当前位置：搜档网 › Stakeholder perceptions of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems

Stakeholder perceptions of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems

Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 472–485

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Land Use

Policy

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w.e l s e v i e r.c o m /l o c a t e /l a n d u s e p o

Stakeholder perceptions of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems:A comparison of three European countries

Gesche Kindermann ?,Michael J.Gormally

Applied Ecology Unit,Centre for Environmental Science,National University of Ireland,Galway,Ireland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 20December 2011

Received in revised form 6April 2012Accepted 19August 2012

Keywords:

Coastal conservation Dune system Q -Methodology

Recreation management Stakeholder opinions

a b s t r a c t

Coastal dune systems are particularly susceptible to destabilisation through recreational pressure and because of this,con?icts frequently arise between those who want to use the dunes for recreational pur-poses and those who wish to see these fragile ecosystems protected.In addition,a range of approaches to resolving this con?ict are being used in different countries with differing levels of success.To study this con?ict,an approach based on the Q -method was applied to three European Union Member States,i.e.Ireland,Scotland and Germany to determine the degree to which there are differences in opinion regarding recreational management in coastal conservation areas and to assess whether there are exam-ples of perceived best management practice that could be applied to some or all of these countries.The Q -method involved using semi-structured interviews of stakeholders (conservationists and non-conservationists,https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b4970848.html,ndowners,locals and landusers)to yield a set of statements relating to recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems in each of the selected countries.Selected statements were then submitted to former interviewees for rating on a seven point scale from complete agreement to complete disagreement.Principle components analysis (PCA)of these ratings (Q -sorts)indi-cated that while there is much agreement overall (particularly relating to the protection of dune systems while still supporting recreation),stakeholder opinion can be separated according to country of origin.In general,this separation is re?ected in the intensive recreational management regime (strict zonation and access restrictions)at the German sites compared to the Scottish (less recreational management)and Irish (absence of recreational management)sites.Signi?cant differences in opinion are most apparent in the sections concerned with restricting access for recreation and the provision of facilities (less accept-able in Scotland and Ireland).We suggest that given Irish stakeholder opinions regarding the potential loss of naturalness through strict recreational management,the Scottish rather than the German model would be more suitable in the Irish context.

Introduction

Coastal areas,the interfaces between land and sea,constitute a region of great diversity,both physically and biologically (Westhoff,1985).There are many different habitats found in coastal zones,but a particularly large diversity of habitat types is found in coastal dune systems,including embryonic dunes,shifting or mobile dunes,many different types of ?xed dunes,dune scrub and woodland,dune slacks and machair (Fossitt,2000;Nairn,2005;Ranwell,1959,1960;Rodwell et al.,2000).Dunes by their nature are dynamic systems and some disturbance is essential for habitats in coastal dune systems (Klijn,1990).However,costal sand dune systems are

?Corresponding author at:Applied Ecology Unit,Centre for Environmental Sci-ence,School of Natural Sciences,National University of Ireland Galway,University Road,Galway,Ireland.Tel.:+35391493863;fax:+35391525700.

E-mail address:gesche.kindermann@nuigalway.ie (G.Kindermann).

also fragile and prone to erosion by wind and water,which can be worsened by human impacts.

Coastal dune systems and their conservation under European legislation

Coastal areas are,and have been for a long time,a focus for human settlement,placing demands on these areas particularly as a result of housing and infrastructure as well as more traditional lan-duses such as agriculture (Verhagen,1990;Westhoff,1985).In the last 60years coastal areas have also been targets for the tourism and recreation industries (Cabot,1977;Catto,2002;Gormsen,1997;Helsenfeld et al .,2008;Lemauviel et al.,2003).As a result,coastal areas have become increasingly exposed to new developments such as hotels,campsites and golf courses.In many cases sand dune systems have become transformed to such an extent that they can no longer be considered natural systems (Lemauviel et al.,2003).

However,even in the absence of intense tourism and recreational facilities,dunes are particularly susceptible to

G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485473

destabilisation through recreational pressure involving humans, animals and vehicles(Andersen,1995;Burden and Randerson, 1972;Curr et al.,2000;Hylgaard and Liddle,1981;Kerbiriou et al., 2008;Kindermann and Gormally,2010;Liddle and Greig-Smith, 1975a,b;Luckenbach and Bury,1983;Quigley,1991;Sun and Liddle,1993).Because of this,con?icts frequently arise between those who want to use the dunes for recreational purposes and those who wish to see these fragile ecosystems protected.The European Habitats Directive(92/43/EEC)protects habitats across Europe,including many habitats in coastal dune systems.Habi-tats of European importance are listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive and some,such as?xed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation(‘Grey Dunes’)and Irish machairs,have been awarded priority conservation status under the directive.The majority of habitats listed in the directive which require special measures to be taken for their protection are designated as Special Areas of Con-servation(SACs)in each Member State(MS).There is a requirement for site management so that habitats and species therein are“main-tained at,or restored to,a favourable conservation status,while still allowing for human activity to take place”(Bundesministerium für Umwelt,2008).However,the establishment and management of SACs in the different MS has encountered a number of problems, especially at local level(Krott,2000;Visser et al.,2007).Problems include a general delay in implementation of the Habitats Directive, resulting in?nes from the European Court(Krott,2000),as well as controversies relating to the designation of SACs without prior con-sultation with landowners and landusers(Krott,2000;Visser et al., 2007;Weber and Christophersen,2002).In many MS,the imple-mentations of SAC designations have met with opposition,which caused delays notably in the establishment of SACs,but also in the implementation of appropriate management strategies.

Conservation and recreation management in coastal dune systems

The use of coastal conservation areas for recreational purposes is considered to be legitimate,and the challenge for conserva-tion managers is to balance conservation goals with impacts from human use(Kerbiriou et al.,2008).Although MS(under EU regu-lation)are obliged to conserve habitats in SACs while allowing for human activity to take place,these two uses can be in con?ict with each other(Young et al.,2005).

Orams(1995)lists four possible visitor strategies for the management of wildlife tourism which may be applied to the management of recreational activities in natural areas in general (I-Ling,2002):(a)physical management;(b)regulatory manage-ment,which refers to the introduction of rules and regulations;

(c)economic management,where charges are introduced for the use of an area;and(d)educational management,also referred to as soft management.Physical management is a regularly utilised form of management when it comes to areas which are prone to physical stresses such as erosion damage through trampling (Orams,1995).In relation to educational management,Hughes and Morrison-Saunders(2005)stress the importance of employing the correct level of intensity when it comes to on-site interpretation in particular.An excessively high level of interpretation may have negative effects on site visitors in that it may ruin the experience for visitors by overwhelming them.On the other hand,too little information may leave visitors dissatis?ed in that they feel the full meaning or importance of site features cannot be accessed.A simi-lar problem governs the use of regulatory management strategies. Over-regulation may give the visitor the impression that they are prevented from fully experiencing all a site has to offer,while too little regulation may not serve conservation aims(Holden,2000).

Public participation in conservation management is considered to be a key feature when it comes to successful management,for both recreation and conservation.This approach is increasingly being taken into account in relation to coastal conservation(Cassar, 2003;Johnson and Dagg,2003;Milligan et al.,2009;O’Mahony et al.,2009;Power et al.,2000),with the need for public par-ticipation reiterated in the Aarhus Convention(1998)and by the European Council Directive on public participation(2003/35/EC). Integrated Coastal Zone Management(ICZM),which aims to deliver sustainable development of coastal zones through an integrated planning and management approach for the entire coastal zone, further advocates public participation(European Commission, 2007).While not all European countries have a national strat-egy,ICZM projects are advocated in all counties and call for an integrated process that provides the opportunity for stakeholders at all levels to participate in the management process(European Commission,2007;O’Hagan and Ballinger,2010;McKenna et al., 2008;Rupprecht Consult,2006).By involving the public in the man-agement process,rules and regulations are not imposed top-down and people are more willing to adhere to them(Johnson and Dagg, 2003).Broadhurst(2001)points out that areas managed with the involvement of the public have a higher success rate than those which exclude the public.

