Bad nature: Newspaper representations of ecosystem disservices Jari Lyytimäki
Abstract
Public perceptions and expectations towards ecosystems are an important part of environmental management and planning. This article focuses on the media representations that disseminate information, create framings and influence public attitudes. More specifically, the focus is on print media representations of ecosystem disservices. Ecosystem disservices are functions or properties of ecosystems that cause negative effects on human well-being or that are perceived as harmful, unpleasant or unwanted. Results from a case study focusing on the Finnish newspaper coverage of ecosystem disservices are presented. The results show that a wide variety of harms and nuisances related to ecosystems are brought up and discussed by the media. Implications for environmental management are discussed. The key claim is that taking into account the full repertoire of media representations of ecosystem functions is vital for preventing, anticipating and solving
controversies related to environmental management and planning.
Highlights
Public debates and media contents are important for urban green management.
Media representations of ecosystem disservices are studied.
A wide variety of harms and nuisances are identified.
Media contents should be taken into account in adaptive management.
Keywords
Disservices; Ecosystem services; Environmental management; News coverage; Print media; Public debate
Lyytimäki, J. (2014). Bad nature: Newspaper representations of ecosystem disservices.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13(3), 418-424.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.04.005
Introduction
Research on ecosystem services has proliferated since the turn of the millennium (Vihervaara et al., 2010, Ernstson and Sörlin, 2013). The need to preserve natural ecosystems and manage semi- natural areas, including urban green spaces, in a way that maximises their ability to produce goods and services for human well-being has been widely acknowledged (MA, 2005). However, there is also a need to acknowledge and analyse the ability of ecosystems to produce “bads”, i.e.
ecosystem disservices (McCauley, 2006, Lyytimäki et al., 2008, Dunn, 2010, Ango et al., 2014). As emphasised by Escobedo et al. (2011), a key challenge for environmental management is whether the planners and decision-makers are willing and able to weigh up all relevant ecosystem services against the disservices.
In general terms, ecosystem disservices can be defined as functions or properties of ecosystems that are perceived as negative for human well-being (Lyytimäki and Sipilä, 2009). They include e.g.
allergens, pathogens and pests, unbuilt land or wetlands inhibiting human mobility, and invasive or native species causing damage to property, decreasing aesthetic values or compromising human safety or security. Disservices can be the result of the natural functioning of an
undisturbed ecosystem, or they can be the effects or side-effects of human influence (Pataki et al., 2011, Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013). Importantly, the one and same ecosystem function can be perceived as a service or disservice depending on the context, knowledge and values of the person making the evaluation.
Ecosystem disservices causing adverse effects to human well-being are not necessarily actively noticed and valued as negative. Likewise, some beneficial ecosystem properties or functions may be comprehended as disservices. For example, the development of the human immune system may be compromised because children in an urban environment lack direct contact with rich biodiversity, particularly the natural microbiota (Hanski et al., 2012). Despite this, urban dwellers may not perceive their lifestyles as being characterised by limited contact with nature as a
potential reason for allergies or other immunological problems. Instead, close contact with natural elements potentially containing microbiota is typically characterised by disgust, which is a deeply rooted human reaction that has probably evolved as a defence mechanism against disease (Curtis and Biran, 2001). In an urbanised environment with high hygiene levels, this evolutionary-rooted and culturally-shaped mechanism becomes partly obsolete or even detrimental.
Human perceptions and representations of ecosystem properties and functions have been studied by various disciplines (e.g. Bixler and Floyd, 1997, Lyytimäki et al., 2008, Peltola et al., 2013, Hauru et al., 2014). Relevant topics of relatively intensive research include public perceptions of invasive species or other nuisance species (Bardsley and Edwards-Jones, 2007, Limburg et al., 2010, Selge et al., 2011) and debates over large carnivores (Alexander and Quinn, 2012, Jacobson et al., 2012).
Public controversies and the related media coverage of ecosystem disservices have motivated many of these studies. However, few studies have utilised the data from media representations as research material. Such studies have typically focused on cases of episodic debates related to certain nuisance species (Roush and Fortner, 1996, Goulding and Roper, 2002, Cassidy and Mills, 2012). Studies addressing the media coverage of ecosystem disservices outside these high-profile episodic cases are largely missing. Some studies of urban green management have used expert magazines or newsletters as a data source, however (Seamans, 2013).
