Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Kuuliala, Vilma-Inkeri Annikki (2017) Wild at Sea: The wilderness concept in Scottish and EU environmental and marine conservation, and its interpretations by stakeholders. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis, University of Kent,. DOI Link to record in KAR https://kar.kent.ac.uk/63879/ Document Version UNSPECIFIED Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Wild at Sea: The wilderness concept in Scottish and EU environmental and marine conservation, and its interpretations by stakeholders Vilma-Inkeri Annikki Kuuliala Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE) School of Anthropology and Conservation University of Kent, UK August 2017 Word count: 72,879 Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biodiversity Management Declaration I declare that this thesis has been composed by myself and has not been accepted in any previous application for the award of degree in any university. All quotations have been distinguished appropriately, and sources of information have been specifically acknowledged. Vilma Kuuliala 31 October 2016 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors Dr Joseph Tzanopoulos and Dr Ian Bride for their support, advice, and patience at the times when I had little idea of what I wanted to do. I would also like to thank the other members of the DICE academic and administrative staff who have been providing their help and support throughout this process. I would also like to extend my special thanks to all the individuals and organisations who participated in my interviews and surveys, especially the reserve staff and inhabitants at St Abb’s Head and the Isle of Rum. I wish you all the best for the future! My friends in Canterbury have been an invaluable source of support. Without all the encouragement and distraction you have provided, I would not have survived through the past three years with my sanity (relatively) intact. Special thanks goes to Bekah, Brendan, Chris, Dan, Ed, Emilie, Steffi, Steph, and Tim, for always being there for a pint, a film, a walk, some spectator sports, or just a chat, to remind me that there is life away from the keyboard. Thank you also to the DICE PhD Crew, for all your peer support (and some amazing conference trips). Finally, thank you to my wonderful family back home. My partner Jukka for his endless patience, my parents Ilkka and Riitta for their continuous support and belief in me, and my sister, Dr Jenni, for being my role model. If it weren’t for the four of you, I wouldn’t even have dared to start. Abstract For over a century there has been a push to preserve the areas of nature where the human impact is the smallest, often referred to as wilderness. In Europe the suitability of the concept is debated, as the entire continent has been heavily modified by humans, and the areas without visible human impacts are small and fragmented. At the same time there is a strong push for preserving these areas, including the areas at sea. At sea the wilderness concept faces unique challenges, as the environment is less understood than the terrestrial, and the potential wilderness areas are not necessarily accessible for recreational purposes. This thesis examines the use of the wilderness concept, especially as it relates to the marine environment, in both policy and common use. The aim is to contribute to the conceptual framework for marine wilderness, by studying how the concept of wilderness is understood and used by policymakers and stakeholders. The research is conducted using discourse analysis on legal texts and newspapers, and surveys, interviews, and social network analysis to examine the views of individual stakeholders. The results show that while there is political will in Scotland to conserve wild areas, which are more modest in size than wilderness but provide the wildness quality and its beneficial effects, the concept of wilderness has multiple interpretations, and can be rather political. To address the consequent issues, participation of stakeholders is considered vital for successful management. Marine wilderness remains a particularly