Transcript EESTI ELANIKKONNA VALMIDUS KAITSTA OHUSTATUD …

ATTITUDE OF ESTONIAN POPULATION
TO THE RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO THE
BIRD PROTECTION 2008
Hella Kaldaru
Composing of current document is supported by
EU LIFE programme (EAGLELIFE project)
Kotkaklubi
1
RESEARCH METHOD
This report bases on the survey about the endangered bird species that was carried out
among the population by Omnibus 11/2008
•15-74 yrs. aged Estonian population was the sample of the survey
•The sample size was 1000 respondents
•The results of the survey represent the opinions and behaviour of the whole population
of this age
•The multistage random sample was the basis of the selection of the respondents
•The determined start address in a sample point and the rule of the youngest man at
home were used for the respondents` selection
•The interviews were conducted in the households, one per a household
•The data have been weighted according to the official statistics of age and gender
•The allowed statistical error on the 95% reliability level is ±3,1%
•The fieldwork of the research took place in 2008, November 6-19
•The same questionnaire was used in 2004
Kotkaklubi
2
SUMMARY
• In general, the results of the surveys conducted in 2008 and 2004 differ little, although there is some notable
progress in people’s awareness of endangered birds. The most positive changes have taken place in the understanding
of those residents who have had contact with endangered birds and to whom the main focus of the current informing
work has been directed.
• As compared to the earlier results, the role of eagles in Estonian nature and their endangered situation are now
somewhat more recognized. They are seen as a threat to our fish and game resources less often than before.
• Among the respondents in whose home surroundings there are birds nesting, the attitude towards creating a
protected area for eagles or black storks on their lands has become somewhat more concrete – there are slightly more
of those who would consent to that than before, but also those who are opposed. There are, nevertheless, very few
direct opponents (8%).
• The main reasons why people do not want a protected area on their lands are the restrictions in economic activities.
• People, in whose home surroundings the named birds nest, expressed a keener interest in their lifestyles and
wellbeing than before and would be more actively ready to do something for the benefit of the birds.
• The most important sources of information regarding the birds are still radio and television, but the role of the
Internet has also become noticeably more important. Personal contacts, school, and thematic events have become more
relevant than before.
• Nevertheless, 80% of the respondents admitted that they are insufficiently informed, of whom over half do not even
want to learn anything more on that issue.
• Being uninformed and lacking the desire to receive information is considerably higher among non-Estonians,
particularly among the non-Estonian speaking population of small towns in North Estonia, than among Estonians,
although 40% of non-Estonians also have knowledge of and interest towards the given topic.
• Informing work continued to be held as the most important step that should be taken in the protection of the birds.
• Regarding conditions for which people would be ready to donate money, the protection and maintenance of nesting
areas and creating protected areas were emphasised. People would also be ready to give personal money for informing
work and the conducting of necessary research.
• The respondents who had closer contacts with the birds also attached more importance to direct communication with
the involved land owners and resolving issues related to compensations.
• In terms of knowledge regarding the birds, the younger and particularly the youngest generation was weaker than the
older generation. By regions, the awareness and activity was lower in Tallinn and East-Viru County.
Kotkaklubi
3
RESULTS IN CLOSER DETAIL
Similarly to 2004, 40% of the respondents owned lands in 2008 as well.
• Out of the 9 bird species read out to the respondents, people continually thought that they would most easily
recognise the white (89%) and black stork (72%). The storks were followed by the grey heron (40%). Things were
more complicated with the eagles: the greatest proportion (30%) of the respondents thought that they would recognise
the white-tailed eagle, with the least (5%) believing they would recognise the short-toed snake-eagle. 7% of the
respondents were of the opinion that they would not recognise any of the named birds. Every tenth respondent out of
the younger group (15-39 years) of respondents would not recognise any of the birds; the situation slightly improves
with the older people.
As compared to the survey conducted in 2004, the self-confidence of the respondents has somewhat decreased, but the
ranking according to the recognisability has remained almost the same – the storks still hold the first positions.
By regions, the recognisability of birds varied more in terms of certain species: black stork, grey heron, short-eared
owl. The black stork is most frequently recognised in North Estonia and most rarely in East-Viru County. In the case of
the grey heron, the tendency is exactly the opposite. In East-Viru County, the short-eared owls have been marked
significantly more often than usual, just as they were in 2004. The number of those who did not recognise any of the
species is above average in Tallinn and East-Viru County.