When it comes to management of coastal conservation areas that are being used for recreational activities,all of the above management strategies need to be considered to ensure that the optimal approach is found.While it is important to employ the correct level of management to ensure successful conservation of sites(I-Ling,2002),this can be dif?cult to implement and over-or under-management can result in conservation management that is ineffective or perceived to be so(Holden,2000).

Following a detailed study of the impacts of recreational activi-ties on a coastal dune system in Ireland(Kindermann and Gormally, 2010;Kindermann,2011),the need for careful management of recreation in such areas was recognised,especially where dune systems in SACs are concerned.In order to establish the best possi-ble strategy for management,the con?ict between management of conservation and recreation in Ireland and in two other MS(Scot-land and Germany)was assessed.Scotland was chosen because it has similar coastal habitats(particularly machair)to Ireland and similar recreational pressures.Germany was chosen because recreational pressure exceeds that in Ireland as a result of which management intervention is more extensive.Stakeholders’opin-ions in the three EU countries were explored on the topic of SAC designation and management,with a focus on the application of conservation legislation at ground level.Further investigation fol-lowed regarding the impacts of recreation on coastal dune systems in SACs and the effectiveness of management in dealing with these impacts.This included investigating the opinions of stakeholders on the con?ict between habitat protection and recreational activi-ties in coastal conservation areas in those three countries.

The aims of this study are to:(1)investigate the degree to which there are differences in opinion between stakeholders(A: between countries overall,B:between conservationists in all three countries,C:between non-conservationists in all three countries, D:between conservationists and non-conservationists overall and in each country)and(2)determine whether there are examples of perceived best management practice in resolving con?ict that could be applied to some or all of these countries.

Materials and methods

Site description

Coastal sites in three European countries,i.e.Ireland,Scot-land and Germany were included in this study(Fig.1).Three coastal dune systems on the Slyne Head Peninsula,Co.Galway, Ireland,were selected,in addition to two dune systems in the Outer Hebrides off the Scottish west coast and two dune systems in the

474G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally /Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 472–

485

Fig.1.Location of study sites in Europe.

Nieders?chsischen Wattenmeer,Germany.The sites,ranging from 0.75to 1.5km 2in size,are all used for recreation and contain sand dune systems designated under the European Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).

The sites differ in the degree and type of management carried out as well as in the extent of recreational facilities present at each site (Table 1).Additional site information such as distance to pop-ulation centres and facilities are included in Table 2.

Methods

The method used to gain further insights into the con?ict of conservation and recreation in coastal dune systems and to assess stakeholders’opinions on this con?ict was inspired by Q -methodology.Q -Method was ?rst devised in 1935by William Stephenson,a British psychologist (Brown,1996).It was originally developed for the scienti?c study of subjectivity (McKeown and Thomas,1988),as a means of revealing the subjectivity involved in any given situation (Brown,1996;Ellis et al.,2007).Its advantages over other methods are that it combines the strengths of both qual-itative and quantitative research methods by providing insights into attitudes while providing statistical rigour (Addams and Proops,2000;Brown,1996;Webler et al.,2009).Q -Methodology bene?ts are that it is replicable and provides empirical rigour while being participant driven (Ellis et al.,2007;Frantzi et al.,2009;Guimaraes,2009),in addition to which it ‘involves a statis-tical multivariate analysis of opinions with minimal researcher’s bias’(Visser et al.,2007).Yet,despite being a very valued tool in the analysis of stakeholder opinion,Q -methodology has its limitations.Although the method is straightforward,the research design and the initial stages of the method are time-consuming and laborious (Frantzi et al.,2009;Guimaraes,2009).In addition,while Q -methodology has the bene?t of providing statistically

Table 1

Overview of coastal study sites in Ireland,Scotland and Germany in 2006.

Sites

Physical measures

Regulatory measures

Economic measures

Educational measures

Additional features

Ireland Aillebrack

Car park (50cars)

–

Goal posts (2sets)

Camp site nearby (<100)Truska Doonloughan

–

Surf beach

Archaeological remains Mannin Fenced

2unlocked gates

–

Goal posts Caravans

Scotland

Clachan Sands

Parking bay (3–4cars)Picnic benches –

–

Cemetery

Traigh na Berie

Car park (<10cars)Parking bay (3–4cars)Partially fenced Public toilets Rubbish bins Picnic benches

Warning signs to

prevent vehicle access

––

Camp site on site (<100)

Germany Schillig

Car park (>250)Rubbish bins Public toilets

Sign-posted usage zones

Restricted access Rangers

Sun chair (Strand-korb )rental

Information panels Guided walks

Play ground

Changing facilities

Camp site adjacent (>1500)

Norderney

Car park (>100)Rubbish bins Public toilets Riding tracks Cycle paths Boardwalks

Sign-posted usage zones

Restricted access Rangers

Sun chair (Strand-korb )rental

Information panels Guided walks

Self guided education path:‘Bar-kenpad’

Play ground

Changing facilities

Camp site nearby (～200)

Table 2

Distances from the coastal study sites in Ireland,Scotland and Germany to the nearest towns,hotels,camp sites and public transport rounded to the nearest kilometre.

Distance to nearest

Town (km)

Hotel/hostel (km)

Camp site (km)

Bus stop (km)

No.of busses (per day)

Ireland Aillebrack

156<15<5Truska/Doonloughan 14556<5Mannin 12

Scotland

Clachan Sands 101212

～2>30Traigh na Berie >50

On site

～2

20–30Germany Schillig *<1<1On site <1

5–10Norderney

On site

20–30

A small train runs on roads offering sightseeing tours and a connection to nearby facilities.This train stops at the Schillig site up to 9times a day.

G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485475

signi?cant results without requiring a large sample population,a small sample size can also mean that the results cannot be seen as statistically representative of the whole population(Doody et al.,2009).However,while it cannot be used to determine exactly what proportion of the population hold a particular view, Q-methodology provides an accurate re?ection of the different perspectives that exist within the population and the differences that exist between stakeholder groups(Urquhart et al.,2012).

The initial uses of Q-methodology were predominantly in social sciences,however its use in the assessment of opinions on envi-ronmental management and policy has become more frequent (Addams and Proops,2000;Brodt et al.,2006;Frantzi et al.,2009; Guimaraes,2009;Urquhart et al.,2012;Visser et al.,2007).Five distinct stages are recognised(Fig.2).

Q-Methodology

1.The?rst step was to choose a theme,discourse or con?ict to

study which in this case was the management of coastal con-servation sites subject to recreational activity.Following this, stakeholders who represent different sides and levels of the con-?ict were identi?ed.Within the context of the present study these constitute landowners,conservation managers,archae-ologists,NGO members and landusers including farmers and members of the tourism and recreation industry.

2.Having identi?ed the stakeholders,the next step was to inves-

tigate the concourse,the communication around the con?ict (Brown,1996)and statements expressing the opinions of the stakeholders were collected.This was done by meeting the stakeholders and conducting semi-structured interviews where the topics of conservation but not the exact questions were prede?ned.The topics discussed in the interviews ranged from conservation legislation and conservation management to landuses such as recreation and agriculture.Overall,31stake-holders(12in Ireland,9in Scotland and10in Germany)were interviewed between January2006and August2006to gather statements for the?nal Q-sort(Step4).While written records were made during all interviews,most interviews were recorded to provide a comprehensive account of all the different stakehol-ders’views on the con?ict matter.

3.The recordings were then annotated using Annotape,com-

puter software that aids the selection and transcription process, and from this and the written accounts,320statements were extracted.From this,63statements were chosen to represent the full spectrum of opinions surrounding the con?ict relating to recreational activities in coastal conservation areas,speci?cally dealing with conservation legislation,conservation manage-ment and recreation in coastal conservation areas.

