ABSTRACT
Freshwater (inland) blue space environments provide a range of public health benefits to visitors. However, health related exposure outcomes are dynamic and can vary depending on several factors, including the environmental characteristics of freshwater environments and their surroundings. Developing and managing inland blue spaces to promote health and wellbeing therefore requires an understanding of whether specific freshwater attributes, and prevailing weather conditions, enhance or devalue landscape aesthetics. The aim of this study was to utilise a mixed-methods research approach to investigate aesthetic preferences of inland blue spaces. A three-phase data collection method was adopted involving (i) analysis of a national-scale landscape image dataset; in combination with (ii) a national-scale online survey; and (iii) a series of in-person focus groups. We found environmental characteristics associated with the waterbody itself, as well as the characteristics of the nearby green space, to have a significant impact on the overall aesthetic appeal of inland blue spaces. Strong preference was demonstrated for inland blue spaces perceived to be of a high environmental quality and which have a natural, rather than human-modified, appearance. The findings highlight the need to conserve the quality of both the waterbody and waterside environment to encourage frequent recreational use and maintain the beneficial public health outcomes associated with inland blue spaces.
ABSTRACT
Shale gas is an expanding energy source worldwide, yet 'fracking' remains controversial. Amongst public concerns is induced seismicity (tremors). The UK had the most stringent induced seismicity regulations in the world, prior to instating a moratorium on shale gas development. The Government cited induced seismicity as the key rationale for its November 2019 English moratorium. Yet, little is known about how the public perceives induced seismicity, whether they support regulatory change, or how framing and information provision affect perceptions. Across three waves of a longitudinal experimental UK survey (N = 2777; 1858; 1439), we tested whether framing of induced seismicity influences support for changing regulations. The surveys compared (1) quantitative versus qualitative framings, (2) information provision about regulatory limits in other countries and (3) seismicity from other industries, and (4) framing a seismic event as an 'earthquake' or something else. We find low support for changing current policy, and that framing and information provision made little difference to this. The one strong influence on perceptions of seismic events came from the type of activity causing the event; shale gas extraction clearly led to the most negative reactions. We discuss implications for future UK policy on shale gas and geothermal energy in an evolving energy landscape.
