi.gov.uk/documents/commongood/commongood-behaviourchange.pdf

65

Appendix 1: Quantitative analysis

Hybrid segmentation approach

We use the term „hybrid segmentation‟ to describe a range of techniques which enable

us to create segmentations which draw on two or more data sources in their

development. These more innovative approaches are used together with traditional

cluster analysis techniques in a transparent fashion which ensures that the final

segmentation is robust and well-understood. This approach was valuable in the

creation of the Defra Natural Environment segmentation for two main reasons:

the focussed content of the MENE survey meant that some aspects of attitudes and

behaviour that were desirable for the development of the segmentation were

absent from the survey;

the structure by which the survey was carried out with some questions asked

weekly, monthly and quarterly, in effect led us to treat it as three linked surveys for

the purpose of segmentation analysis. For the segmentation to make best use of all

three parts of the survey, a hybrid approach was required.

Before finalising the segments, we also matched the data from both surveys with geo-

demographic data provided by CACI. This has enabled us to profile the emerging

segments on CACI‟s Health ACORN and Green ACORN classifications and ensure

that the final segmentation will be suitable for geographical mapping and analysis in

the future, should this be required.

Step 1: Creation of key attitudinal dimensions in Planning for Consumer

Change survey

The Futures Company‟s Planning for Consumer Change (PCC) survey was mined to

identify variables which closely expressed the meaning of the prioritised dimensions for

the segmentation. This highlighted 61 PCC/TGI variables for further investigation. A

factor analysis was run to explore and summarise the themes expressed within these

variables, and confirm which groupings of variables were likely to prove most useful as

inputs into cluster analysis.

Scale reliability analysis was then conducted on each factor dimension to test the

strength of the correlation within each of the dimensions and to validate the reliability of

the summary dimensions. This resulted in eleven dimensions, ten of which were

ultimately inputted into the segmentation. These are described in Table 1 in Section 3.

Creating dimensions based on a small number of questions to use in the development

of the segmentation delivers a number of benefits:

Simplifying the data to help define clearer, more stylised segments which tend to be

more actionable;

Helping with ease of interpretation by providing a clear „footprint‟ for each segment

which captures its defining characteristics in a small number of measures (see

example below);

66

Improving the potential longevity of the segmentation by enabling the questions

representing each dimension to be evolved over time if necessary, as attitudes and

behaviour change.

The individual variables were combined into each of the dimensions with equal weight

and the final dimensions standardised across respondents and across the other

dimensions to ensure they were all being measured on a comparable scale, and to

control response bias. Finally the dimensions were transformed into dichotomous

variables by splitting on the median value. These processes are used to help improve

the clarity of the emerging clusters and to avoid common problems such as segments

which are high or low on all dimensions. However, the final approach was decided only

after the results of several different transformations of the dimensions had been tested

at the next stage in the process.

Step 2: Cluster analysis to create initial segments based on PCC

dimensions

Following the creation of the dimensions, we used cluster analysis to identify groups

within the sample with shared attitudes, preferences and behaviours. The predominant

algorithms used for cluster analysis in social and market research are Ward‟s

hierarchical clustering and k-means clustering, and we based our approach on the

combination of these techniques. By doing this, some of the downsides to both

approaches can be avoided, and stable, clearly defined and easily recreated clusters

can be produced. Hierarchical clustering is used as the first stage in the process to

explore and approximate a segmentation solution. This solution is then refined through

k-means analysis at the next step.

Hierarchical clustering

After extensively testing different transformations and combinations of the prioritised

dimensions, a hierarchical cluster solution was chosen which resulted in nine well-

defined segments with strong skews on the key attitudes and behaviours of interest.

Demographic characteristics were also strongly different between the segments,

although these skews were not as strong as for the attitudinal and behavioural

variables which were inputs to the segmentation. However, the presence of these

differences gave us confidence that adding demographic and other potential hook

variables into the next phase of the cluster analysis would not distort the resultant

segmentation unduly.

K-means cluster analysis

A table of means was run on the hierarchical segmentation to create the initial seeds

for k-means cluster analysis. The initial seeds were based on:

the ten dimensions already inputted into the hierarchical segmentation;

potential hook variables: age, gender, presence of children in the household, marital

status, socio-economic group, disability, and dog ownership.