In contemporary democratic societies, the media sets the public and policy agenda and also influences environmental planning and management (Cox, 2013). It gives the audiences
information, frames some issues as important and pushes others into oblivion. In urban areas in particular, people often experience nature indoors and indirectly through media representations (Lyytimäki, 2012a). As the agenda-setting theory maintains, the media is not able to dictate how people think, but it may have a strong influence on what they think about (McCombs and Shaw, 1972, Bryant and Oliver, 2009). Furthermore, the media can frame certain types of problems as relevant and solutions as possible. This article asks how the mainstream media represents ecosystem disservices and what kinds of expectations on urban environmental management are likely to be created by these representations. The article is based on a case study from Finland.
Method and materials
Newspapers serve as a key information source in Finland, despite the gradually falling number of subscribers. Newspapers are considered to be the second most important source of
environmental information in Finland (Kiljunen, 2013). This study is based on the material from Helsingin Sanomat (HS), the most widely read daily newspaper in Finland. It has 338,000
subscribers to the printed paper and 131,000 subscribers to the online version (Levikintarkastus, 2013). HS is read throughout the country but most of the readers are from the metropolitan area of the capital, Helsinki. HS covers both foreign and domestic news and it publishes sections
focusing on local issues from the Helsinki region. It can be characterised as a “prestige” newspaper and it has proclaimed independence from any political party.
Standard content analysis procedures were followed (Krippendorff, 2004). A sample consisting of four seven-day periods was selected because the aim was to cover both the annual natural cycle of northern nature (four distinctive seasons) and the weekly cycle of news production. The four periods consisted of the days surrounding the summer and winter solstice and the spring and autumn equinox. In Finland, the summer solstice also typically marks the start of the holiday period. It is a period characterised by a lack of major domestic policy actions that are often key news topics (Lyytimäki, 2007). Due to publishing breaks over the national midsummer holidays, the sample over the summer solstice included 18–21 June 2013 and 24–26 June 2013. Due to the Christmas holidays the sample over the winter solstice included the days preceding Christmas Eve (17–23 December 2013). Other material was collected from 17–23 March to 19–25 September 2013.
News items were collected manually from printed copies of HS. Advertisements were excluded. All editorial content of the newspaper, op-eds, letters to the editor and cartoons were included. Both textual and visual material, including pictures, figures, graphs and other infographics related to the news items, were included. This kind of combinatory approach is rare in studies of environmental communication that are typically based on textual contents stored in electronic archives or, more rarely, on the pictures and other visual material (Seppänen and Väliverronen, 2003, Krippendorff, 2004, Cox, 2013, Hansen and Machin, 2013).
The aim of the content analysis was to identify the ecosystem disservices that were mentioned by the news items. Ecosystem disservices were understood widely to include all negative effects on human well-being caused by natural or semi-natural ecosystems, natural conditions or biological organisms (Lyytimäki et al., 2008, Lyytimäki and Sipilä, 2009). All material referring to ecosystem disservices was searched for. In addition, news items only briefly mentioning the ecosystem
disservices were included. These kinds of passing mentions are usually either excluded from the data or left out of the analysis (Roush and Fortner, 1996, Seppänen and Väliverronen, 2003, Krippendorff, 2004). Here they were included since the aim was to capture the full repertoire of the representations of ecosystem disservices and it was considered that they can provide valuable information about framings outside the core environmental debates (Jacobson et al., 2012,
Lyytimäki, 2012b).
The material was coded in order to create an overall quantitative picture (Krippendorff, 2004). The basic information collected included the title of the news item, date of publication, page and section and potential presence of the infographic or picture. The material was coded as either a primary ecosystem disservice article (disservice appeared in the headline or first paragraph or in the picture/infographic) or a secondary ecosystem disservice article (disservice was mentioned elsewhere at least once). After the initial screening, the material was carefully read through. Based on several rounds of reading, the key topics emerging from the material were formed following the stepwise model of inductive category development (Mayring, 2000). Only the manifest content directly describing ecosystem disservices was included. Latent content indirectly hinting towards disservices was not studied here.
Results
The total number of news articles and other items found was 109 (Fig. 1). The average daily
number of stories about ecosystem disservices was 4.5. At least one such item appeared every day of the study period and the highest number of daily occurrences was nine (October 22). Most of the items were news stories (37.6%), small news (22.0%), or longer reports (11.9%). Various column-type contributions, including the editorials and letters to the editor, accounted for 16.5%
of the material.
Fig. 1. Newspaper coverage of ecosystem disservices in the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat during four periods of seven days in 2013.
