Phoebe R. Maund's research while affiliated with Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust and other places

Participatory approaches are widely used by researchers to gather data and insight about how the environment is perceived, valued and used. The participatory activities may be creating information as part of curiosity‐driven blue‐skies research or to inform policy/practise decision‐making. The quality and usability of data derived from participatory approaches are heavily influenced by how activities are conducted. We share a set of features and processes that underpin the generation of high‐quality data, based on our collective experience of developing and undertaking participatory activities with an environmental and conservation focus. We propose four general features: (a) Depth and breadth of engagement; (b) robustness of the approach; (c) allowing space for surprises; (d) usability across contexts. We also provide a practical toolbox of processes, and associated facilitation techniques, which can be employed to maximise participant engagement and generate quality data. The features and processes are a practical guide for project leaders/teams to consider in the context of their work, rather than a set of inflexible rules. They should be relevant regardless of the participatory methods used, or the research, policy or practice setting being addressed.

The health benefits associated with spending time in natural environments have been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns and restrictions to safeguard public health have exacerbated the pre-existing mental health crisis and rise of non-communicable diseases. Thus, the importance of nature as a health resource has been elevated, hastening calls for a better understanding of how health benefits might differ across user groups and nature provisions. In this regard , urban green spaces have become the greatest research focus; however, blue spaces, especially inland freshwater (e.g., wetlands), remain less studied. First-hand user experiences are also under-represented. This exploratory study examines the motivations and benefits of active wetland centre users in the UK, both during and after visits. Responses to three open-ended questions were collated online from 385 participants, and a qualitative content analysis was conducted based on an existing taxonomy from users of urban green spaces. The results showed strong motivations to visit due to the biodiversity at the site (mainly the birdlife), while less tangible nature (e.g., fresh air) and amenities were also important. In contrast to other studies on natural environments, physical activity was a less influential motivation. Salient derived effects included positive and intensely positive emotions , relaxation and mental restoration. After visits to wetland centres, feelings of vitality and satisfaction were the most prominent effects that emerged. For decision-makers looking to leverage inland blue spaces for public health benefit, our results highlight the broad range and relative prominence of the reasons for use and the associated perceived health benefits derived by users of UK wetland centres. They highlight how biodiversity, abiotic nature and good amenities are important qualities to consider when planning, managing and encouraging people to use natural environments for health benefit, qualities that may also provide important environmental co-benefits.

Researchers, practitioners and policymakers have widely documented the multifarious ways that nature influences human well‐being. However, we still have only a limited understanding of how the public interact with, respond to and talk about attributes of biodiversity. We used image‐based Q methodology to explore the shared and contrasting perspectives people hold for biodiversity. This approach is a powerful way of allowing people to articulate what is, or is not, important to them, free from constraints associated with statement‐based stimuli. We used British woodlands as a study system, as they are accessible and well‐visited by the public. The elements of biodiversity incorporated in the Q methodology represented vertebrates, invertebrates, trees and understorey plants and fungi. The shared public perspectives varied, and the reasons underpinning those perspectives were rich and diverse. People articulated reasons related to an array of biodiversity attributes (e.g. functions, behaviours, colours, smells, shapes). Many of the perspectives transcended specific species or taxonomic groups. Although woodlands were used as a study system, people referenced perceptions and experiences external to this habitat (e.g. within their gardens) and associated with their everyday lives. Cultural influences and memories linked to particular people and places were also prominent. Few of the shared perspectives map onto the objective measures and dimensions that researchers use to describe and categorise biodiversity (e.g. rarity, ecosystem service provision). A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was published, a plethora of ecosystem service frameworks have been developed to conceptualise the links between the natural environment and society. The intended geographic scales of application, the policy/practice context, and the scientific disciplines involved have driven variations in how the frameworks are constructed. However, the frameworks are homogenous in that they have been created predominately based on expert opinions and views of how ecosystem services are structured. Here, we use the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) to examine the extent to which frameworks capture people’s values for British woodlands. Our findings reveal several disparities between how experts and the public conceptualise ecosystem services. The considerable refinement and specificity provided by CICES does not align with public values (e.g. some provisioning, and regulation and maintenance, services), which tend to be more generalised. We also demonstrate differences in values explained by social characteristics (e.g. ethnicity) that need to be accounted for in decision-making processes. Moving forwards, we need to consider how society views the services derived from nature and reflect this in frameworks to ensure ecosystem service approaches are effective, transparent and widely supported.

Participation in conservation citizen science projects is growing rapidly and approaches to project design are diversifying. There has been a recent shift towards projects characterised by contributors collecting data in isolation and submitting findings online, with little training or opportunities for direct social interaction with other citizen scientists. While research is emerging on developing citizen science projects by optimising technological modalities, little consideration has been given to understanding what motivates individuals to voluntarily contribute data. Here, we use the Volunteer Functions Inventory, combined with open-ended questions, to demonstrate that the two strongest motivations underpinning participation, for both individuals who contribute data systematically (regularly; n = 177) and opportunistically (ad hoc basis; n = 218), are ‘Values’ and ‘Understanding’. People take part in such projects because they have an intrinsic value for the environment and want to support research efforts (representing ‘Values’), as well as wanting to learn and gain knowledge (signifying ‘Understanding’). Unlike more traditional citizen science projects that involve specific training and considerable time investments, contributors to these newer types of project are not motivated by the potential to develop their career or opportunities for social interaction. The person-level characteristics of contributors considered in this study did not reliably forecast levels of motivation, suggesting that predicting high levels of motivation is inherently more complex than is often speculated. We recommend avenues for future research that may further enhance our understanding of contributor motivations and the characteristics that may underpin levels of motivation.