Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment - Results of 2010-2011 survey

390 views

Published on

Presentation given by Alison Hill, Natural England, GSNF, Nov 2011

Published in: Technology, Design
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment - Results of 2010-2011 survey

  1. 1. Monitor of Engagement with the Natural EnvironmentResults of the 2010 – 2011 survey
  2. 2. MENE – scope MENE captures information on all visits to the natural environment, including visits to local informal green space which were under recorded by previous surveys. It provides more accurate estimates of the volume of visits to the natural environment and changes over time, because the survey is continuous rather than being a one-off snap shot in time. Data is collected at a range of different spatial scales (including small areas) and amongst different socioeconomic groups. The survey collects origin and destination data for a selection of visits. 80 per cent of visits where the destination is recorded were allocated a grid reference and we were able to record visitors addresses in almost 100 per cent of cases. It is also important to understand why people don’t visit, so the survey collected this data too. The survey collects information on attitudes towards the natural environment.
  3. 3. Survey method In-home face to face interviews Weekly interviews on TNS –RI omnibus survey Representative of the English adult population Years 1 & 2 - March 2009 to February 2011Interviews – Year 1 48,514 , Year 2 46,099Main visit details – Year 1 58,653 visits , Year 2 47,825 visitsFull visit details – Year 1 20,374 visits , Year 2 17,389 visits Topics included in the survey Volume of visits to the natural environment Transport used on visits Places visited Reasons for taking visits Activities undertaken on visits Expenditure during visits Duration of visits Other forms of engagement Distance travelled on visits Barriers to participation
  4. 4. Key results and emerging trends
  5. 5. Annual volume of visitsMarch 2010 to February 2011 2.5 billion visits to Average of 60 About 1.2 visits the natural visits per adult per week environment 13 per cent fewer visits than between March 2009 and February 2010. A statistically significant decrease. Year 1 - 2.9 billion Year 2 - 2.5 billion
  6. 6. Participation in the last 7 days 39% of the population had taken 1 or more visits to the natural environment in the 7 days prior to being interviewed. This is a decrease from 43% in Year 1. Age 16-24 43 Took visits in last 7 days (%) 36 25-44 46 43 45-64 46 43 65+ 34 31Long term illness or disability None 46 41 33 2009/10 Any 30 2010/11Socio-economic status AB 53 52 C1 46 41 C2 42 38 DE 34 28Index of Multiple Deprivation Top 10% 54 49 Mid 11-89% 44 40 Bottom 10% 30 27 Took visits in last 7 days (%)
  7. 7. Volume of visits taken per month (millions) March 2009 to February 2011 A seasonal pattern correlated to daylight hours but a general300m downward trend. 283 273 270 257 253 254 Visits to the natural environment 242 228 232 220 216 227 213150m 205 206 206 218 217 200 199 188 178 180 168 0m
  8. 8. Where?Around half of visits are to the countryside Other coastline 0.11 bn. visits -17% Seaside resort/ town 4% 0.17 bn. visits 7% 53% Countryside 37% Green space in a town or city 1.3 bn. visits 0.92 bn. visits -5% -20%
  9. 9. Volume of visits takenChanges between Year 1 and Year 2 INCREASES Farmland Woodland Mountain, hill, moorland AB socio-economic groups Parks and other urban green ABOVE AVERAGE spaces DECREASES Eating and drinking out, road cycling, horse riding Aged 16-24, 65+ DE socio-economic groups, unemployed BME population
  10. 10. Changes between Year 1 and Year 2 – green spaceand countryside visits Visits to the countryside up almost every month on 2009 Visits to green spaces in towns and cities down every month on 2009
  11. 11. Who?Profiling visitors and non visitors
  12. 12. Levels of engagement 22% 21% 20% 16% 11% 9% Every day Several times Once a week Once or twice Less often Never a week a month Frequent Infrequent Non visitors visitors visitors 53% 37% 9% or or 22 million or 16 million 4 million adults adults adults
