Class differences
Macnaghten & Urry’s comments hint that different social groups have different perspectives on the natural world. Travlou & Ward-Thompson (2009) made a similar case and suggested that the differences were in part down to aesthetics and affordances121, which opens up a large sociological literature on aesthetics as a social differentiator. In his book ‘Distinction’ Bourdieu (1984) explored
121
Things that the environment enables you to do. It is a term introduced by psychologist James Gibson who defined affordances as all "action possibilities" latent in the environment, objectively measurable and independent of the individual's ability to recognize them. People with different perspectives are likely to recognise different affordances. (Gibson, J. (1977), The Theory of Affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, edited by Shaw, R. & Bransford, J. ISBN 0-470-99014-7.)
70
how a conditioned appreciation of aesthetics is used as a marker for social differentiation, where the rude appreciation of the proletariat contrasts with the refined appreciation of the elite. Wood (1993), writing about the work of Albrecht Altdorfer chronicles how, as long ago as 16thc, ‘landscape’ transformed into art, a theme developed at length by Schama, allowing one to argue that it became the domain of the educated elite. Morris (2003) writing on the history of countryside access by factory workers in the early 20thc identified one of the barriers as a reaction by upper-class landlords against working-class people who had no proper understanding of the countryside. We can thus make a case for some kind of class-based, or perhaps education-based, difference in the way that people think about and value the countryside.
Social differentiation
This idea of the countryside as a space differentiated by class is recurrent in the literature (see e.g. Bunce, 1994) whilst Sibley, writing about the urban outdoor environment, discussesthe tendency of powerful groups to "purify" space and to view not only the uneducated but also minority groups as defiled and polluting. Sangster (2005) wrote about the appropriation of the countryside by nationalists prior to the 2nd world war, making it a ‘racist space’ whilst Neal and Agyeman (2006) write of ‘rural racism’ as a continuing phenomenon. In a memorable passage Agyeman describes being the sole black face in a countryside populated by white people.
Personal characteristics
The literature is supported by a strong body of empirical research, a notable study being Burgess’s (1995) pioneering research for the Countryside Commission that showed gender, cultural and lifestage differences in people’s relationships and aspirations for forests122. The use of the countryside by disabled people is less well researched, partly because of ethical issue and the difficulties researchers have in obtaining access. Burns et. al. (2008) in a qualitative study covering Great Britain showed that provision for access by the disabled was open to criticism largely because forest managers saw ‘disabled’ as a single category and did not understand the diverse needs of disabled people.
There is clear evidence from surveys that the countryside is used differently by different classifications of people. FC statistics (Forestry Commission 2012c) explain the GB day visitor survey programme so:
‘Day Visits Surveys123 were carried out in 1994, 1996, 1998 and 2002-03, for a consortium of government departments and agencies interested in tourism and recreation. The surveys provided estimates of the total number of leisure day visits from home to towns, countryside
122 The Forestry Commission’s social research team have established a large portfolio of research on this and other themes, accessible as summarised reports at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-7N3EWJ
123
71
and seaside in Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales). They also gave the demographic profile of visitors and attributes of the visits such as duration and distance’ (web page124).
Forests and woodlands were included as a separate category within the surveys and came second to the seaside as the most popular recreational destination. The surveys show that countryside recreation is predominantly a middle-class activity. BAME people are under-represented and there are life-stage variations in outdoor recreation where the most significant pattern is a drop in outdoor activity in teenage years, especially among girls, that persists until mid to early 20’s125. Research in Central Scotland, subsequently confirmed in research in England (Ward-Thompson and Travlou, 2009) indicates that people who visited the countryside as children are more likely to visit again as adults. Old people are also under-represented.
Non-users
A considerable effort has been made by outdoor agencies in the UK, notably by Natural England (see for example, Natural England (2012)) to understand and address social exclusion in the countryside. The drivers for this were the New Labour policies on social exclusion and more recently the 2010 Equality Act that requires public bodies to analyse and understand the implications of their activities for equality and to address inequalities that they identify.
For the purpose in hand – to identify stakeholders and policy areas that are relevant to forestry – we can say:
there is clear evidence of inequality in access to forest amenities and that the inequality legislation compels public bodies such as the Forestry Commission and outdoor agencies to take action;
these differentials require a governance system that recognises the complexity of the demands on the forests;
The forestry profession is an unlikely proxy for such a diverse range of interests and;
Insofar as the professional groups involved in policy formation are an educated elite their world-view is likely to differ to that of the wider public and give greater emphasis to aesthetics and cultural constructions.