67

This resulted in very similar segments which still showed strong difference on all key

attitudes and behaviours (though not as strongly as in the hierarchical solution). The

segments now also had significantly strong skews on the demographic and lifestyle

variables which would be used as hooks to link between the PCC and MENE data sets.

In reviewing the emerging segments we profiled the segments on an even wider range

of behavioral and attitudinal variables than we had used in creating the dimensions, in

order to understand them as well as possible and ensure that we found the best

possible segmentation to take forward to the next stage in the process.

In making this judgment, we applied our general principles in approaching

segmentation, as shown in Figure 3, as well as referring to the project objectives and

guidance provided by the client team. These principles are also consistent with HM

Government best practice guidelines to approaching segmentation, as set out in the

Cabinet Office‟s Guide.5

Figure 3: Principles in approaching segmentation

Grounded in trends and customer insight

Capable of generating genuine insights relevant

to understanding how the segments will evolve in

the future as well as their needs today

Simple and memorable

Ensuring that it is usable to all within the

organisation, and can be easily communicated to

external audiences when required

Marries hard data (e.g. demographics)

with interpretative dimensions (e.g.

attitudes or needs)

Informing both targeting and tailoring of policy

and communications

Flexible in usage

A framework that can be cut in different ways to

meet different objectives within the organisation

Scalable

Informs both strategic and tactical decisions

Relevant and actionable Fit for purpose:

Clearly defined by a relatively small number of

questions

Can be implemented in future research

(quantitative and qualitative)

5 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/208786/section01.pdf

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/208786/section01.pdf

68

Step 3: Modelling the initial segmentation into the MENE dataset using

hook variables

Having decided on a preferred segmentation in the PCC dataset, a logistic regression

model was used to approximate the segmentation using only the potential hook

variables. This enabled us to map it as closely as possible into the MENE dataset for

further investigation. Several models were tested using different combinations of hook

variables common between the PCC and MENE surveys to ensure that the final

segmentation would be as successful as possible. Ultimately, the hook variables used

to link the surveys were: gender, age, marital status, presence of children in the

household, socio-economic group, disability and frequency of exercise.

The logistic regression model based on this list predicted segment membership within

the initial PCC segmentation with an average accuracy of 57% correctly classified. The

accuracy of predictive models always varies by segment and two segments in

particular were not accurately predicted by the hook variables. These segments were

therefore merged back into similar segments within the modeled segmentation,

resulting in a total of seven initial segments.

This seven segment solution was again extensively profiled in PCC before being put

into MENE to check that it was still skewing on all the attitudes and behaviours of

interest, despite now being driven only by the hook variables. This confirmed that it

would achieve the desired purpose of „importing‟ this information into the MENE

dataset for further analysis and refinement.

Step 4: Refining the segmentation using additional MENE variables on key

attitudes and behaviours in relation to the natural environment

The first stage in refining the segmentation in MENE was to run a hierarchical cluster

analysis using the predicted scores for the initial segments. This resulted in a

segmentation driven directly by these imported variables which shared many

similarities to the initial PCC segmentation but which benefited from having been

created on the much larger MENE sample. This enabled us to move to an eight cluster

solution which provided richer insight than the original seven segments that we had

identified in PCC.

This eight segment solution was then refined further through k-means cluster analysis

using a number of new key MENE variables as well as the initial input variables based

on the predicted segmentation from PCC. The additional MENE variables directly

inputted into the segmentation at this stage are shown in Table 2, Section 3.

Some of these questions were asked only on a quarterly basis on the MENE survey.

This meant that once this segmentation had been created on the quarterly sample, it

still had to be projected across the entire sample based on the weekly survey – this

could only be done using variables that were asked of all respondents. This means that

the final segmentation is that which was modeled across the entire sample using

logistic regression based on the monthly variables shown above. This model predicted

the segmentation based on the quarterly sample with an average accuracy of 95%

69

correctly classified. This version of the segmentation was profiled in depth in the MENE

survey before being finalised and agreed with Defra.

Step 5: Modelling the final MENE segmentation back into PCC to validate

the relationship between the segments, the original PCC dimensions and

other lifestyle variables

The final step in delivering the segmentation was to model the full MENE segmentation

back into PCC to validate it against the original attitudinal dimensions. As the final

MENE segmentation is driven in large part by the hook variables, it has been possible

to put it back into PCC with a very high average accuracy of 98% correctly classified.