Following the statement selection process is the main focus of

a study using Q-methodology in that participants are asked to

undertake a‘Q-sort’,i.e.a process in which individual stakehol-ders are asked to order the set of statements according to their own opinion.This is done by?rst asking participants to order the statements according to whether they agreed with the state-ments or disagreed with them,with the remainder being left in

a third category.Having ordered the statements into these three

categories,the participants were then asked to rank the state-ments along a?ve-point scale ranging from‘most agree’(+3)to ‘most disagree’(?3),with0representing‘neutral/don’t know’.

Before the main Q-sort was administered,the63selected state-ments were used in a Q-sort trial,administered to a subset of Irish stakeholders.Having completed the Q-sort trial,participants were asked to comment on the Q-statements,with particular focus on whether the statements were easy to understand and if there was any repetition,i.e.if there were any statements they felt expressed the same opinion.Based on the comments and

Fig.2.Stages1–5involved in Q-method.

476G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485 Table3

Number stakeholders involved in Q-method.

Stakeholder category Country

Ireland Scotland Germany

Conservationists

Conservation managers222

Local conservation rep/ranger212

NGO221

Non-conservationists

Landowners44–

Landusers237

Total121212

suggestions received,the selected statements were amended

and reviewed before a?nal selection was made.This lead to

the number of Q-sort statements used in the Q-sort process

being reduced to36.It was considered that this was an adequate

number to avoid overburdening participants while also ensuring

that all sides of the con?ict were represented.These statements

can be divided into the following categories:conservation(12),

recreation(12)and management(12)(Table3).

4.The36statements chosen were then used in the?nal Q-sort

procedure.This was administered to36stakeholders,12in each

country(Table3).Both stakeholders previously interviewed and

stakeholders additionally selected(to ensure all stakeholder

groups were adequately represented)were asked to participate

in this process.The Q-sorts were carried out either by direct

assistance,using an A1scoring sheet and statement cards with

the same researcher present for all Q-sorts,or electronically,

due to geographical distances involved in the study,with all

necessary information provided to the stakeholder.The?nal

Q-sorts for every participant were recorded for analysis.Upon

completion of the Q-sort procedure,participants were asked to

elaborate and explain their statement ratings further,with spe-

cial attention being paid to those statements ranked+3or?3.

This additional information was recorded for use in the discus-sion.

5.The Q-sort results were entered into a matrix with36columns

representing the Q-sorts and36rows for the https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b4970848.html,ing Brodgar(version2.6.5),Principal Components Analysis(PCA) was then carried out on the matrix,resulting in a correlation matrix which indicated the similarities between the different Q-sorts.The aim was to group stakeholders with similar opinions together,based on agreement or disagreement with the chosen statements,and to determine patterns in the responses given.

This was followed by analysis of the scores for each individual statement,which was done using GraphPad Instat(version3) to analyse the scores awarded to statements between groups of stakeholders.The stakeholders were grouped according to country to compare:(1)all stakeholders overall(O);(2)com-parisons of conservationists(C)across countries;and(3)all non-conservationists(N)across countries.Then conservation-ists and non-conservationists were compared to each other,?rst overall and then for each of the three countries.This analysis was done using non-parametric tests(Kruskal–Wallis followed by post hoc tests(Nemenyi and Dunn’s multiple comparisons tests)for comparisons between countries and Mann–Whitney for comparisons between conservationists and non-conservationists)on non-transformed ratings,which were also used to analyse counts of zero ratings per statement(con-verted to proportions of group size).

Results

The Q-sort process was successful and although many of the stakeholders who carried out the Q-sorts had comments on

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

PC1

Fig.3.Loading plot of original Q-sorts for Ireland(?/ ),Scotland( / )and Germany ( / )on PC1and PC2.Q-Sorts are labelled as conservationists(white)and non-conservationists(black).

individual statements,there were no dif?culties with the overall process and there was no recurring common observation on the Q-sorting process or on individual statements.

The PCA carried out on the Q-sorts yielded eight components with an Eigenvalue>1,but only the?rst two principal components (PC1and PC2)carry a signi?cant proportion(58.3%;PC1=48.7%and PC2=9.6%)of the total variation(Fig.3).All Q-sorts have positive PC1scores,while the PC2scores are both positive and negative.The PC2scores divide the Q-scores into distinct groups,differentiating roughly between countries.All German and Irish Q-sorts have high positive and negative scores respectively,while nine of the Scottish scores are negative and three are positive.Overall the results indi-cate that there are distinct differences as to how the stakeholders in the three countries view the con?ict between conservation and recreation in coastal areas in their own countries.

The spread of Q-sorts(Fig.3)indicates that it is differing opinions between countries rather than conservationist versus non-conservationist stakeholder groups that is mostly responsible for the differences.Nonetheless,the spread of scores does indicate that it is non-conservationists rather than conservationists both in Germany and particularly in Ireland who yield the most extreme scores along PC2.

A majority of overall stakeholders(O)rated a large proportion of the statements(64%)in the same way(Fig.4)with56%of state-ments being rated positively by all stakeholders(high density of statements towards the positive side of PC1)and8%of statements

G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485

477

Fig.4.Score plot of statements(S)on PC1and PC2.Statements are grouped according to positives and negative scores awarded by stakeholders.

being rated negatively by all stakeholders(located towards the neg-ative side of PC1).This agreement(positive and negative)among stakeholders de?nes PC1and accounts for the positive PC1loadings of all Q-sorts in Fig.3.

Tables4a–4c give full P-values to interpret the signi?cance of difference between the median ratings for each statement but Visser et al.(2007)states that P-values can be interpreted using conventional thresholds(as given in Tables4a–4c)or with the con-dition that the averages are at least one unit apart.Tables4a–4c indicate that only those medians signi?cant at P<0.01are at least one unit apart and therefore,P-values>0.01will be deemed as non-signi?cant for the purposes of this study.Fig.5indicates the differences(P>0.05;0.001

For each statement median response ratings(Tables4a–4c) were compared between countries,comparing overall results(O) and results for each stakeholder group(i.e.conservationists(C)and non-conservationists(N)).These results are grouped under issues relating to conservation,recreation and management.Of the36 statements,11show signi?cant differences between the overall scores(O)(Fig.5),while12show signi?cant differences between non-conservationists(N)(Tables4a–4c),of which two statements (hereafter referred to as S)(S31and S32)have P-values less than 0.001.

Discussion

The results(Fig.3)of the Q-sort analysis show that there are clear differences between countries(PC2),and while there are sig-ni?cant differences between scores,there is a substantial amount of agreement between stakeholders(PC1).Agreement among stake-holders can be found on issues such as the need for conservation,the need for access to coastal areas and public participation.The disagreement between the different stakeholders is centred on issues relating to conservation legislation and to bene?ts gained from tourism and recreation and site management(e.g.impos-ing of restrictions and the provision of facilities).While58.3%of the spread of Q-sorts are explained by the?rst two PCs,the high standard deviation for some statements with no signi?cant dif-ferences in opinion indicate that41.7%of the variation between Q-sorts does not?t any prede?ned groups and that there are dif-ferences of opinion within these groups as well.

Agreement among stakeholders

The highest common agreement between all stakeholders(O) was for S1(‘Coastal amenities are part of our national heritage,they must be protected for future generations as well as for their tourism value.’)and S11(‘It is everybody’s responsibility to protect a coastal conservation site,irrespective of ownership.’).These statements which also showed strong agreement from the conservationists(C) and non-conservationists(N)indicate that there is an agreement among all stakeholder groups that there is a need for conserva-tion of coastal habitats not solely for their conservation value but also for tourism and recreation which takes place within them. This is further supported by common overall(O)agreement with S16,which emphasises the economic bene?ts from tourism and recreation.There is also agreement that access should be granted (S13)and damage caused by recreationists is recognised in all three countries studied(S21and S22).With regard to the management of the sites,there is common agreement that this should be done using long-term planning(S30)with clear guidelines(S33)which ensure conservation,but not at the expense of other landusers(S14 and S26).There is agreement that management should involve the prevention of damaging activities(S27),should include public par-ticipation(S11)and the use of signs and information panels(S34).

For?ve statements there was common(dis)agreement between most stakeholder groups with signi?cant differences between scores for at least one of the stakeholder groups,indicating signif-icant differences in the levels of agreement or disagreement with

478G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485

Table4a

Results for the q-sort analysis of statements on conservation.