ambiguous concept, and considering the ongoing tensions in marine resources management, it is suggested that marine wilderness is more useful if seen as an added benefit than the ultimate goal. CONTENTS PART ONE: CONTEXT 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Research questions 7 1.2. Thesis structure 7 1.2.1. Part One: Context 8 1.2.2. Part Two: Data collection and analysis 8 1.2.3. Part Three: Conclusion 9 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1. Introduction 10 2.2. Wilderness 10 2.2.1. The history of wilderness in terrestrial conservation 10 2.2.1.1. Wilderness in Scotland 26 2.2.2. Wilderness and human health 32 2.2.3. Wilderness in the context of marine conservation 35 2.2.4. Summary 41 2.3. Participatory management 42 2.3.1. Application of participatory management and stakeholder involvement in protected area conservation 42 2.3.2. Participatory management in Marine Protected Areas 47 2.3.3. Summary 51 2.4. Status and legislation of marine and coastal conservation in Scotland 53 2.4.1. Participatory management and recreational use in legal texts 53 2.4.2. The new MPA network of Scotland 58 2.4.3. Summary 61 2.5. Summary of literature 61 3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY 63 3.1. Introduction 63 3.2. Theoretical background 63 3.2.1. Theories on the human aspect in environmental management 63 3.2.1.1 Post-normal science 64 3.2.1.2. Ecological economics 66 3.2.1.3. Marine citizenship 68 3.2.2 Foucault’s discourse analysis 73 3.2.3. Discourse in media and law 83 3.2.4. Summary of theoretical approaches 86 3.3. Methodology 88 3.3.1 Questionnaires 88 3.3.2. Discourse analysis 90 3.3.2.1 Construction of text collections for discourse analysis 92 3.3.3 Social network analysis 95 3.4. Scope, limitations and researcher bias 96 PART TWO: DATA COLLETION AND ANALYSIS 4. WILDERNESS AND THE SEA IN NEWSPAPERS – A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 98 4.1. The Scotsman 98 4.1.1. Wilderness according to The Scotsman 99 4.1.2. Wilderness and the sea in The Scotsman 107 4.2. Daily Record 113 4.2.1. Wilderness according to Daily Record 114 4.2.2. Wilderness and the sea in Daily Record 122 4.3. The Herald 125 4.3.1. Wilderness according to The Herald 127 4.3.2. Wilderness and the sea in The Herald 137 4.4. Conclusion 139 5. WILDERNESS AND THE SEA IN POLICY AND LEGISLATION – A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 143 5.1. Scottish and British Legislation 143 5.2. Scottish policy 144 5.2.1. The Scottish Government files 145 5.2.2. The SNH files 152 5.2.2.1. The Core Areas of Wild Land project 158 5.3. The Scottish MPAs 165 5.4. EU legislation 168 5.4.1. Scotland, EU, and Brexit 186 5.5. Conclusion 187 5.5.1. A typology of wilderness discourses 189 6. SURVEYS 191 6.1. The exploratory study 191 6.1.1. Research site 1: St. Abb’s Head 192 6.1.2. Research site 2: The Isle of Rum 194 6.1.3. St. Abb’s Head data gathering 195 6.1.4. Rum data gathering 196 6.1.5. Questionnaire design 197 6.1.6. St. Abb’s Head results 197 6.1.6.1. Wildness 198 6.1.6.1.1. Visitor profiles 198 6 .1.6.1.2. Wildness of St. Abb’s Head 200 6.1.7. Rum results 206 6.1.7.1. Wilderness 206 6.1.7.1.1. Visitor profiles 206 6.1.7.1.2. Wildness of Rum 209 6.1.7.2. Participation 217 6.1.7.2.1. Inhabitant profiles 217 6.1.8. Comparison of Survey Sites 222 6.1.8.1. Wildness 222 6.1.8.2. Participation 225 6.2. Online survey 228 6.2.1. Professionals 229 6.2.2. Divers and visitors 235 6.2.3. Wilderness typology 238 6.2.3.1. Wilderness in pictures 247 6.2.4. Conclusions 262 PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS 7. DISCUSSION 265 7.1. Introduction 265 7.2. How is the concept of wilderness defined, understood and used in the Scottish and EU marine policy? 265 7.2.1. The different wildernesses 266 7.2.2. Wilderness in Scottish and European law 267 7.2.3. The views of the people and the role of the newspaper 269 7.3. What are the potential policy implications? 269 7.3.1. Do we still have a “trouble with wilderness”? 270 7.3.2. The wilderness values and policy 273 7.4. How do the stakeholders feel about their opportunities to participate in decision making? 275 7.4.1.