Investigating Why Communities Value Nature Centers

Across the United States, nature centers connect community members with each other and with their surrounding environment. Previous studies suggest that through both unstructured experiences and nature-based programming, these centers can positively impact their local communities, such as promote pro-environmental behaviors and careers. However, little is known about how community members, both visitors and non-visitors, value their local nature centers. Understanding how communities value a nature center and perceive its benefits can improve services and help achieve the mission of the nature center. In addition, better understanding the value of nature centers can help improve their communication and constituency-building strategies to support the very survival of the center. This study sought to identify what community members value from a local nature center. The authors also attempted to understand whether the center's mission and goals aligned with the set of identified values and their associated benefits.

For this study, researchers surveyed 16 “successful” nature centers and their neighboring communities. Centers were selected for participation with advice from the National Audubon Society (NAS) and the Association for Nature Center Administrators (ANCA) in order to ensure the sample reflected a diversity of programming and settings. Researchers asked NAS and ANCA staff members to identify the “most successful” nature centers in the US, intentionally leaving the definition of “success” open to interpretation. Then, they reduced the initial list by selecting only those centers that were nominated by more than one expert. All nature centers selected for this study were affiliated with NAS or ANCA, had an adjacent natural area and an interpretive center, and did not have overnight facilities available for visitors. The final sample of nature centers represented urban, suburban, fringe and rural areas equally.

Authors sent 12,000 web-based surveys to each of the surrounding communities of the 16 selected sites and received 2402 responses (a response rate of 1.7%). The questionnaire asked participants about the perceived importance of 14 different services that nature centers provide: a place for physical exercise; a place for safe outdoor recreation; a place for relaxation, retreat, and restoration; increased awareness of nature; access to nature; a place for children to learn; encourage pro-environmental behavior; wildlife habitat; bring people together from different races and ethnicities; political action; place for people to gather; community beautification; contribute to local economy; and develop a sense of pride in the community. Researchers analyzed the data using statistics.

This authors found that communities had valued their nature centers in four ways: 1) environmental connection, which included education and increased awareness of nature; 2) leisure provision, referring to safe outdoor recreation, relaxation, retreat and restoration; 3) community resilience, including the nature centers' contribution to the local beautification, economy, and sense of pride among community members; and 4) civic engagement, which referred to the capacity of a nature center for political action and integration of different races and ethnicities.

Authors found that most respondents felt it was important for a nature center to offer all 14 services mentioned in the survey. Results also show that, on average, community respondents believed that nature centers performed 'very well' on all four groups of values. In particular, respondents thought that nature centers did very well at connecting people to the environment.

The study found that the importance of the four groups of values varied among community subgroups. For instance, valuing leisure provision was different between visitors and non-visitors. Community resilience and civic engagement were more valuable for respondents who were younger, non-White, living in urban areas, and had less formal education. Other findings show that, overall, females valued nature centers more than males. Some of these different valuations can be especially relevant to consider when building the nature center's appeal for a more diverse audience.

The selection method for the 16 different nature centers, the limited sample of this study, and the low survey response rate can prevent researchers from making strong conclusions about the general value of a nature center for any community. Additionally, survey respondents over-represented a set of socio-demographic characteristics while under-representing others. For this research, the average respondent was a non-Hispanic White, older male with higher education. This in turn could mean that the results may not be representative for all communities, such as those with children at home.

The study recommends that nature center managers and administrators consider how values vary among community subgroups. This may be important when selecting which services to provide, particularly if a nature centers wants to attract a more diverse audience. In addition, how communities value nature centers may impact communication strategies that appeal to both visitors and non-visitors. Additional research on the four identified groups of values in other settings, such as zoos, museums, and aquariums, could help strengthen the relationship between local informal learning institutions and their communities.