This exercise confirmed that, as expected, the MENE segmentation has strong skews

on the key attitudes and behaviours initially identified in PCC, despite being defined on

questions drawn from the MENE survey.

Recreating the segments

A key requirement for the segmentation was the ability to recreate the segments in

future research including future waves of the MENE survey. Where segmentations

have been developed using a large number of attitudinal questions this often requires

additional analysis as well as compromises being made in terms of accuracy versus

questionnaire length.

However, in this case, because of the hybrid approach taken, much of this work has

already been done and the segments can be identified with 100% accuracy using a

relatively short set of questions, many of which would form part of the classification

data for the majority of social surveys. These are the questions from the weekly MENE

survey as shown in Table 2, Section 3.

The segmentation can also be recreated with a very high degree of accuracy (98%

correctly classified) using only the hook variables used to link the PCC and MENE

datasets. This is an even shorter list of variables which offers the potential to map the

segmentation easily to a wide range of surveys.

Algorithm defining the segments

An algorithm and data map in SPSS format have been provided to Defra based on

logistical regression using both of these sets of questions. These can easily be

converted for use with alternative statistical software if required.

70

71

Appendix 2: Expert interview guide

Discussion guide for expert interviews

Introduction

1. Background to the project and objectives

The Futures Company is conducting research to inform creation of a preliminary

customer segmentation to support work on engagement with the natural environment.

This will help Defra and its partners (Environment Agency, Natural England, Forestry

Commission, British Waterways) focus their efforts on making the natural environment

more interesting, accessible, and relevant to all.

2. Process and timescales

The project was launched the first week of December, and will run through late March

2010. Key stages include scoping and exploration of existing data (Dec/Jan);

quantitative analysis (January), qualitative enrichment of the top line segment profiles

(Feb) and reporting in March.

3. Role of this interview is to inform the scoping stage

It is important that, at this early stage of the project, we understand the range of views

and needs of key stakeholders. This interview will focus on:

Identifying existing views and hypotheses

Understanding your needs, expectations and priorities – how would you use the

resulting segmentation?

The interviewee and his/her organisation

4. Background of the interviewee

Probe for policy, delivery, communications functions

Probe for an understanding of the relationship of the organisation (e.g. NE, FC, EA,

etc) to the overall project objectives.

Shaping our approach to the segmentation

5. How could the segmentation work help you in your work?

What would you like to get out of it?

What are your needs and priorities?

How would you use it to inform delivery, communications, policy, etc?

72

6. What are your views on what drives participation and engagement?

[Existing hypotheses]

What are the triggers? What motivates participation and engagement in the natural

environment?

What are the opportunities?

What are the significant barriers to participation and engagement?

Which groups are of particular interest to you?

- To your knowledge, what are the barriers/triggers for these groups?

- Do you feel that different people in particular segments prefer different natural

environments or landscapes?

Can you tell us about previous initiatives or interventions aimed at increasing

engagement with the natural environment?

- What has worked?

- What has not worked?

Conclusion and next steps

7. Is there existing research that could inform this work, that we could

review?

8. Are there quantitative surveys we should consider in our analysis?

Workshop 11 January, afternoon. Are you available on that date?

73

Appendix 3: Qualitative design

Fieldwork location

Figure 4: Locations of midi groups and depth interviews

London Sheffield Southampton

3 groups

S1 Good for kids and me

S2 Friends and sport

S3 Locally limited

3 groups

S6 Reluctant and

uninspired

S7 Mature explorers

S8 Nostalgic inactives

2 groups

S4 Pressured but

engaged

S5 Competing interests

8 depths

S1 Good for kids and me

(x2)

S2 Friends and sport (x2)

S3 Locally limited (x2)

S7 Mature explorers (x2)

4 depths

S4 Pressured but

engaged (x2)

S5 Competing interests

(x2)

Discussion guide for groups and depths

Feb-March 2010; 120 minutes

OVERALL OBJECTIVES:

To explore the natural environment segments in more detail and better understand

underlying attitudes, experiences, motivations and behaviours.

To identify characteristics of the segments potentially important for social marketing

programmes.