The share of news items focusing on or mentioning disservices was 2.9% of all news items
published during the study period (N = 3717, including comic strips). This share can be considered relatively high, since earlier studies have indicated that the share of environmental news from all news coverage in Finland is about 1–15% (Lyytimäki, 2012b). The high range between lower and upper estimation is mainly due to the different definitions of environmental issues adopted by different studies. In addition, the number of occurrences of ecosystem disservices on the news front page (N = 7) suggests that the issue has relatively high media visibility when compared with other environmental issues. The seven occurrences included effects of extreme weather events
(floods and forest fires in foreign countries), snake attacks (on pets), disservices related to outdoor recreation due to the lack of snow, harms caused by wolverines to reindeer herding, and potential risks related to city foxes.
No major media event related to ecosystem disservices occurred during the study period and the overall amount of occurrences remained stable across the different seasons. There was variability regarding the newspaper sections. Over a fifth (22.9%) of the items appeared as domestic news, most of them appearing during summer and spring. The share of foreign news was 14.7% and half of the items appeared in the autumn, when the effects of extreme weather events were reported.
Local news focusing on the city of Helsinki and the surrounding metropolitan area accounted for 12.8% of the sample.
The material was dominated by news items written by professional editors of the HS or the Finnish news agency (STT). The share of letters to the editor was relatively low, 6.4% of the coverage on ecosystem disservices (cf. Lyytimäki, 2012b). The distribution was highly variable, with over a half of the letters focusing on the winter period. Three opinion pieces discussed problems caused by trees falling on electricity lines. Other opinion pieces asserted that non-maintained lawns are valuable for maintaining biodiversity and that they are not considered aesthetically unpleasant by everyone. Another piece defended the right to use nature as a place for motor sports despite the noise and other problems caused to people seeking natural tranquillity. Dangerous bacteria and viruses that can be particularly transmitted in public transport were also brought up. Finally, one piece addressed the fear of wolves and demanded that the “right” information should be given to the people.
The share of comic strips was relatively high (11.0%). This indicates that ecosystem disservices provide plentiful ingredients for humour that is based on incongruous combinations, satirical turning around and implicit, unspoken premises that create gaps in the narrative (Knuuttila, 2010).
Notably, role plays confusing the roles between man and animal were strongly present. The most common topic was an animal disturbing the peace.
Nearly two-thirds (63.3%) of the material were items that focused on ecosystem disservices (Table 1). Over a third (36.7%) mentioned the disservices only fleetingly. The share of these news items decreased when the geographical focus of the news item broadened. The share of news items focusing on disservices was higher in foreign news (81.3% N = 16) and domestic news (76.0%, N = 25) than in local news (57.1%, N = 14). All six editorials mentioned disservices as a side topic, while six out of seven letters to the editor (discussing mainly about local issues) focused on disservices as the main subject. Female writers addressed disservices almost as often as male writers. Short news items not identifying the writer typically focused on disservices.
Table 1. Distribution of news items mentioning or focusing on ecosystem disservices.
News items written by: Ecosystem disservices mentioned as:
Side topic Main topic
Male 18 15
Female 18 12
Both 1 2
Not known 3 28
Comic strips 0 12
A wide variety of disservices was featured (Table 2). The most common topic concerned different weather-related events that caused problems to humans directly or through other ecosystem processes. For example, storm damage was connected to the ageing of trees and increased risks caused by falling branches or tree trunks. Different fears and anxieties related to nature were another common topic of debate. Fears related to large carnivores were discussed, even though the study period did not include major debate about wolves. This issue has recently become intensively discussed in Finland, partly because of the emergence of wolf packs in new areas in the western part of the country (Ratamäki, 2013).
Table 2. Ecosystem disservices featured in the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat.
