Understanding what people want from the natural...
Transcript of 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
The red and green figures are significantly different from the total population at the
95% confidence level.
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
The red and green figures are significantly different from the total population at the
95% confidence level.
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%
The red and green figures are significantly different from the total population at the
95% confidence level.
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%
The red and green figures are significantly different from the total population at the
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
Children in household 10%
Socioeconomic group 83% C1C2, 8% AB
BME groups High 25%
Disabilities 6%
Access to a car 64%
Dog ownership 22%
Visits to the natural
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-
environmental actions.
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.
Attitudes to the natural environment:
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.
Landscape preferences:
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.
Pro-environmental behaviour:
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.
Thought starters for delivery, communications and policy:
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
Children in household 50%
Socioeconomic group 100% DE
BME groups High 24%
Disabilities 7%
Access to a car 47%
Dog ownership 25%
Visits to the natural
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.
Attitudes to the natural environment:
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.
Landscape preferences:
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.
Information and access needs:
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.
Pro-environmental behaviour:
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.
Triggers to engagement:
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.
Barriers to engagement:
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.
Thought starters for delivery, communications and policy:
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
Gender Male and female
Children in household 45%
Socioeconomic group 100% AB
BME groups Average 12%
Disabilities 8%
Access to a car Above average 88%
Dog ownership Average 22%
Visits to the natural
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.
Attitudes to the natural environment:
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
Landscape preferences:
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.
Information and access needs:
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.
Pro-environmental behaviour:
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.
Triggers to engagement:
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.
Barriers to engagement:
The key barrier for Pressured but engaged is time, leading to competing priorities and
an inability or unwillingness to travel.
Thought starters for delivery, communications and policy:
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
Gender Male and female
Children in household 45%
Socioeconomic group 100% C1C2
BME groups Average 11%
Disabilities 10%
Access to a car Average 90%
Dog ownership Average 28%
Visits to the natural
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.
Attitudes to the natural environment:
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.
Landscape preferences:
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.
Pro-environmental behaviour:
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.
Triggers to engagement:
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.
Barriers to engagement:
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
Thought starters for delivery, communications and policy:
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
Gender Male and female
Children in household 40%
Socioeconomic group 1% AB, 1% C1C2, 98% DE
BME groups Above average 15%
Disabilities High 24%
Access to a car 63%
Dog ownership 32%
Visits to the natural
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.
Attitudes to 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%.
Landscape preferences:
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.
Information and access needs:
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.
Pro-environmental behaviour:
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+
Gender Male and female
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%
Visits to the natural
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-
environmental actions.
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.
Attitudes to the natural environment:
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.
Landscape preferences:
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.
Information and access needs:
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.
Triggers to engagement:
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.
Barriers to engagement:
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+
Gender Male and female
Children in household Very few
Socioeconomic group 98% DE, 2% C1C2
BME groups Low 4%
Disabilities High 45%
Access to a car Average 56%
Dog ownership Average 19%
Visits to the natural
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.
Attitudes to the natural environment:
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‟.
Landscape preferences:
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.
Information and access needs:
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.
Pro-environmental behaviour:
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.
Triggers to engagement:
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.
Barriers to engagement:
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
natural environment.
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
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
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
natural environment.
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
Tony McDougal, 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
Tony McDougal, 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
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