To identify key triggers to participation which will increase the likelihood of

individuals within the segments engaging more positively and consistently with the


1. Introduction

Introduction to the research

Welcome, purpose, process etc

74

Reassurances re confidentiality, audio recording

„Non-judgmental‟ no right / wrong answers; no need for „best behaviour‟

Purpose: We‟ll be looking at your attitudes to spending time outdoors, talking about

your experiences in – what I‟ll at times refer to as – the „natural environment‟, and

getting a sense of what motivates you to go into the natural environment, and what

might keep you from getting out there.

By „natural environment‟ we don‟t just mean countryside – this could mean many

different things, like local parks, green spaces, woodland, urban parks, fields,

waterways, lakes and more. Any park or area of green space etc other than people‟s

own gardens.

So, another purpose of this group/interview is to understand better your ideas of what

the natural environment is.

2. Quick recap of biographical essentials

Name, household set-up – children at home/empty nester etc

Occupation / working status – part time / retired / carer etc

Warm up: who was your hero when you were growing up?

Pre-task: Just so you know, some of the group will have prepared some scrapbooks for

us and some of you won‟t have. We are of course interested in what every one of you

has to say, whether you have done a scrapbook or not. And for those that have, don‟t

worry about bringing up anything that you‟ve already written down.

3. Attitudes to life in general

Let‟s briefly talk about attitudes to life in general

- What‟s most important to you at the moment? Why?

- What are your goals for the next few years?

- Tease out anecdotes, attitudes, experiences

How do you spend your time? What do you enjoy doing? (probe for a range of other

activities, particularly among those who actively exercise)

What is your favourite activity? If you could be doing anything now...

4. Current outdoor experiences (refer to calendar task as aide memoire)

What kind of person are you when it comes to the outdoors?

- Sum it up in one line e.g. ”I‟m a reluctant dog walker…”

75

- How does a typical year look when it comes to being outdoors?

How would you summarise your experience of the outdoors?

- Where do you go?

- Describe the settings (beach, hills, etc)

- Do you do things outdoors close to home? Far away?

- PROBE how near or far these visits are, and whether or not those visits are

comparable

- If you don‟t have time to go a further distance, what do you do instead?

Who do you go with, if anyone?

What kind of activities: walking, hiking, cycling, dog walking

Do you ever combine activities with being in the natural environment?

- E.g. walk and lunch/picnic/a walk and a local attraction?

- „Why do you go‟ - „if it is important, why it is important for you, or if not, why not?‟

Tell me about a good experience / a bad experience? Was the experience specific

to that place, or would it have been similar elsewhere?

What specifically about the place made it good or bad?

What do you like / dislike about being outdoors?

Is this that we are seeing a normal year?

- What motivates those activities?

- Are they routine or varied? Note role of seasonality / weather

- Role of children in household

- Again, role of dog walking

FOR MORE ACTIVE SEGMENTS: BREAK DOWN THE YEAR INTO MONTHS/

WEEKS/ WEEKENDS

- Probe in detail around landscapes and activities

- Are there boundaries around the outdoors or is it „everywhere‟?

FOR SEGMENT 8 (FOCUS ON SELF AND FRIENDS)

- Explore thrill-seeking behaviours and activities (are there parallels in the rest of

their lives, e.g. risk-taking leisure?)

- FOR LESS ACTIVE SEGMENTS: probe for „proxies‟ for the outdoors, i.e. other

ways in which they „get‟ an outdoor experience e.g. as TV/a walk to the

shops/short, local drives

Could you have spent more time in the natural environment if you wanted?

- Why didn‟t you?

- What gets in the way?

- What would have to change for you to be spending more time

How do you expect this to change in future, if at all?

As relevant, probe for where they get information about what to do / where to go in

the environment

76

- Word of mouth, online, etc

- Role of social media, if any? (e.g. post pictures from visits on Facebook; arrange

to meet people via Facebook?)

5. Triggers and barriers

What actually „gets‟ you outdoors?

How does this vary with different environments (PROMPT WITH IMAGES i.e. beach

/ hills and uplands / local parks / waterways / woodlands / forests)

How relevant is this to you?

Why would you go here? Why wouldn‟t you?

What kind of people do you associate it with, if any? You?

Is this what you would think of as natural environment?

What do you gain from experiencing the natural environment?

Give me some words…how would you convince me to be interested?

What would you compare it to (e.g. Medicine, Religion, gym membership)?