Ecosystem function or
property Disservice experienced by people
Weather-related events
Storms, strong winds
Storm damage Electricity blackouts Train traffic delays
Snowstorms inhibiting mobility and traffic Sandstorms, sand burying constructions in deserts
Lack of snow
Darkness, particularly in unlit areas Lack of possibilities for outdoor recreation
Frost damage to natural ecosystems or constructions
Floods
Flood damage Salinisation of water
Erosion, landslides caused by floods
Heat waves
Uncomfortable heat, health problems because of heat Thunderstorms
Forest fires Droughts
Fears and risks Nature-related fear factors
Fear of large carnivores, particularly wolves Damages to reindeer herding by wolverines Potential risks related to urban foxes
Ecosystem function or
property Disservice experienced by people Fear of snakes
Unpleasant previous experiences with nature Children's fears towards nature
Fears and risks related to human health
Natural species and pet animals as a source of allergies Tick-borne diseases
Hygiene and health problems related to animal excrement Contamination of drinking water
Presence of potentially toxic algae in water Antibiotic resistance, spread of flu viruses
New diseases potentially transmitted by novel exotic species (Sus scrofa)
Aesthetic issues
Natural elements considered ugly or
unpleasant
Bird excrement on built surfaces (Columba livia) Human and animal excrement in green areas Birds, cats or dogs making unpleasant or loud noises Algal occurrences spoiling watercourses
Species looking ugly (e.g. Ogcocephalus darwini) Unmanaged bushes, trees and green areas
Presence of weeds, pests or nuisance species such as gulls, mosquitoes, mugwort or nettle
Direct sunshine causing glare
Inhibition of activities
Problems caused by overly large green areas
Getting lost in the forest Fear of natural darkness
Crimes connected with urban parks
Semi-natural area providing place for disruptive motor sport activities
Restrictions caused by nature protection
Protected species inhibiting planning and construction (Pteromys volans)
Protected areas preventing traffic planning (Natura 2000 site)
Ecosystem functions causing harm
Growth and ageing of vegetation
Risk of tree branches or trunks falling and hurting people Falling trees causing electricity blackouts
Large trees making street maintenance difficult Root damage to streets or pavements
Old trees with poor quality as a general risk or nuisance Vegetation creating too much shading
Excessive growth of saplings (Populus tremula) Surprises related to the
functioning of ecosystems
Extreme weather inhibiting mobility
Pigeons defecating on telescope at astronomy site
Ecosystem function or
property Disservice experienced by people
Frost causing surprising damage to property or inhibiting mobility
Risks of accidents and falling down in icy paths, pavements and roads
Unpredictable melting of ice in lakes, rivers or seashores Inhibition of movement because of submersible old tree trunks in watercourse
Pet animals set loose into nature
Wild animals straying into indoor spaces (Scirius vulgaris)
Various health risks were also featured, reflecting both debates around major environmental issues and issues that are not usually considered to be major issues from the perspective of environmental sustainability. The former include issues such as potential health effects of algal occurrences caused by water eutrophication (Lyytimäki, 2007) and the latter issues such as potential harms caused by city foxes (Cassidy and Mills, 2012).
Unpleasant aesthetic elements such as excrement of wild animals and pets were prominently featured. Human misbehaviour also got a certain amount of attention. For example, a local news item (June 18) reported on the misuse of an apartment house garden as a toilet by the residents of the nearby hostel for homeless people. This case indicated that urban gardens can negatively influence social interaction among neighbours by providing spaces for loitering and other undesirable behaviour.
Restrictions caused by large unbuilt areas or protected nature areas were raised up. In particular, nature protection was seen as a serious restraint on economic activity and property development.
For example, a column by the newspaper editor (June 20) ironically commented how the
“unmanaged thickets tend to turn into magnificent and restorative parks” as soon as they are threatened by construction. This column, entitled “Welcome to my back yard”, ironised the alleged NIMBY reaction (Dear and Taylor, 1982) of residents opposing the intensive use of urban green spaces for construction. However, the positive effects of the urban green areas were also acknowledged by this column.
Another group of disservices were various unpleasant surprises. They included both processes that are – at least in principle – easy to predict, such as disservices related to annual weather cycles, and surprises that are difficult to anticipate, such as wild animals entering indoor spaces. The latter included, for example, a fugitive mink (Mustela vison) causing unrest in a furniture store (July 26). Pet animals were represented as a source of newsworthy disservices, not only because of their excrement but also because of their unexpected behaviour. Such a disservice was caused, for example, by a large dog that allegedly turned a stove on and caused a kitchen fire (March 20).
This is a typical example of small news focusing on some odd or extraordinary incident with
concrete, easily observable outcomes. “Invicible” threats were represented by viruses that may be lurking in public transport vehicles (September 23).
Few news stories focusing on the management of disservices were found. A prominent example was a one-page local news story (June 25) reporting on the management of seagulls that were disturbing tourists and other customers in a popular market square. The news story humanised animals by presenting seagulls as active, clever and long-lived agents with clear intentions. As the square guard explained: “…but the most unfortunate development is that now they stalk
customers”. Likewise, wolves were framed as agents actively and intentionally threatening human security. Another example of the humanisation of an animal was foreign news (September 25) describing how a gorilla in a zoo was placed into a special school to learn to behave calmly. The name of the unruly gorilla was “Patrick”.