Statements:conservation Statistics a P(diff)

1Coastal amenities are part of our national heritage;they must be protected for

future generations as well as for their tourism value.

O0.8639

C0.5169

N0.3205

2If the plants and animals were there100years ago and they are still here now,

then surely they are not under threat?

O0.0141

C0.2748

N0.0121

3It is our obligation to comply with European conservation legislation,even if that means upsetting a few people.O

a,b a

0.001* C0.0859

a:q=3.86,P<0.05;b:q=4.85,P<0.01;c:Q=2.54,P<0.05;d:Q=2.95,P<0.01N

c,d c

0.0041*

4The national conservation body has been negligent in its responsibilities to

designate and protect priority habitats.

O0.0218

C0.5318

N0.0213 5Most damage is done through ignorance rather than deliberate action.O0.3746

C0.3873

N0.1695

6The conservation body has the power to stop people from doing something they

are not supposed to do and they exercise this power.

O0.0472

C0.9508

e:Q=3.04,P<0.01N e e

0.0062*

7The Government’s lack of action has meant that the protected area designations aren’t worth the paper they are printed on and precious sites are being lost every

day.O0.0717 C0.8129 N0.0754

8Conservation designations make life more dif?cult for landowners as they involve

a lot of paper work.

O0.8104

C0.1798

N0.0856 9All landowners and local residents were consulted in the designation process.O0.0759

C0.021

N0.812 10There are no problems between landusers and landowners here.O0.5542

C0.2536

N0.9493

G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485479 Table4a(Continued)

Statements:conservation Statistics a P

11It is everybody’s responsibility to protect a coastal conservation site,irrespective

of ownership.

C0.5161

N0.5051

12There is no point in trying to involve the public in the management process,

people in general have no interest in getting involved.

O0.8811

C0.1136

0.6001

a Scales show median scores for Ireland(),Scotland()and Germany()overall(O),for conservationists(C)and non-conservationists(N)and P-values of the difference between the scores of the three countries.(P(diff))was calculated using Kruskal-Wallis(corrected for tied ranks)and Nemenyi(q)and Dunn’s(Q)multiple comparison tests for even and uneven sample sizes respectively.Countries with the same superscript letter indicate signi?cant differences between the medians.

*P<0.01.

these statements.Overall,stakeholder groups in all countries(O)

agree with S15(‘Tourists are the greatest asset to this coastal area.’)

but the level of agreement for Germany is signi?cantly more pos-

itive than either Scotland or Ireland.While in all three countries

the tourism and recreation industry plays an important role,in

Germany the visitor numbers to the sites are much larger(as capac-

ity?gures for car parks and camp sites in Table1show)and all the

German non-conservationist respondents bene?t directly from the

tourism and recreation industry,as they are all involved in either

a tourism or recreation related business.This was not the case

in Ireland and Scotland where landowners without direct links to

this industry were involved in the survey.With regard to facilities,

there is agreement that toilet facilities are required at coastal con-

servation sites(S23),however less so in Ireland than in the other

two countries.This is probably related to the lack of facilities at

any of the Irish sites while both German and one of the Scottish

sites did have toilet facilities.There are also differences in opinions

regarding the provision of facilities in general(S24,see“Disagree-

ment among stakeholders”section),which have an in?uence on

the opinions of Irish stakeholders with regard to S23.

In addition to these statements,S25shows that there is agree-

ment that the conservation approach taken needs to be?exible,

taking local conditions into consideration.However,German scores

(O and N)are signi?cantly weaker than those in Ireland(O and N)

and Scotland(O),showing differences in the strength of agreement

with this statement.The weaker German response can possibly be

explained by the fact that in Germany there is much higher pres-

sure on the coastal sites with higher visitor numbers to the area

(Norderney:426,533visitors in2007,Schillig:255,302visitors in

2007)(Staatsbad Norderney,2010;Wangerland,2010respectively)

than in Ireland(visitor centre in Cilfden(nearest town,～15km):

61,670visitors in2007)(Failte Ireland,2010)and Scotland(Outer

Hebrides overall:195,766visitors in2006)(VisitScotland,2007),

requiring stricter management measures that cannot always be

?ne-tuned to local https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b4970848.html,ments by German respondents

suggest that they felt that a more?exible approach might be insuf-

?cient in responding to the present visitor pressures.In addition,

Scottish and Irish sites also incorporate some agricultural landuse

(absent in Germany),for which?exibility in land management is an

important consideration.Yet,despite the call for a?exible manage-

ment approach,all agree that some restrictions need to be in place

and Scotland(O and N)shows a signi?cantly stronger response to

this than its Irish counterparts(S28).Comments by Scottish respon-

dents indicate they feel there is a need for restrictions,to control

recreation

on their sites,yet they would like to see these restric-

tions tailored to meet the individual requirements of speci?c sites.

Fig.5.Score plot of statements(S)on PC1and PC2.Statements are grouped according to signi?cance levels between overall scores of the three countries.

480G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485

Table4b

Results for the q-sort analysis of statements on recreation.

Statements:recreation Statistics a P(diff) 13There has to be access to beaches as they are a common amenity.O0.0155

C0.0807

N0.1693

14I would like to see recreationists being denied access to coastal conservation areas

by strict conservation rules.

O0.0671

C0.4972

N0.1021

15Tourists are the greatest asset to this coastal area.O a b a,b

0.0062*

C0.1375 a():q=3.36,P<0.01;b():q=4.04,P<0.05N0.0429

16An intact natural dune landscape,with its complete fauna and?ora is the best advertisement for an area and results in higher visitor numbers and more money

for the area.O0.2035 C0.8449 N0.1695

17Money brought by visitors into the area can be used to effectively protect the dunes.O

c,d c d

0.0004* C0.0654

c():q=4.38,P<0.01;d():q=4.66,P<0.01;e:Q()=2.58,P<0.05;f(): Q=2.69,P<0.05N

e,f e f

0.005*

18The increased visitor numbers to our beaches have caused a lot of damage and the beaches are no longer as attractive as they used to be.O

g,h

0.0008* C0.1545

g:q=5.03,P<0.01;h:q=3.64,P<0.05;i:Q=2.83,P<0.05;j:Q=2.47,P<0.05N

i,j

0.0062*

19There is always a problem with erosion in sand dunes,it has nothing to do with

tourists and recreationists.

O0.5346

C0.2957

N0.7282

20Recreation doesn’t damage the environment where carrying capacities are

managed in a sustainable manner as they are here.

O0.0621

C0.9591

k:Q=2.99,P<0.01N

0.005*

21Surfers,bikers and other visitors are causing untold damage to fragile protected

dune systems.

O0.229

C0.7471

N0.2919

22It is quad bikes in particular that cause the damage,they tear up the grass and they

should be banned.

O0.4261

C0.1458

N0.1512

G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485481 Table4b(Continued)

Statements:recreation Statistics a P

23There should be facilities such as toilets provided.O

C0.1967 l:q=4.66,P<0.01;m():Q=2.99,P<0.01N

m m

0.0071*

24The danger is that once you provide all the facilities more people will come and

you create a snowball effect.

n,o

0.0002*

C 0.0343

n:q=3.81,P<0.05;o:q=5.56,P<0.001;p():Q=2.98,P<0.05

0.0061

*P<0.01

An example mentioned in this context was that while recreationists

should be prevented from driving onto the sites,landowners should

be permitted to do so to maintain essential farming activities.

The responses for S31(‘By sacri?cing some areas to recreation-

ists other areas can be protected for nature conservation.’)indicate

agreement with the need for management and with the restriction

of recreationists to certain areas.This is already done in Germany

where there are different usage zones(Table1),with some for

recreational usage only,while in others these activities would not

be permitted.The German management strategy even includes des-

ignations of speci?c areas for speci?c activities,such as special areas

for children to play,camping areas,areas designated for?ying kites

or other sports and parts of beaches designated only for visitors

with dogs.Scotland partly employs this approach as well,but only

in relation to camping at one of the sites,where camping is now

restricted to a camp site to protect the remainder of the site from

damage through camper vans,tents,camp?res and vehicular traf-

?c.In Ireland this approach has not been used so far which could

explain the signi?cantly lower levels of agreement among the Irish

(O and N)and Scottish(N)compared to their German counterparts.