• The respondents were asked to name the 3 most threatened bird species on the list in question. The ranking that
had been drawn out already in 2004, was also repeated in this question: the respondents considered the following
species, by far, to be the most threatened species:
• the black stork (51%)
• the white-tailed eagle (29%)
• the golden eagle (28%)
35% of the respondents could not point out any species – this number has grown (17% in 2004).
Kotkaklubi
4
RESULTS IN CLOSER DETAIL
Respondents who have seen eagles near their homes considered the golden eagle endangered much more frequently than
the white-tailed eagle. As compared to other respondents, they noticeably more often classified the osprey and the spotted
eagle among the most threatened species. Similar tendencies could also be noticed in the survey conducted in 2004.
By regions, the most daring bird-determiners were the respondents in South and Middle Estonia, while those of Tallinn and
East-Viru County were the most modest ones, similarly to 2004.
• The proportion of those respondents who have had personal contacts with a black stork or eagle is small and almost
the same as it was in 2004. 80% of the respondents have not seen eagles in their immediate vicinity, 72% have not seen a
black stork. Only a very low percentage of the population is aware of a nesting spot. 38% of the land owners nevertheless
have some contact with the black stork. 27% of the land owners know that there are eagles nesting in their immediate
vicinity. In both cases, 1% of the land owners are aware that there are nests on their lands.
• The respondents who have seen the named birds in their surroundings were asked how they would feel towards
creating a protected area for these species on their lands. 36% of such respondents would unconditionally consent to
the protected area, 26% on certain conditions. 8% were clearly opposed to it and 30% could not form an opinion on that
matter. The main conditions were that the protected area would not hinder the owner’s economic activities. The responses
differed from the results of 2004 by only a few per cent.
Kotkaklubi
5
RESULTS IN CLOSER DETAIL
• Opinions on the situation and role of eagles in Estonian nature differed very little from those of 2004. Almost all
residents were continually of the opinion that the eagles play an important role in nature and that they are the symbols
of nature conservation. As compared to the data of the survey conducted in 2004, the average assessment has
nevertheless slightly improved. The people are also slightly more conscious that the number of eagles is low and
dropping. The proportion of those who think that the protection of the nesting spots of eagles damages the interests of
land owners has slightly decreased; earlier, too, this was suspected only by a small part of the residents. The attitude
of land owners towards the issue was more positive than the average attitude, even regarding the question of the
damage caused by the eagles.
• The two most important measures that should be put into practice, first and foremost, for the protection of the
eagle and the black stork, continue to be the more efficient informing of people and creating protected areas. Both
measures were mentioned by over half of the respondents. When compared to 2004, the aspect of informing has
received a slight priority.
• The opinions on the sufficiency of information related to eagles divided almost exactly the same as it did in 2004:
44% of the residents do not know anything and are not interested in any information, 20% are sufficiently informed,
and 36% are not sufficiently informed, but they would like to be.
• Just as before, the main sources of information related to the topic are the television and radio (49%), which is
followed by the press (26%) and books (22%). Nevertheless, the role of television and radio has slightly diminished,
while the role of the Internet, in particular, has grown (from 10% to 20%), and, to some extent, the role of personal
contacts, school and training, and nature-themed events as well. 26% of the respondents have not received
information from anywhere. Among Estonians there were 20%, and among non-Estonians there were 39% of such
people.
The Internet has climbed to second place, following school, among the youngest respondents. In the case of
respondents who are aware of eagles nesting in their immediate vicinity, books (42%) as well as personal contacts
(37%) are significantly more important than for other respondents.
Kotkaklubi
6
RESULTS IN CLOSER DETAIL
• According to the opinion of the residents, the impact of joining the European Union was mainly positive for the
protection of Estonian nature both in 2008 and 2004 – particularly due to the increased attention on nature
conservation.
•The willingness of the residents to donate a portion of their annual income for the protection of eagles or black
storks has become slightly more severe when compared to 2004. Although those who would not want to pay at all form
nearly one third of the respondents (31%), and 13% can not or do not want to give any promises, over half of the
population is willing to pay, but mainly when there is the right appeal. In general, the proportions nevertheless coincide
with the attitudes of 2004. The willingness to donate without any conditions is considerably higher among the
respondents who have had contacts with endangered birds than among other respondents.