Stories describing disservices were often visualised since over a half (54.4%) of the texts (excluding the comic strips) were accompanied by a visual illustration. Photographs were the most common way to illustrate news stories. The photographs typically showed natural conditions related to weather events or the persons or animal species mentioned by the news items. The interview with the author of book about reptiles serves as an example. The one-page interview titled “Fascinated by the coating of scales” (June 26) included three photographs. One picture showed the
interviewee squatting with a camera in a rocky forest. Two other pictures showed close-ups of a smooth snake (Coronella austriaca) and a colubrid snake (Colubridae). Ecosystem disservices related to the fear of snakes were discussed in the text. These illustrations had similar key functions to those observed with newspaper pictures reporting on biodiversity (Seppänen and Väliverronen, 2003):
• Photographs concretise a complex scientific problem (the protection of endangered reptile species).
• Photographs construct social relationships between different actors (the interviewed person posing in nature).
• Photographs provide an opportunity for affective involvement (photographs of snakes framing them as beautiful and interesting creatures).
• Photographs produce a “reality effect” (close-ups of snakes that are difficult to see in nature).
In addition to descriptions related to concrete risks, nuisances or damages, ecosystem disservices were featured through metaphors aiming to describe or comment issues that are not related to ecosystems as such (Väliverronen and Hellsten, 2002). Dark and snowless winters were used as a metaphor of human gloominess and depression, human fears were highlighted with the
expression “the wolves are coming” and carnivores were used as a metaphor for human cruelty.
Degeneration of human culture was described with an expression “becoming covered with forest”.
These metaphorical expressions highlight that even in urbanised settings the age-old memoirs of nature are present (Lyytimäki et al., 2008). They can influence the social debate and possibly evoke negative emotions towards certain aspects of nature.
Discussion: the relevance of media representations for urban greening
The concept of ecosystem disservices has emerged relatively recently but various harms produced by nature have been acknowledged by individuals and societies throughout generations. It has been criticised that the concept of ecosystem disservices exaggerates the harms caused by nature because many of these harms are already taken into account by market mechanisms (Shapiro and Báldi, 2014). However, the question is not about highlighting disservices, but about putting both ecosystem services and disservices under a common assessment framework, allowing the
estimation of net effects for human well-being (Pataki et al., 2011, Escobedo et al., 2011, Swain et al., 2013).
Many of the ecosystem services are poorly known. The assessment of ecosystem services is needed in order to make them visible for planning, decision-making and management. Failing to include the disservices in a common assessment framework easily leads to controversies and critique from actors who face the concrete nuisances produced by ecosystems. Identification of the aspects of ecosystems perceived as negative is also relevant because it offers opportunities for preventing the unwanted side-effects of environmental management.
Disservices should be explicitly taken into consideration together with ecosystem services, instead of ignoring or – in the extreme case – attempting to hide them. However, acknowledging the importance of ecosystem disservices may be both mentally and methodologically challenging. As noted by Primmer and Furman (2012), identifying a broad range of ecosystem services is easy and appealing, but cross-comparison and trade-off analysis face challenges. Reaching a comprehensive and balanced picture of the multiple potential benefits and nuisances of restoring or losing (urban) ecosystems requires integrated valuation methods which bring together different value
dimensions, framings, stakeholder perspectives and fields of expertise (Pincetl, 2012, Gómez- Baggethun et al., 2013, Faehnle, 2014).
The media typically highlights negative issues with a short temporal focus, while environmental issues are characterised by long timeframes poorly fitting to the news criteria (Cox, 2013). This is likely to create public perceptions biased towards ecosystem services and disservices occurring on short temporal frames. To take an example from this study, various weather-related damages and risks were prominently featured, but the possible connection between extreme weather and anthropogenic climate change was not discussed. Another example is rapidly occurring algal blooms that are highlighted instead of the gradual and long-term eutrophication process
(Lyytimäki, 2007, Piwowarczyk et al., 2013). One key challenge for environmental management – and for risk communication – is how to cope with the contrasting timeframes of the media and ecological processes. In the long-term, the disservices are likely to be negligent if compared with services produced by the ecosystems (MA, 2005). In the short term, even trivial issues such as branches falling from old trees may take the prominent place in social debates and influence the use of use of green areas.