Disagreement among stakeholders

There are eight statements for which respondents show oppo-

site opinions and where responses are signi?cantly different

(P≤0.01)for at least one of the stakeholder groups(Tables4a–4c).

The division of signi?cantly different statements according to cat-

egories show that in the conservation section there are only two

statements(S3and S6)triggering signi?cant levels of disagree-

ment.S3(‘It is our obligation to comply with European conservation

legislation,even if that means upsetting a few people.’)shows a

mixed overall response(O),with the positive responses of Ireland

and Germany being signi?cantly different from the neutral Scot-

tish response,which is also mirrored in the non-conservationist

response(N).Scottish non-conservationist stakeholders,in partic-

ular,feel that it is important to consider local conditions and adapt

the implementation of rules to them,as indicated in the results

for S25(see“Agreement among stakeholders”section).A recurring

comment from Scottish respondents was that broad European leg-

islation did not take into consideration the presence of a special

coastal habitat(machair),unique to Scotland and Ireland.Scottish

stakeholders felt national legislation was more adapted to local

conditions and special habitats than European legislation.

For S6(‘The conservation body has the power to stop people

from doing something they are not supposed to do and they exer-

cise this power.’)the scores show that the Irish negative responses

by non-conservationists(N)differ signi?cantly from the German

(N)positive ones.Conversations with Irish non-conservationist

stakeholders indicate that they felt the Irish conservation body does

not have a strong presence on conservation sites and hence there is

no control of damaging activities.In Germany,on the other hand,

rangers are present at the sites(Table1)and stakeholders feel that

they deal adequately with damaging activities.

In the recreation section(Table4b)there were three issues for

which responses were signi?cantly different among stakeholders:

issues dealing with the use of money brought by recreationists for

conservation(S17),the loss of attractiveness due to increased vis-

itor numbers(S18)and the provision of facilities for recreationists

(S24).With regard to the use of the money brought into the area to

effectively conserve the sites(S17),there was agreement between

all Scottish and German overall(O)and non-conservationists(N)

scores,which differed signi?cantly from the neutral Irish scores(O

and N).In both Scotland and Germany some of the money coming

into the area was used to provide information and facilities for vis-

itors,such as information and directional signs,parking facilities,

toilets or camp sites,while none of these facilities are present at

the Irish sites(Table1),and this may have in?uenced the strength

of the Irish response to this statement.

While the German and Scottish respondents did not agree that

their beaches had lost attractiveness due to increased tourist num-

bers,the overall German negative response was,nevertheless,

signi?cantly stronger than that of the Scots and the Irish(O and N).

In particular,the Irish(unlike the Scots)agreed with S18,a response

which may have been in?uenced by damage which has already

been incurred on the Irish sites by recreationists(Kindermann and

Gormally,2010).Nevertheless,in response to S20,the Germans

indicate that they are aware of the damage that can be caused

by recreationists.The statements concerned with the provision

of facilities at the sites triggered signi?cant differences between

stakeholders.S24(and S23as discussed in“Agreement among

stakeholders”section)stands out(Fig.4)as having strong in?u-

ence on the distribution of stakeholders along PC2(Fig.3).S24

(‘The danger is that once you provide all the facilities more people

will come and you create a snowball effect.’)produced signi?cantly

negative scores for German respondents(O and N)compared to

positive scores in Ireland(O and N)and Scotland(O).The provi-

sion of facilities was a worry especially for Irish respondents.None

of the Irish sites has facilities,with the exception of one which

has a golf course car park close by,while the sites in both other

countries have at least parking facilities speci?cally for visitors to

the sites(Table1).The opinion expressed by German respondents

in conversation was that the facilities present were essential to

482G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally /Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 472–485

Table 4c

Results for the q -sort analysis of statements on management.

Statements:management

Statistics a

P (diff)25

Conservation may be important,but a ?exible approach taking local conditions into account when carrying out speci?c measures is essential.

O a b α,β

0.0083*C 0.1083

a ():q =3.72,P <0.05;

b (

):q =3.38,P <0.05;c:Q =2.93,P <0.05

N c

c 0.0086*

There has to be a balance,only thinking about birds and conservation to the exclusion of the other landusers is not on.

O 0.5511C 0.1505N 0.3625

The ideal management for coastal zones is to stop the main damaging activities while still letting people use the site (that way everybody bene?ts).

O 0.0127C 0.3277N 0.0361

Some restrictions need to be in place to control people who come into coastal conservation areas.

O d

0.0071*C 0.6685d:q =3.85,P <0.01;e:Q =2.97P <0.01

N e

e 0.0056*

29Ideally dunes and grasslands should be policed or protected by the landowners.

O 0.748C 0.2775N 0.4641

Dune management,dune conservation and damage control needs to be done using long-term planning.

O 0.0801C 0.1729N 0.181

By sacri?cing some areas to recreationists,other areas can be protected for nature conservation.

O f

0.0059*C 0.9817

f ():q =4.15,P <0.01;

g ():Q =3.39,P <0.001;

h (

):Q =2.44,P <0.05

N g h g,h

0.0008*

In relation to access,the emphasis should be on responsible behaviour by the public,not on restriction.

O i j

i,j

<0.0001*C 0.0779

i ():q =5.03,P <0.01;j ():q =5.58,P <0.001;k ():Q =2.79,P <0.05;l (

):Q =3.67,P <0.001

N k l

k,l 0.0003*

There is a need for clear guidelines to reduce con?ict between different users and to ensure recreation is carried out in a responsible and environmentally sensitive way.

O 0.0674C 0.2935N 0.128434

Signs and other forms of information and education are required to inform people that they are visiting a conservation site and how to behave.

O 0.0624C 0.3933N 0.0297

G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485483 Table4c(Continued)

Statements:management Statistics a P

35Most people respect the dunes;there is no need for further fencing and signposting.

0.2852

m():q=3.96,P

<0.05;n():q=4.38P<0.01;o():Q=2.63P<0.05;p():

Q=2.97,P<0.01

o p o,p

0.0038*

36There are so many signs and rules,it is no longer an enjoyable experience to come

to the beach.

O0.0176

C0.0181

N0.1766

*P<0.01.

prevent of damage to sites and to ensure clean and safe beaches and

they were not seen as something which would decrease the attrac-

tiveness of the site to visitors.The most signi?cant differences in

relation to management(Table4c)are triggered by S32(‘In rela-

tion to access,the emphasis should be on responsible behaviour by

the public,not on restriction.’).Here German responses are nega-

tive compared to the positive scores for Scotland and Ireland with

overall(O)and non-conservationist(N)results in the latter two

countries being signi?cantly different from those in Germany.This

difference in opinion is supported by S31(see“Agreement among

stakeholders”section).These statements show that in relation to

access by recreationists to the sites,German respondents agree

that restriction should always be considered a possible manage-

ment option.Scottish and Irish respondents are of the opinion that

responsible behaviour should be emphasised in protecting sites.

This difference can,in part,be attributed to the differences in vis-

itor numbers to the sites(see“Agreement among stakeholders”

section).In Germany,there are much higher demands placed on

the sites as visitor numbers are considerably higher.Therefore

the potential for damage to sites(Andersen,1995;Burden and

Randerson,1972;Cole,1995;Sun and Liddle,1993)would also

be higher and consequently restriction is seen as the only way to

control this.