  13. 13. Age and socio-economic profile by frequencyof visits Frequent visitors (%) Infrequent visitors (%) Non-visitors (%) 16 20 35 65+ 32 45-64 More likely to be 33 non-visitors AGE 25 25-44 16-24 Aged 65+(35%)More likely to be 36 Retired (37%) 34 27frequent visitors DE group (43%)Aged 25-64 (68%) 16 Living in areas in 13 13ABC1 groups (57%) bottom 10% ofWhite ethnicity (91%) Index of Multiple 21 14 Deprivation (19%) 27 24 AB Any long term illness of SOCIO- 28 C1 disability (36%) 30 C2 ECONOMIC 19 DE Black or Minority Ethnic GROUP 21 community (24%) 20 43 22 30 • Frequent visitor – at least once a week (53% of population) • Infrequent visitor – twice a month or less often (37% of population) • Non-participants – not visited in the last 12 months (9% of population)
  14. 14. Levels of physical activity by frequency of visitsFrequent visitors (%) Infrequent visitors (%) Non-visitors (%) Number of days 48 undertake 30 mins+ of physical activity 66 0 to 2 days 79 3 or more days There is a relationship between visits to the natural environment and levels of physical activity. 52 34 21 Frequent Infrequent Non-participants• Frequent visitor – at least once a week (53% of population)• Infrequent visitor – twice a month or less often (37% of population)• Non-participants – not visited in the last 12 months (9% of population)
  15. 15. Where?Visit destinations
  16. 16. Volumes of visits by region and county Influences on volume of visits Size of population Availability of accessible natural environment Visit estimates can now be made at a county Greatest decreases in London, the South East level and these will become more robust as and East of England. the sample sizes increase.
  17. 17. Types of place visited by countySignificant geographical variations Town or city Seaside resort or town Other seaside coastline Countryside A clear variation in the types of place visited by county reflecting the large proportion of visits to local places.
  18. 18. Distances travelled Most visits are close to home and taken on foot 40 63% of visits 30% of visits 3% of visits are taken on are taken by are taken by foot car public 26 transport 16 6 5 3 1 1 1 1Less than 1 mile1 or 2 miles 3 to 5 miles 6 to 10 miles11 to 20 miles to 40 miles to 60 miles to 80 miles to 100 miles 100 miles 21 41 61 81 Over
  19. 19. Types of place visited – volume of visits Park in a town or city 558m 679m Path, cycleway, bridleway 360m 369m Woodland or forest 326m 317m Another open space in countryside 307m 319m Farmland 233m 209m River, lake, canal 232m 253m Playing field/other recreation area 191m 195m Another open space in town or city 189m 226m 2010/11 Country park 176m 199m 2009/10 A beach 159m 174m A village 157m 176m Other coastline 91m 98m Childrens playground 76m 82m Mountain, hill, moorland 64m 61m An allotment 16m 17m 0 200 400 600 800 Million visits
  20. 20. Types of place visited – changes between years Farmland 13% Mountain, hill, moorland 10% Woodland 4% 0% Playing field or other recreation area -2% Path, cycleway, bridleway -3% Another open space in the countryside -6% Allotment/community garden -6% Children’s playground -7% River, lake, canal -8% Other coastline -10% Village -10% Beach -13% Country park -15% Another open space in town or city -18% Park in a town or city -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% Percentage change between 2009/10 and 2010/11
  21. 21. What?A profile of visits
  22. 22. Activities during visits to the natural environment- volume of visits Walking with a dog 1267m 1380m Walking, not with a dog 660m 739m Playing with children 212m 229m Eating or drinking out 142m 182m Visiting an attraction 89m 109m Running 74m 80m Wildlife watching 70m 77m Informal games and sport 66m 85m Road cycling 50m 64m 2010/11 Visits to a beach, sunbathing, paddling 50m 51m 48m 2009/10 Appreciating scenery from your car 53m Picnicking 46m 53 Horse riding 27m 35m Off road cycling, MTB 26m 34m Fishing 15m 17m Swimming outdoors 13m 16m Watersports 11m 16m Fieldsports 10m 15m 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 Million visits
  23. 23. Activities during visits to the natural environment- changes between years -1% Wildlife watching -3% Visits to the beach, sunbathing, paddling -5% Running -6% Watersports -8% Walking with a dog -8% Playing with children -8% Appreciating scenery from your car -10% Walking, not with a dog -14% Fishing -15% Picnicking -19% Visiting an attraction -20% Off road cycling/mountain biking -21% Swimming outdoors -21% Eating or drinking out -22% Informal games and sport -23% Road cycling -23% Horse riding -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% Percentage change between 2009/10 and 2010/11