The question is not only about the content of media representations, but also about the timing of the media debates. For example, negative media framings of urban parks as dangerous or
unpleasant places may lead to diminished use of these places and unwillingness to invest in preserving, managing or renovating urban green infrastructure. Another example that might become a hindrance for urban green management is the fear of adverse health effects related to green areas that easily become highlighted by the media interested in “bad news”. This kind of debate is prone to be amplified by disagreements between public health experts focusing on health risks related to urban greening and environmentally-oriented experts focusing on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Keune et al., 2013).
The sample discussed in this study – albeit a limited one – showed that a wide variety of ecosystem disservices can be brought up and debated by the newspaper. Some of these
disservices were part of larger environmental conversations, while others can be considered less
relevant against the current priorities of environmental management. Thus, the results show that different topics emerge into public discussion partly irrespective of their importance as
determined by experts such as environmental scholars or urban planners.
This study focused on an affluent and relatively recently urbanised and industrialised northern country. The issues identified here generally corresponded with the issues identified in studies addressing the public perceptions of ecosystem disservices in industrialised countries (Weber et al., 2014). The only disservice not mentioned in the newspaper sample but identified in the review by Gómez-Baggethun and Barton (2013) was VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) emitted by vegetation. Likewise, almost all of the disservices mentioned in the study by Lohr et al. (2004) (see also Wyman et al., 2012) focusing on the benefits and problems with trees in cities were present in the newspaper sample. The key exception was sign blockage by vegetation that was not discussed by the Finnish media.
The study also indicated that the properties of green infrastructure considered as a disservice in one location can be seen as services in another. For example, the shade provided by urban trees was represented as a disservice in Finland, but it has been appreciated as a service in southern countries with a hot climate (Camacho-Cervantes et al., 2014).
The results from this study indicated that news production is generally based on an assumption that nature will behave according the management practices created by humans. Nature behaving badly or oddly through weather events, irritating nuisance species or disgusting excrement was a commonly presented topic in the media. Therefore, one key challenge for researchers and
managers is to improve the level of public understanding about the limits, capabilities and aims of ecosystem management (see Weber et al., 2014). Active communication between researchers and journalists is needed in order to avoid public debate highlighting only the disservices produced by urban green infrastructure.
However, surprises are likely to occur, partly because urbanisation reshapes the landscape and inevitably produces new kinds of nature (Asikainen and Jokinen, 2009). These novel ecosystems are likely to produce new kinds of services and disservices to be enjoyed or tolerated by urban dwellers. Furthermore, it may be possible that ecosystem disservices become exaggerated if people lack direct contact with nature and rely on media contents and other socially constructed representations.
Content analysis of media representations of harms and nuisances produced by nature can be a useful tool for adaptive management of ecosystem services aiming to respond to and anticipate the changing conditions. In particular, it can complement collaborative urban planning of green infrastructure that is based on scientific and experiential knowledge (Faehnle, 2014). Future studies should include comparative media analysis that can illuminate the similarities and differences between different locations. Studies focusing on other media such as TV, internet- based social media and various mobile applications intensively used by young people are also needed. In the best case, these studies may provide lessons that help anticipate or even prevent social controversies.
Conclusions
We live in an anthropogenic era when the Earth is moulded not only by energy and material flows and ecosystem management aimed to serve human needs but also by information flows affecting how the environment is perceived and what kind of manipulation of ecosystems is considered to be desired or undesired (Allenby, 2008). Studies of urban green planning, management and design have so far largely neglected the importance of media representations. This is somewhat curious since urban areas are distinctively “mediated” landscapes. Media contents are produced and consumed primarily in urban settings.
Emphasising the importance of media representations does not imply an expectation that these representations should always be relevant or even true. The media representations are subjective snapshots of certain features of reality. These partial and often biased representations are
important just because they are partial and biased. They shape public and policy agendas (Cox, 2013). Studies of media representations of ecosystem services and disservices are needed not only in order to understand and respond to public debate, but also for critical self-reflection. As
discussed by Ernstson and Sörlin (2013), the ecosystem services approach is a social practice of knowledge production that highlights certain features of ecosystem properties and functions but at the same time silences alternative ways of knowing and valuing.
References
Alexander, S.M., Quinn, M.S., 2012. Portrayal of interactions between humans and coyotes (Canis latrans): Content analysis of Canadian print media (1998–2010). Cities and the Environment 4(1), Art. 9 from: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol4/iss1/9 (retrieved 07.03.14.).
Allenby, B., 2008. The anthropocene as media. Information systems and the creation of the human earth. Am. Behav. Sci. 52 (1), 107–140.