The other statement that triggered signi?cantly different

responses is S35(‘Most people respect the dunes;there is no

need for further fencing and signposting.’).While information signs

and panels are regarded by all respondents as an effective way to

inform visitors of the conservation status of sites and of appropriate

behaviour when visiting(S34),only German stakeholders(O and N)

agree that there is no further need for additional signs and panels

at their sites(S35).This was not the case in either of the other two

countries where to date no signs or information boards are dis-

played(Table1).In Germany there are many signs,information

boards and education paths as well as rangers available to provide

information to visitors(Table1).However,in conversation with

German non-conservationists,excessive signage was seen as some-

thing that could possibly hamper the enjoyment of visitors who

came to the site.Similar concerns were voiced during conversations

with stakeholders in Ireland and Scotland,where stakeholders,

despite agreeing that information was required,had reservations

concerning excessive interpretation facilities and fencing leading to

over-regulation of sites.A comment frequently made by stakehol-

ders in Ireland and Scotland was that they feared there would be a

loss of naturalness of the site if management was too excessive and

that this would not only spoil the site for locals but also for visiting

recreationists who appreciated the sites being‘untouched’,an

observation corroborated by other studies(McKenna et al.,2011).

The comparison between conservationists(C)and non-

conservationists(N)showed that there are only two statements

(S8and S29)for which responses are signi?cantly different for Irish

stakeholders,with opposite scores(positive and negative)for indi-

vidual stakeholder groups.S8(‘Conservation designations make

life more dif?cult for landowners as they involve a lot of paper

work.’)shows negative scores from conservationists(C)and posi-

tive scores for non-conservationists(N).In Ireland,in particular,the

designation and subsequent management of coastal conservation

sites are perceived by non-conservationists,landowners in particu-

lar,as making life more dif?cult(S8,Table4a).Non-conservationist

stakeholders mentioned that they feel that the conservation body

is not always successful in its conservation effort,while at the same

time causing dif?culty for landowners,restricting their use of the

land and adding unnecessary paperwork.The Irish conservationists

disagree signi?cantly with the non-conservationists that protected

areas should be policed and protected by the landowners(S29).

Conservationists commented that the co-operation of landowners

is essential to successful conservation management,but in rela-

tion to conservation,the advice and support of the conservation

body is also critical,without which the protection of habitats could

not be achieved.However,a common comment made by non-

conservationists was that they feel excluded from the management

process.

Conclusion

Q-Methodology helped clarify the different positions held by

the different stakeholder groups vis-à-vis stakeholder perceptions

of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune

systems in three European countries.While the results do not

provide a view of what proportion of the population hold a partic-

ular view,the results do re?ect the existing spectrum of different

opinions and clearly differentiate the different patterns within the

stakeholder groups.

The results of this study show?rstly that while there is

much agreement overall(particularly relating to the protection

of dune systems while still supporting recreation),stakeholder

opinion can be separated according to country of origin.In gen-

eral,this separation is re?ected in the intensive management

regime at the German sites compared to the Scottish and Irish

sites where signi?cant differences in opinion are most apparent

in the sections concerned with restricting access for recreation,the

484G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485

provision of facilities and the role of the responsible conservation body.

For Germany,the results of this study suggest that current management strategies are successful in meeting both conserva-tion and recreation needs.Regulatory management,such as access restrictions and zonation are considered to be successful,while educational and physical management facilities present are consid-ered effective by all with no perception of these measures attracting excessive visitor numbers or diminishing the attractiveness of the site.The other end of the spectrum,i.e.no management measures whatsoever can be seen in the Irish study sites.There is a complete absence of facilities and information signs at the Irish sites and there is documented evidence of severe damage to the sites,with vehi-cle tracks having increased?vefold for one of the sites between 1973and2007,while at the other two sites track numbers doubled and tripled for the same period(Kindermann and Gormally,2010). Despite this,over-regulation and over-management are,neverthe-less,of particular concern to the Irish and Scottish stakeholders. Despite its effectiveness in Germany,applying the same level of management to Irish and Scottish sites would,at this stage,be inappropriate.Neither country has the visitor pressures present in Germany,therefore less intensive approaches are required.The Scottish situation provides somewhat of a medium between the other two countries in that it has a limited amount of regula-tory and physical measures in place.The restrictions of activities such as camping to limited areas and the provision of parking areas have reduced past problems of damage at the sites(May and Hansom,2003).This level of management and provision of facilities would be much more appropriate for Ireland where vis-itor numbers are comparable to those in Scotland and levels of damage would have been comparable.What both countries are lacking to date are educational measures on site to inform vis-itors of the status of the sites and inform them of appropriate behaviour.Respondents in Ireland and Scotland considered these important and providing them in addition to physical measures, such as car parks,toilets and camp sites,should increase the pro-tection of sites.Rangers are essential in the overall management of sites and particularly in the monitoring of sites.In compari-son to Scotland and Germany,Ireland is at a disadvantage in that ranger coverage of the sites has been intermittent over the last few years,with changes in staff and periods during which the ranger position for the area(approx.450km2in total)was vacant due to staf?ng dif?culties within the conservation body.Improv-ing this is essential,especially in Ireland where there are issues between conservationists and non-conservationists which need to be resolved.

Ireland stands out as being the only country in which there are signi?cant differences between conservationists and non-conservationists.These differences indicate that Irish conser-vationists do not recognise the perceived increase in workload for landowners due to conservation designations.There are addi-tional differences of opinion in respect to who should be in charge of site management.This should be addressed when devising a management strategy for Irish sites as this is likely to be a cause for potential con?ict.However,there is a lot of common ground between the two groups that can be built on to achieve successful dune management.With the overall agreement that conservation is essential,the?rst step for the conservation of coastal dune systems has been achieved.The presence of rangers at ground level to engage with landown-ers and issues arising on site,as well as overall co-operation between conservationists and non-conservationists,landowners in particular,will help overcome the remaining issues between the two groups and will ensure the required levels of manage-ment,essential to ensure the successful conservation of sites,are achieved.Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Irish Research Council for Sci-ence,Engineering and Technology through the EMBARK Initiative. We kindly thank all stakeholders for their time and for their coop-eration throughout the project,in particular members of the Irish National Parks and Wildlife Service,Scottish Natural Heritage and Nationalpark Nieders?chsisches Wattenmeer.The authors wish to thank the members of the Applied Ecology Unit of the National Uni-versity of Ireland,Galway for their support,with special thanks to Dr.Rory McDonnell,Dr.Chris Williams and Dr.Caroline Sullivan for their help with the statistical analysis.

References

Aarhus Convention,1998.UNECE Convention on Access to Information,Public Par-ticipation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Addams,H.,Proops,J.e.,2000.Social Discourse and Environmental Policy—An Appli-cation of q Methodology,1st ed.Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.,Cheltenham. Andersen,U.V.,1995.Resistance of Danish coastal vegetation types to human tram-pling.Biological Conservation71,223–230.

Broadhurst,R.,2001.Managing Environments for Leisure and Recreation,1ed.Rout-ledge,London.

Brodt,S.,Klonsky,K.,Tourte,L.,2006.Farmer goals and management styles:impli-cations for advancing biological based agriculture.Agricultural Systems89, 90–105.

Brown,S.R.,1996.Q methodology and qualitative research.Qualitative Health Research6,561–567.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt,N.u.R.,2008.Die Flora-Fauna-Habitat-Richtlinie (FFH-Richtlinie)Bundesministerium für Umwelt,Naturschutz und Reaktor-sicherheit.

Burden,R.F.,Randerson,P.F.,1972.Quantitative studies of the effects of human tram-pling on vegetation as an aid to the management of semi-natural areas.The Journal of Applied Ecology9,439–457.

Cabot,D.,1977.An overview of the Irish situation.In:Young,R.(Ed.),Planning for the Use of Irish sand Dune Systems.Proceedings of a Conference Held in Wexford.

An Foras Forbatha.,pp.19–27.

Cassar,M.,2003.A project for the integrated management of protected coastal areas in Malta.Journal of Coastal Conservation9,73–80.

Catto,N.,2002.Anthropogenic pressures on coastal dunes,southwestern Newfound-land.The Canadian Geographer46,17–32.

Cole,D.N.,1995.Experimental trampling of vegetation.I.Relationship between trampling intensity and vegetation response.The Journal of Applied Ecology 32,203–214.

Council Directive,92/43/EEC.Council Directive92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and?ora.