  24. 24. Why?Motivations and barriers
  25. 25. Reasons for taking visits 48 Variations in motivations… To exercise your dog 47 For health or exercise 38 34 To relax and unwind 26 25 By age For fresh air or to enjoy pleasant 24 Under 25s – spending time with friends weather 21 24 to 44 – spending time with family 22 45 to 65 – relaxing and unwinding To enjoy scenery 20 Health and exercise – increasingly For peace and quiet 16 important with advancing age. 15 To enjoy wildlife 14 2010/11 13 To spend time with family 13 2009/10 12 By gender 12 Men – health and exercise To be somewhere you like Women – exercising dogs, time with 10 11 family, entertaining children. To entertain children 11 To spend time with friends 9 9 To challenge yourself or achieve 4 something 3 By socio-economic groupTo learn something about the outdoors 2 ABC1s – health and exercise, relaxing and 2 unwinding 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 C2DEs – exercising dogs. Percentage of visits
  26. 26. Outcomes of visits to the natural environment I enjoyed it 47 50 2 It made me feel calm and 32 52 9 5 relaxed It made me feel refreshed 31 52 9 7 and revitalisedI took time to appreciate my 31 54 8 8 surroundings I felt close to nature 25 50 12 11 I learned something new 10 26 23 42 about the natural world Percentage of adult population Agree strongly Agree Neither Disagree/ Disagree strongly Women are generally Those who take visits most more likey to report often report the most positive outcomes, with positive outcomes the exception of ‘learning including ABCs, people with something new’. white ethnicity.
  27. 27. Outcomes of visits to the natural environment- Variations in by type of place visited Visits to the coast are most % that agree strongly with I enjoyed it likely to have the strongest each statement 100% positive outcomes. It made me feel calm I felt close to nature 50% and relaxed 0% I learned something It made me feel new about the natural refreshed and world revitalised Green space in town/city Coast I took time to appreciate my Countryside surroundings
  28. 28. Other types of engagementEnjoying and appreciating the natural environment
  29. 29. Attitudes to the natural environment Having open green spaces close to where I live is 49 44 53 important There are many natural places I may never visit but I 42 51 52 am glad they exist Spending time out of doors (including my own garden) is 41 46 7 5 an important part of my life I am concerned about damage to the natural 34 52 10 5 environment Percentage of adult population Agree strongly Agree Neither Disagree/ Disagree strongly Agreement was higher amongst women, older age groups, those in the AB and C1 socio-economic groups and those with a white ethnic background.
  30. 30. Year Three
  31. 31. MENE Year Three Fieldwork for the third year of MENE continues until the end of February 2012. The third year of the survey will allow for the continued measurement of changes in levels of engagement with the natural environment with results published each month. The cumulative sample of c.140,000 interviews will allow a robust analysis at an overall population level and amongst key groups of interest, including: At a county level By population group e.g. age, ethnicity, socio-economic status By type of place visited By activities undertaken
  32. 32. Accessing and using the data
  33. 33. Accessing and using the data 2010/11 Technical Annual Report Report Monthly updates On-line data viewer For further information relating to official statistics contact Stephen.herbert@ naturalengland.org.uk Attitudes to the Segmentationenvironment report Report ELVS comparison SPSS datasets For all other questions contact Erica Wayman, MENE Project Manager Erica.wayman@ naturalengland.org.uk
  34. 34. Accessing and using the data Access the outputs by going to:www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/research/monitor Or go direct to the online viewer at:www.naturalengland.org.uk/mene Please complete the MENE user engagement survey ! (accessed via the main site above)
  35. 35. Monitor of Engagement with the Natural EnvironmentResults of the 2010 – 2011 survey

×