Ango, T.G., Börjeson, L., Senbeta, F., Hylander, K., 2014. Balancing ecosystem services and disservices: smallholder farmers’ use and management of forest and trees in an agricultural landscape in southwestern Ethiopia. Ecol. Soc. 19 (1), 30, http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06279- 190130.
Asikainen, E., Jokinen, A., 2009. Future natures in the making: implementing biodiversity in suburban land-use planning. Plann. Theor. Pract. 10 (3), 351–368.
Bardsley, D.K., Edwards-Jones, G., 2007. Invasive species policy and climate change: social perceptions of environmental change in the Mediterranean. Environ. Sci. Policy 10 (3), 230–242.
Bixler, R.D., Floyd, M.F., 1997. Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environ. Behav. 29, 443–467.
Bryant, J., Oliver, M.B., 2009. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Routledge, New York.
Camacho-Cervantes, M., Schondube, J.E., Castillo, A., MacGregor-Fors, I., 2014. How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city. Urban Ecosyst., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0343-6.
Cassidy, A., Mills, B., 2012. Fox tots attack shock: urban foxes, mass media and boundary- breaching. Environ. Commun. 6 (4), 494–511.
Cox, R., 2013. Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, 3rd ed. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Curtis, V., Biran, A., 2001. Dirt, disgust, and disease: is hygiene in our genes? Perspect. Biol. Med.
44 (1), 17–31.
Dear, M., Taylor, M., 1982. Not on Our Street: Community Attitudes to Mental Health Care. Pion, London.
Dunn, R.R., 2010. Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica 42 (5), 555–557.
Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S., 2013. Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: on articulating values in urban nature. Ecol. Econ. 86, 274–284.
Escobedo, F.J., Kroeger, T., Wagner, J.E., 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analysing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 159, 2078–2087.
Faehnle, M., 2014. Collaborative Planning of Urban Green Infrastructure – Need, Quality, Evaluation, and Design. Department of Geosciences and Geography A26, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Barton, D.N., Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T., O’Farrell, P.,
Andersson, E., Hamstead, Z., Kremer, P., 2013. Urban ecosystem services. In: Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., Parnell, S., Schewenius, M.,
Sendstad, M., Seto, K.C., Wilkinson, C. (Eds.), Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services:
Challenges and Opportunities. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 175–251.
Goulding, M.J., Roper, T.J., 2002. Press responses to the presence of free-living Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in southern England. Mammal Rev. 32 (4), 272–282.
Hansen, A., Machin, D., 2013. Researching visual environmental communication. Environ.
Commun. 7 (2), 151–168.
Hanski, I., von Hertzen, L., Fyhrquist, N., Koskinen, K., Torppa, K., Laatikainen, T., Karisola, P., Auvinen, P., Paulin, L., Mäkelä, M.J., Vartiainen, E., Kosunen, T.U., Alenius, H., Haahtela, T., 2012.
Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
109 (21), 8334–8339.
Hauru, K., Koskinen, S., Kotze, D.J., Lehvävirta, S., 2014. The effects of decaying logs on the aesthetic experience and acceptability of urban forests – implications for forest management.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 123, 114–123.
Jacobson, S.K., Langin, C., Carlton, J.S., Kaid, L.L., 2012. Content analysis of newspaper coverage of the Florida Panther. Conserv. Biol. 26 (1), 171–179.
Keune, H., Kretsch, C., De Blust, G., Gilbert, M., Flandroy, L., Van den Berge, K., Versteirt, V., Hartig, T., De Keersmaecker, L., Eggermont, H., Brosens, D., Dessein, J., Vanwambeke, S., Prieur-Richard, A.H., Wittmer, H., Van Herzele, A., Linard, C., Martens, P., Mathijs, E., Simoens, I., Van Damme, P., Volckaert, F., Heyman, P., Bauler, T., 2013. Science-policy challenges for biodiversity, public health and urbanization: examples from Belgium. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 025015.
Kiljunen, P., 2013. Tiedebarometri 2013 (in Finnish). Tieteen tiedotus Ry, Porvoo. Knuuttila, S., 2010. How humour makes a difference. Folklore 46, 33–42,
http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/FEJF2010.46.knuuttila.
Krippendorff, K., 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, 2nd ed. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Levikintarkastus, 2013. LT-levikkitilasto 2012 (in Finnish). Levikintarkastus Oy, from:
http://www.levikintarkastus.fi/levikintarkastus/tilastot/Levikkitilasto2012.pdf (retrieved 07.03.14.).