• On the basis of free responses regarding the specific activities, in the case of which people would be willing to
donate, the first position was held by everything related to building and maintenance of nests (59 times), which was
followed by creating or maintenance of protected areas (34 times), and feeding the birds (20 times). Informing,
cleaning up pollution, conducting research and other similar activities were also mentioned. Some people indicated the
need to keep the flow of money transparent. It is difficult to bring out fixed sums regarding the amount of donations,
but the proportions are not very different from the results of 2004. Most frequently, the donated amount remained
between EEK 50-100 (21%), just as it did in 2004. Nearly half of the respondents did not give any response or would
not pay anything.
The people in whose close surroundings there are endangered birds nesting were more generous in their donations.
Kotkaklubi
7
1. Structure of the sample.
male
female
*
15-19 y.
20-29 y.
30-39 y.
40-49 y.
50-59 y.
60+ y.
*
up to basic (9 cl.)
gymnasium, professional
university degree
*
Estonian
non-Estonian
*
up to 3000 kr.
3001-4000 kr.
4001-6000 kr.
6001-8000 kr.
8001-10 000 kr.
above10 000 kr.
refusal
cannot say
*
Tallinn
Northern Estonia
Eastern Virumaa
Western Estonia
Central Estonia
Southern Estonia
*
Capital
City
Small town
Rural area
*
land owner
do not own land
n=all respondents
47
10
53
19
17
18
17
19
25
55
20
69
31
10
8
7
13
24
12
10
8
16
30
14
13
12
23
20
30
32
18
40
0
10
20
30
40
60
50
% 60
70
80
Kotkaklubi
90
100
8
2. Percentage of the respondents considering to
recognize the bird species. n=all respondents
89
White Stork
98
72
74
Black Stork
40
Heron
30
White-tailed Eagle
35
29
Golden Eagle
16
Osprey
50
41
2008
22
16
18
Short-eared Owl
8
Spotted Eagle
5
Short-toed Eagle
Do not know any/cannot
say
1
0
2004
10
7
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%
Kotkaklubi
9
100
3. The most endangered three bird species
n=all respondents
51
Black Stork
29
White-tailed Eagle
43
28
Golden Eagle
11
Heron
17
9
Osprey
9
Spotted Eagle
7
Short-eared Owl
2008
2004
10
Short-toes Eagle
17
15
13
11
Cannot say
35
17
0
39
20
11
White Stork
62
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Kotkaklubi
10
4. Personal contacts with black storks and eagles.
n=all respondents
BLACK STORK
3
4
There is a nest nearby but not on Your land
Do not know the location of the nest but have
seen the birds often
2
2
Do not know the location of the nest but have
seen the birds some times during the last
years
22
19
72
74
Have not seen/ do not know
EAGLES
0
0
There is a nest on Your land
There is a nest nearby but not on Your land
2
2
Do not know the location of the nest but have
seen the birds often
2
1
2008 n=1004
2004 n=980
Do not know the location of the nest but have
seen the birds some times during the last
years
15
22
80
75
Have not seen/ do not know
0
10
20
30
40
Kotkaklubi
50
60
70
80
11
90 100 %
5. Land owners´attitude to the creation of new
protected areas on their lands
n=have a nest nearby or see eagles and black storks often
2008.y. n=73
2004.y. n=89
33%
35%
30%
36%
totally agree
agree on some conditions
do not agree
cannot say
8%
2%
30%
26%
Kotkaklubi
12
6. Have had contacts with the birds during the last years.
n=respondents in a region
27
26
Western Estonia
23
Southern Estonia
34
Eagle
19
Central Estonia
Black Stork
26
19
Tallinn
27
16
Eastern Virumaa
22
13
Northern Estonia
31
0
20
40
%
60
80
Kotkaklubi
100
13
7. Opinions of the situation of eagles
n=all respondents
y.2008
Rather disagree (2)
Fully disagree (1)
Rather agree (3)
Fully agree (4)
Eagles play an important role in nature
As the powerful inhabitants of deep forests they
symbolize the wild-life protection
The number of eagles is too small in Estonia
The number of eagles is decreasing in Estonia
Protection of the eagles´ nests damages the