Council Directive,2003/35/EC.Council Directive,2003/35/EC providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programs relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives85/337/EEC and96/61/EC.

Curr,R.H.F.,Koh,A.,Edwards,E.,Williams,A.T.,Davies,P.,2000.Assessing anthro-pogenic impact on Mediterranean sand dunes from aerial digital photography.

Journal of Coastal Conservation6,15–22.

Doody,D.G.,Kearney,P.,Barry,J.,Moles,R.,O’Regan,B.,2009.Evaluation of the Q-method as a method of public participation in the selection of sustainable development indicators.Ecological Indicators9,1129–1137.

Ellis,G.,Barry,J.,Robinson,C.,2007.Many ways to say‘no’,different ways to say ‘yes’:applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management50,517–557. European Commission,2007.Report to the European Parliament and the Coun-cil:an evaluation of integrated coastal zone management(ICZM)in Europe.

Communication from the Commission.Brussels.

Fossitt,J.,2000.A Guide to Habitats in Ireland,1st ed.The Heritage Council,Dublin. Frantzi,S.,Carter,N.T.,Lovett,J.C.,2009.Exploring discourses on international environmental regime effectiveness with Q methodology:a case study of the Mediterranean action plan.Journal of Environmental Management90, 177–189.

Gormsen, E.,1997.The impact of tourism on coastal areas.GeoJournal42, 39–54.

Guimaraes,M.H.,2009.The use of Q-methodology to obtain stakeholder discurse on the future development of Ria Formosa Coastal zone,south of Portugal.In: Conference Proceedings.15?Congresso da APDR,Cabo Verde.

Helsenfeld,P.,Jungerius,P.D.,Klijn,J.A.,2008.European coastal dunes:ecological values,threats,opportunities and policy development.In:Martinez,M.,Psuty, N.(Eds.),Ecological Studies1,vol.171.Coastal Dunes,pp.335–351.

Holden,A.,2000.Environment and Tourism,1st ed.Routledge,London.

Hughes,M.,Morrison-Saunders,A.,2005.In?uence of on-site interpretation inten-sity on visitors to natural areas.Journal of Ecotourism4,161–177.

Hylgaard,T.,Liddle,M.J.,1981.The effect of human trampling on a sand dune ecosystem dominated by Empetrum nigrum.The Journal of Applied Ecology18, 559–569.

G.Kindermann,M.J.Gormally/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 472–485485

I-Ling,K.,2002.The effectiveness of environmental interpretation at resource-sensitive tourism destinations.International Journal for Tourism Research4, 87–101.

Johnson,D.E.,Dagg,S.,2003.Achieving public participation in coastal zone environ-mental impact assessment.Journal of Coastal Conservation9,13–18. Kerbiriou,C.,Leviol,I.,Jiguet,F.,Julliard,R.,2008.The impact of human frequen-tation on coastal vegetation in a biosphere reserve.Journal of Environmental Management88,715–728.

Kindermann,G.,Gormally,M.,2010.Vehicle damage caused by recreational use of coastal dune systems in a special area of conservation(SAC)on the west coast of Ireland.Journal of Coastal Conservation14,173–188.

Kindermann,G.,2011.Protected European coastal dune systems:recreational impacts and users’perceptions regarding nature conservation with speci?c reference to machair.Unpublished PhD Thesis.National University of Ireland, Galway.

Klijn,J.A.,1990.Dune forming factors in a geographical context.In:Bakker,T.W., Junerius,P.D.,Klijn,J.A.(Eds.),Dunes of the European Coast.Catena Verlag, Cremlingen-Destedt,pp.1–13.

Krott,M.,2000.Voicing interests and concerns:NATURA2000:an ecological net-work in con?ict with people.Forest Policy and Economics1,357–366. Lemauviel,S.,Gallet,S.,Rozé,F.,2003.Sustainable management of?xed dunes: example of a pilot site in Brittany(France).Comptes Rendus Biologies326, 183–191.

Liddle,M.J.,Greig-Smith,P.,1975a.A survey of tracks and paths in a Sand Dune ecosystem.I.Soils.The Journal of Applied Ecology12,893–908.

Liddle,M.J.,Greig-Smith,P.,1975b.A survey of tracks and paths in a Sand Dune ecosystem.II.Vegetation.The Journal of Applied Ecology12,909–930. Luckenbach,R.A.,Bury,R.B.,1983.Effects of off-road vehicles on the biota of the algodones dunes,Imperial County,California.The Journal of Applied Ecology 20,265–286.

May,V.J.,Hansom,J.D.,2003.Coastal Geomorphology of Great Britain.JNCC,Peter-borough.

McKenna,J.,Cooper,A.,O’Hagan,A.M.,2008.Managing by principle:a critical anal-ysis of the European principles of integrated coastal zone management(ICZM).

Marine Policy32,941–955.

McKenna,J.,Williams,A.T.,Cooper,J.A.G.,;1;2011.Blue?ag or red herring:do beach awards encourage the public to visit beaches?Tourism Management, in press.

McKeown, B.,Thomas, D.,1988.Q Methodology.Sage Publications,Inc., California.

Milligan,J.,O’Riordan,T.,Nicholson-Cole,S.A.,Watkinson,A.R.,2009.Nature con-servation for future sustainable shorelines:lessons from seeking to involve the https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b4970848.html,nd Use Policy26,203–213.

Nairn,R.,2005.Ireland’s Coast,1st ed.The Collins Press,Dublin.O’Hagan,A.M.,Ballinger,R.C.,2010.Implementing coastal zone management in

a national policy vacuum:local case studies from Ireland.Ocean and Coastal

Management53,750–759.

O’Mahony,C.,Gault,J.,Cummins,V.,K?pke,K.,O’Suilleabhain,D.,2009.Assessment of recreation activity and its application to integrated management and spatial planning for Cork Harbour,Ireland.Marine Policy33,930–937.

Orams,M.B.,https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b4970848.html,ing interpretation to manage nature-based tourism.Journal of Sustainable Tourism4,81–94.

Power,J.,McKenna,J.,MacLeod,M.J.,Cooper,A.J.G.,Convie,G.,2000.Developing integrated participatory management strategies for Atlantic Dune systems in County Donegal,Northwest Ireland.AMBIO29,143–149.

Quigley,M.B.,1991.A guide to sand dunes in Ireland.European Union for Dune Conservation and Coastal Management,Dubin.

Ranwell,D.,1959.Newborough Warren,Anglesey:I.The dune system and dune slack habitat.The Journal of Ecology47,571–601.

Ranwell,D.,1960.Newborough Warren,Anglesey:II.Plant associates and succession cycles of the sand dune and dune slack vegetation.The Journal of Ecology48, 117–141.

Rodwell,J.S.e.a.,2000.British plant communities,Shingle,Strandline and Sand-Dune communities.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Rupprecht Consult and International Ocean Institute,2006.Evaluation of integrated coastal zone management(ICZM)in Europe.Final Report.Cologne,Germany. Sun,D.,Liddle,M.J.,1993.Plant morphological characteristics and resistance to simulated trampling.Environmental Management17,511–521.

Urquhart,J.,Courtney,P.,Slee,B.,2012.Private woodland owners’perspectives on multifunctionality in English woodlands.Journal of Rural Studies28,95–106. Verhagen,H.J.,1990.Coastal protection and dune management in the Netherlands.

Journal of Coastal Research6,169–179.

Visser,M.,Moran,J.,Regan,E.,Gormally,M.,Skef?ngton,M.S.,2007.The Irish agri-environment:how turlough users and non-users view converging EU agendas of Natura2000and https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b4970848.html,nd Use Policy24,362–373.

Weber,N.,Christophersen,T.,2002.The in?uence of non-governmental organisa-tions on the creation of Natura2000during the European Policy process.Forest Policy and Economics4,1–12.

Webler,T.,Danielson,S.,Tuler,S.,https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b4970848.html,ing Q Method to Reveal Social Perspec-tives in Environmental Research.Social and Environmental Research Institute, Green?eld,MA.