What does it leave you feeling / what benefit do you get. PROBE around

- Mental and physical health benefits

- Environmentalism

- Spiritualism

Imagine a world without „your‟ natural environments you‟ve described

- What would we miss? What would we look back on?

- What would we do instead? Where might we get that feeling?

Where, if anywhere else, do you ever get a sense of the natural environment

Explore TV, books, magazines (Do you...?)

What are they capturing for you? PROBE FULLY

Does watching a TV programme about this „count‟ as an experience?

What does going into the natural environment give you that these don‟t?

What might help you spend more time in the natural environment?

- Spontaneous thoughts

- Accessibility and ease of use (toilets, parking, cafes)

- Landscape management (signs, paths)

- Quality of the landscape (untouched/‟pure‟ versus well-kept/manicured)

- Safety / security.

6. Defining the ‘natural environment’ and outdoors

Thinking about the „natural environment‟. Tell me…

- What it is…

77

- What it isn‟t…

What / who has influenced how you feel about the outdoors? (refer to pre-task)

- PROBE: family and childhood experiences

- What‟s your journey been to this?

What is your ideal natural environment? (REFER TO PRE-TASK IF NEEDED)

What would it involve, all things being equal? (stress the need to be credible)

Probe for value of near versus far places/environments as ideal

PROBE FULLY AROUND SENSES

- What do we see? What sounds are we hearing?

- Who else is here? How did we get here?

Where is the „ultimate‟ natural environment in the UK?

- Probe for iconic natural destinations in the UK

- Describe them. Where are they? What‟s nearby them (e.g. shops/services)?

What – even if you weren‟t a regular visitor – would be on your „save‟ list if things

were ever threatened?

- Probe: are these near/far?

Where isn‟t there natural environment for you – thinking beyond the obvious

- Why doesn‟t this feel natural? What‟s not right about it?

- Where are they going wrong?

7. Natural environment and environmentalism

Introduce the idea of „green‟ or environmental behaviour

- Explore connections and disconnections

- Explore current attitudes and behaviours

How „environmental‟ do you see yourself?

- What sort of behaviours

- PROMPT IF NECESSARY e.g. reading about nature and animals; garden;

recycle, buy local/ethical/environmentally friendly product; choose not to drive car

for short journeys; belong to conservation/environmental organisations

What is the connection between your „natural environment‟ and this?

Does it encourage you to spend time outside?

Has being outside ever made you more conscious of environment? (or, what is the

relationship between your time outdoors and how you feel about caring for

it/protecting it?)

Explore experiences, anecdotes…

Has it got nothing to do with it?

78

8. Summary

Summary of attitudes: your natural environment

- Triggers, barriers

- What one thing might encourage you to spend more time outdoors?

THANK AND CLOSE.

Screeners and sample details

See attached Addendum 1.

Scrapbook template

See attached Addendum 2.

