Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T16:28:31.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enjoying Our Backyard Buddies – Social Research Informing the Practice of Mainstream Community Education for the Conservation of Urban Wildlife

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Richard Davies  and
Lynn Webber
Richard Davies
Affiliation:
Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)
Lynn Webber*
Affiliation:
Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)
*
†Manager Education and Community Involvement, Parks & Wildlife Division, Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW). Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Supporting urban communities to make changes that contribute to sustainable living is a challenge that many environment and conservation organisations embrace. However, many community education and involvement initiatives to date have tended to appeal mostly to those with knowledge and enthusiasm for protection and conservation of the environment, leaving the majority of the community relatively unengaged. In a NSW Environmental Trust supported initiative seeking to enhance the protection and conservation of wildlife in urban environments, a major social research project was undertaken to investigate community understandings of wildlife conservation, for application to urban community education programs. The research incorporated both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to gain insights that practitioners can use to develop, monitor and evaluate urban environment and conservation initiatives that engage and involve the WIder community. This paper presents some key findings of the research and provides case examples of environmental education initiatives bringing this research into practice. The research indicates that community understandings of conservation are broad ranging. The research reveals that prominent conservation language and concepts, well understood by keen and knowledgable environmental educators, have little relevance to mainstream audiences. Other findings identify how conservation can have high relevance and meaning for the broader community as an integral part of their everyday life.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australian Journal of Environmental Education , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , 2004 , pp. 77 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

References

Davies, R. G., Webber, L. M., & Barnes, G. S. (2004). Urban wildlife management – it's as much about people! In Lunney, D. & Burgin, S. (Eds.), Urban wildlife – More than meets the eye (pp. 38–43). Australia: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Deustcher, T. (1970). Words and deeds: Social science and social policy. In Filstead, W. (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 24–32). Chicago, USA: Markham.Google Scholar
Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, USA: Aldine.Google Scholar
Guba, E. G. (1978). Towards a theory for naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation No.8. Los Angeles, USA: University of California.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, (2nd ed), California, USA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002). Growing conservation in urban communities. Research commission. Australia: Woolcott Research Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
Robinson, L., & Glanznig, A. (2003). Enabling ecoAction: A handbook for anyone working with the public on conservation. Sydney, Australia: Humane Society International, WWF Australia, World Conservation Union.Google Scholar