Limburg, K.E., Luzadis, V.A., Ramsey, M., Schulz, K.L., Mayer, C.M., 2010. The good, the bad, and the algae: perceiving ecosystem services and disservices generated by zebra and quagga mussels.
J. Great Lakes Res. 36 (1), 86–92.
Lohr, V.I., Pearson-Mims, C.H., Tarnai, J., Dillman, D.A., 2004. How urban residents rate and rank tree benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. J. Arboricult. 30, 28–35.
Lyytimäki, J., 2007. Temporalities and environmental reporting: press news on eutrophication in Finland. Environ. Sci. 4 (1), 41–51.
Lyytimäki, J., 2012a. Indoor ecosystem services: bringing ecology and people together. Hum. Ecol.
Rev. 19 (1), 70–76.
Lyytimäki, J., 2012b. The environment in the headlines: newspaper coverage of climate change and eutrophication in Finland. In: Monographs of the Boreal Environment Research 42/2012. Edita Prima Ltd., Helsinki.
Lyytimäki, J., Sipilä, M., 2009. Hopping on one leg – the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forest. Urban Gree. 8 (4), 309–315.
Lyytimäki, J., Petersen, L.K., Normander, B., Bezák, P., 2008. Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ. Sci. 5 (3), 161–172.
MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Mayring, P., 2000. Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1(2), Art. 20 from: http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204 (retrieved 07.03.14.).
McCauley, D.J., 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature 443 (7107), 27–28.
McCombs, M.E., Shaw, D.L., 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opin. Quart.
36 (2), 176–187.
Pataki, D.E., Carreiro, M.M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N.E., Jennings, V., Pincetl, S., Pouyat, R.V., Whitlow, T.H., Zipperer, W.H., 2011. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments:
ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9 (1), 27–36.
Peltola, T., Heikkilä, J., Vepsäläinen, M., 2013. Exploring landscape in-the-making: a case study on the constitutive role of animals in society-nature interactions. Landsc. Res. 38 (4), 461–475.
Pincetl, S., 2012. Nature, urban development and sustainability – what new elements are needed for a more comprehensive understanding? Cities 29 (S2), S32–S37.
Piwowarczyk, J., Kronenberg, J., Dereniowska, M.A., 2013. Marine ecosystem services in urban areas: do the strategic documents of Polish coastalmunicipalities reflect their importance? Landsc.
Urban Plann. 109 (1), 85–93.
Primmer, E., Furman, E., 2012. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (1), 85–92.
Ratamäki, O., 2013. From ecological concerns toward solving societal problems? A case study of the development of Finland’s wolf policy. Int. J. Inform. Syst. Soc. Change 4 (2), 42–58.
Roush, D., Fortner, R., 1996. Newspaper coverage of Zebra Mussels in North America: a case of
“Afghanistanism”? Electron. Green J. 1 (5), 1–17, from:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1wm5b0dk (retrieved 07.03.14.).
Seamans, G.S., 2013. Mainstreaming the environmental benefits of street trees. Urban Forest.
Urban Gree. 12 (1), 20–21.
Selge, S., Fischer, A., van der Wal, R., 2011. Public and professional views on invasive non-native species – a qualitative social scientific investigation. Biol. Conserv. 144 (12), 3089–3097.
Seppänen, J., Väliverronen, E., 2003. Visualizing biodiversity: the role of photographs in environmental discourse. Sci. Cult. 12 (1), 59–85.
Shapiro, J., Báldi, A., 2014. Accurate accounting: how to balance ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosyst. Serv. 7, 201–202.
Swain, H.M., Boughton, E.H., Bohlen, P.J., O’Gene, L.L., 2013. Trade-offs among ecosystem services and disservices on a Florida ranch. Rangelands 35 (5), 75–87.
Väliverronen, E., Hellsten, I., 2002. From “Burning Library” to “Green Medicine”: the role of metaphors in communicating biodiversity. Sci. Commun. 24 (2), 229–245.
Vihervaara, P., Rönkä, M., Walls, M., 2010. Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39 (4), 314–324.
Weber, F., Kowarik, I., Säumel, I., 2014. A walk on the wild side: perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban Forest. Urban Gree., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.10.010.
Wyman, M., Escobedo, F., Stein, T., Orfanedes, M., Northrop, R., 2012. Community leader perceptions towards coastal urban forests and hurricanes in Florida. South. J. Appl. Forest. 36, 152–158.