79

Appendix 4: Stakeholder involvement

Stakeholders interviewed

Ian Barrett, Defra

Tony McDougal, Defra

Dave Waterman, Defra

David Cooper, Defra

Karen Lepper, Defra

Julian Woolford, Natural England

Hazel Thomas, Natural England

Duncan MacKay, Natural England

William Crookshank, Environment Agency

Anthea Hawke, Environment Agency

Kieron Stanley, Environment Agency

Bianca Ambrose-Oji, Forestry Commission

Helen Townsend, Forestry Commission

Amanda Brace, English National Parks Authorities Association

Jim Dixon, Peak District National Park Authority

Workshop attendees

Stakeholder workshop, 19 January 2010

Ian Barrett, Defra

Martin Gorringe, Defra

Simon Maxwell, Defra


Dave Waterman, Defra

David Cooper, Defra

Alison Darlow, Natural England

Judith Hannah, Natural England

Duncan MacKay, Natural England

Jim Burt, Natural England

Ian Christie, Advisor to Natural England

William Crookshank, Environment Agency

Anthea Hawke, Environment Agency

80

Kieron Stanley, Environment Agency

Anna Lawrence, Forestry Commission

Helen Townsend, Forestry Commission

Andy Cooper, National Parks Authority

Debrief workshop, 30 March 2010

Ian Barrett, Defra

Martin Gorringe, Defra

Simon Maxwell, Defra


Kirsten Reeves, Defra

Alison Darlow, Natural England

Judith Hannah, Natural England

Ian Christie, Advisor to Natural England

Bianca Ambrose-Oji, Forestry Commission

Josephine Melville-Smith, Forestry Commission

Project team

Defra

Ian Barrett, People and Landscapes Programme Team Manager, Head of Green

Infrastructure Policy, Defra

Martin Gorringe, Recreation and Access, Defra

Simon Maxwell, Natural Environment Economics, Defra

Natural England

Alison Darlow, Senior Specialist Social Analysis, Economic and Social Evidence,

Natural England

The Futures Company

Alex Oliver, Project Director

Janice Clark, Project Co-Director

Rebecca Nash, Project Manager

Jake Goretzki, Qualitative Researcher

Russ Wilson, Qualitative Researcher

Nefeli Trikka, Quantitative Analyst

81

Allie Schnidman, Quantitative Analyst

82

Appendix 5: Sources consulted in scoping

phase

Burgess, Jacqui (1995) Growing in Confidence: Understanding People's Perceptions

or Urban Fringe Woodlands Publication, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham,

Glos (CCP 457)

Christie, Ian (September 2009) Issues concerning the evidence base on Behaviour

Change and the Natural Environment, Paper for Natural England

Countryside Agency (2003) Diversity Review: options for implementation.

OPENspace: the research centre for inclusive access to outdoor environments

Countryside Recreation Journal (Summer 2009) V17 N1

http://www.countrysiderecreation.org.uk/journal/Summer2009/Summer_2009-

All.pdf

Defra (2009) Survey of public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment –

tracker survey http://www.defra.gov.uk/News/2009/090923a.htm

Defra (2008) A framework for pro-environmental behaviours, Report and annexes

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-

report.pdf and

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-

annexes.pdf

Environment Agency (2009) Social Science resource pack, Social & Economic

Science Team Environment Agency

Forestry Commission (in progress) Urban networks for people and biodiversity

http://forums.forestresearch.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFD-

78QJ6P

Forestry Commission (2009/2010) Disability annual report

Forestry Commission (2009) Trees and woods for wellbeing and quality of life

http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFD-

5Z5ALT

Forestry Commission (2009) Results from the UK 2009 survey of public opinion of

forestry http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5zyl9w

Forestry Commission Scotland (2009) Physical Activity at Forest School

Forestry Commission (May 2009) Individual Marketing Scheme - Comms Forum,

Josephine Melville-Smith

Forestry Commission, Forest Research (2008) Environmental volunteering:

motivations, benefits and barriers http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/INFD-

7GDHD3

Forestry Commission (2005) The impact of trees on the well-being of residents on

two inner-London social housing estates http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/INFD-

6C8GNH

Henley Centre HeadlightVision (2005) Demands for outdoor recreation, report for

Natural England

http://www.countrysiderecreation.org.uk/journal/Summer2009/Summer_2009-All.pdf

http://www.countrysiderecreation.org.uk/journal/Summer2009/Summer_2009-All.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/News/2009/090923a.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-report.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-report.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-annexes.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-annexes.pdf

http://forums.forestresearch.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFD-78QJ6P

http://forums.forestresearch.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFD-78QJ6P

http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFD-5Z5ALT

http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFD-5Z5ALT

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5zyl9w

http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/INFD-7GDHD3

http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/INFD-7GDHD3

http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/INFD-6C8GNH

http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/INFD-6C8GNH

83

Natural England‟s outdoor recreation social research pages

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/research/default.aspx

Natural England (2008) Playlink: Assessment of provision for play

Natural England (2008) Social Evidence Roadmap

Natural England Outdoors for all website

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/outdoorsforall/default.aspx

nef (2009 DRAFT) Engagement with the natural environment, a report for Natural

England

Ravenscroft, Neil and Curry, N. (2001) Countryside recreation provision in England:

exploring a demand-led approach. Land use policy, 18 (3). pp. 281-291

TNS (2008) Research into the Market for Strategic Recreational Routes

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/places/nationaltrails/review.asp

x

TNS (2006) Developing an Evidence Base for areas and recreation in the natural

environment in England – Trip Monitoring (NE research report JN162253)

Waymark (Winter 2009) IPROW

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/research/default.aspx

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/outdoorsforall/default.aspx

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/places/nationaltrails/review.aspx

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/places/nationaltrails/review.aspx

http://www.iprow.co.uk/

Date post:	12-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Understanding what people want from the natural...

Documents