landowners interests
Eagles damage our fish and game reserves
-100
%
-20
-26
-80
-60
-31
-40
-20
Average on scale 1-4
-1
0
34
54
11
3,59
-2
0
36
48
14
-1
-3
31
-1
-5
29
-25
Cannot say
35
11 8
94
0
3,43
30
25
3,53
3,29
40
2,10
37
1,88
30
20
40
60
80
100
Comparison of the scale averages
y. 2004
y. 2008
Eagles play an important role in nature
As the powerful inhabitants of deep forests they symbolize the wildlife protection
The number of eagles is too small in Estonia
The number of eagles is decreasing in Estonia
Protection of the eagles´ nests damages the landowners interests
Eagles damage our fish and game reserves
1
2
3
Average on scale 1-4 (4=fully agree...1=fully disagree)
Kotkaklubi
14
4
8. Opinions of the situation of eagles
in breakdown of nationalities
Estonians
Non-Estonians
Eagles play an important role in
nature
As the powerful inhabitants of
deep forests they symbolize the
wild-life protection
The number of eagles is too
small in Estonia
The number of eagles is
decreasing in Estonia
Protection of the eagles´ nests
damages the landowners
interests
Eagles damage our fish and
game reserves
1
2
3
4
Average on scale 1-4 (1=fully disagree...4=fylly agree)
Kotkaklubi
15
9. The most important measures to protect the
endangered birds. n=all respondents
55
Distribute nature protection
information, training
62
53
Create more areas to protect
the nests
63
35
Maintain feeding areas
41
Have personal contacts with
the landowners having
restrictions
31
36
2008
24
Strenghten the control over
fulfilling the regulations
34
2004
13
Work out the compensation
system for the landowners
20
7
Nothing special-the birds can
manage themselves
7
13
Cannot say
6
0
10
20
30
40
% 50
60
Kotkaklubi
70
80
90
16
100
10. Sufficiency of the information about eagles
n=all respondents
y.2008
y.2004
Yes
Yes
No and I am interested in the
information
21%
No and I am
interested in the
information
No but I am not interested in
the information
No but I am not
interested in the
information
44%
20%
44%
35%
36%
Kotkaklubi
17
11. Sources of information about eagles
n=all respondents
49
TV, radio
26
Newspapers, magazines
58
35
22
21
Books
Internet
20
10
School, training
9
Personal contacts
2008.a.
2004.a.
7
2
Nature events
13
5
7
1
1
Booklets
Have not got any
information
26
23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Kotkaklubi
18
12. Impact of joining the European Union on the
protection of Estonian nature
n=all respondents
Positive because more attention is paid to the
nature protection now and it is good for
everybody
51
56
Positive because the big sums of European
money are used for the environmental protection
35
44
19
Positive because the subsidies are paid to the
landowners
24
9
Negative because a lot is depending on the
officials` will now
y.2008
16
y.2004
Negative because the landowners` rights are
restricted
5
Negative because almost the whole Estonia is
getting a protected area
4
7
8
26
cannot say
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
%
Kotkaklubi
19
13. Readyness to donate for the protection of
eagles or black storks
All respondents n=980
y.2004
y.2008
Yes
12%
21%
May be, it depends
on the real call
No
13%
14%
Yes
Cannot say
29%
May be, it depends on the
real call
No
38%
Cannot say
31%
42%
Kotkaklubi
20
14. How much money are the people going to donate for
the protection of eagles or black stork? n=all respondents
9
1-50 kr.
16
21
51-100 kr.
21
17
101-500 kr.
12
y.2008
3
501-1000 kr.
y.2004
4
3
1001-6000 kr.
4
46
0 kroons/no answer
43
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Kotkaklubi
21
Project team
Questionnaire and report:
Hella Kaldaru
Field work managers:
Marina Karpištšenko, Rutt Vihtla, Kristel
Toom
Data processing:
Kaire Siimon
Graphs:
Hella Kaldaru
Contacts:
Phone:
Fax:
E-post:
Homepage:
Address:
6 684 859
6 277 584
[email protected]
www.turu-uuringute.ee
Tatari 6, 10 116 Tallinn
Kotkaklubi
22