Westhoff,V.,1985.Nature Management in Coastal Areas of Western Europe.Vege-tatio62,523–532.

Young,J.,Watt,A.,Nowicki,P.,Alard,D.,Clitherow,J.,Henle,K.,Johnson,R.,Laczko,

E.,McCracken,D.,Matouch,S.,Niemela,J.,Caspian,R.,2005.Towards sustain-

able land use:identifying and managing the con?icts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe.Biodiversity and Conservation14, 1641–1661.

如何写先进个人事迹

如何写先进个人事迹篇一：如何写先进事迹材料如何写先进事迹材料一般有两种情况：一是先进个人，如先进工作者、优秀党员、劳动模范等；一是先进集体或先进单位，如先进党支部、先进车间或科室，抗洪抢险先进集体等。无论是先进个人还是先进集体，他们的先进事迹，内容各不相同，因此要整理材料，不可能固定一个模式。一般来说，可大体从以下方面进行整理。 (1)要拟定恰当的标题。先进事迹材料的标题，有两部分内容必不可少，一是要写明先进个人姓名和先进集体的名称，使人一眼便看出是哪个人或哪个集体、哪个单位的先进事迹。二是要概括标明先进事迹的主要内容或材料的用途。例如《王鬃同志端正党风的先进事迹》、《关于评选张鬃同志为全国新长征突击手的材料》、《关于评选鬃处党支部为省直机关先进党支部的材料》等。 (2)正文。正文的开头，要写明先进个人的简要情况，包括：姓名、性别、年龄、工作单位、职务、是否党团员等。此外，还要写明有关单位准备授予他(她)什么荣誉称号，或给予哪种形式的奖励。对先进集体、先进单位，要根据其先进事迹的主要内容，寥寥数语即应写明，不须用更多的文字。然后，要写先进人物或先进集体的主要事迹。这部分内容是全篇材料

的主体，要下功夫写好，关键是要写得既具体，又不繁琐；既概括，又不抽象；既生动形象，又很实在。总之，就是要写得很有说服力，让人一看便可得出够得上先进的结论。比如，写一位端正党风先进人物的事迹材料，就应当着重写这位同志在发扬党的优良传统和作风方面都有哪些突出的先进事迹，在同不正之风作斗争中有哪些突出的表现。又如，写一位搞改革的先进人物的事迹材料，就应当着力写这位同志是从哪些方面进行改革的，已经取得了哪些突出的成果，特别是改革前后的．经济效益或社会效益都有了哪些明显的变化。在写这些先进事迹时，无论是先进个人还是先进集体的，都应选取那些具有代表性的具体事实来说明。必要时还可运用一些数字，以增强先进事迹材料的说服力。为了使先进事迹的内容眉目清晰、更加条理化，在文字表述上还可分成若干自然段来写，特别是对那些涉及较多方面的先进事迹材料，采取这种写法尤为必要。如果将各方面内容材料都混在一起，是不易写明的。在分段写时，最好在每段之前根据内容标出小标题，或以明确的观点加以概括，使标题或观点与内容浑然一体。最后，是先进事迹材料的署名。一般说，整理先进个人和先进集体的材料，都是以本级组织或上级组织的名义；是代表组织意见的。因此，材料整理完后，应经有关领导同志审定，以相应一级组织正式署名上报。这类材料不宜以个人名义署名。写作典型经验材料-般包括以下几部分： (1)标题。有多种写法，通常是把典型经验高度集中地概括出来，一

关于时间管理的英语作文 manage time

How to manage time Time treats everyone fairly that we all have 24 hours per day. Some of us are capable to make good use of time while some find it hard to do so. Knowing how to manage them is essential in our life. Take myself as an example. When I was still a senior high student, I was fully occupied with my studies. Therefore, I hardly had spare time to have fun or develop my hobbies. But things were changed after I entered university. I got more free time than ever before. But ironically, I found it difficult to adjust this kind of brand-new school life and there was no such thing called time management on my mind. It was not until the second year that I realized I had wasted my whole year doing nothing. I could have taken up a Spanish course. I could have read ten books about the stories of successful people. I could have applied for a part-time job to earn some working experiences. B ut I didn’t spend my time on any of them. I felt guilty whenever I looked back to the moments that I just sat around doing nothing. It’s said that better late than never. At least I had the consciousness that I should stop wasting my time. Making up my mind is the first step for me to learn to manage my time. Next, I wrote a timetable, setting some targets that I had to finish each day. For instance, on Monday, I must read two pieces of news and review all the lessons that I have learnt on that day. By the way, the daily plan that I made was flexible. If there’s something unexpected that I had to finish first, I would reduce the time for resting or delay my target to the next day. Also, I would try to achieve those targets ahead of time that I planed so that I could reserve some more time to relax or do something out of my plan. At the beginning, it’s kind of difficult to s tick to the plan. But as time went by, having a plan for time in advance became a part of my life. At the same time, I gradually became a well-organized person. Now I’ve grasped the time management skill and I’m able to use my time efficiently.

英语演讲稿：未来的工作

英语演讲稿：未来的工作这篇《英语演讲稿范文：未来的工作》，是特地，希望对大家有所帮助！热门演讲推荐：竞聘演讲稿 | 国旗下演讲稿 | 英语演讲稿 | 师德师风演讲稿 | 年会主持词 | 领导致辞 everybody good afternoon:. first of all thank the teacher gave me a story in my own future ideal job. everyone has a dream job. my dream is to bee a boss, own a pany. in order to achieve my dreams, i need to find a good job, to accumulate some experience and wealth, it is the necessary things of course, in the school good achievement and rich knowledge is also very important. good achievement and rich experience can let me work to make the right choice, have more opportunities and achievements. at the same time, munication is very important, because it determines whether my pany has a good future development. so i need to exercise their municative ability. i need to use all of the free time to learn

关于坚持的英语演讲稿

关于坚持的英语演讲稿 Results are not important, but they can persist for many years as a commemoration of. Many years ago, as a result of habits and overeating formed one of obesity, as well as indicators of overall physical disorders, so that affects my work and life. In friends to encourage and supervise, the participated in the team Now considered to have been more than three years, neither the fine rain, regardless of winter heat, a day out with 5:00 time. The beginning, have been discouraged, suffering, and disappointment, but in the end of the urging of friends, to re-get up, stand on the playground. 成绩并不重要，但可以作为坚持多年晨跑的一个纪念。多年前，由于庸懒习惯和暴饮暴食，形成了一身的肥胖，以及体检指标的全盘失常，以致于影响到了我的工作和生活。在好友的鼓励和督促下，参加了晨跑队伍。现在算来，已经三年多了，无论天晴下雨，不管寒冬酷暑，每天五点准时起来出门晨跑。开始时，也曾气馁过、痛苦过、失望过，但最后都在好友们的催促下，重新爬起来，站到了操场上。 In fact, I did not build big, nor strong muscles, not a sport-born people. Over the past few years to adhere to it, because I have a team behind, the strength of a strongteam here, very grateful to our team, for a long time, we encourage each other, and with sweat, enjoying common health happy. For example, Friends of the several run in order to maintain order and unable to attend the 10，000 meters race, and they are always concerned about the brothers and promptly inform the place and time, gives us confidence and courage. At the same time, also came on their own inner desire and pursuit for a good health, who wrote many of their own log in order to refuel for their own, and inspiring. 其实我没有高大身材，也没健壮肌肉，天生不属于运动型的人。几年来能够坚持下来，因为我的背后有一个团队，有着强大团队的力量，在这里，非常感谢我们的晨跑队，长期以来，我们相互鼓励着，一起流汗，共同享受着健康带来的快

关于管理的英语演讲

1.How to build a business that lasts100years 0:11Imagine that you are a product designer.And you've designed a product,a new type of product,called the human immune system.You're pitching this product to a skeptical,strictly no-nonsense manager.Let's call him Bob.I think we all know at least one Bob,right?How would that go? 0:34Bob,I've got this incredible idea for a completely new type of personal health product.It's called the human immune system.I can see from your face that you're having some problems with this.Don't worry.I know it's very complicated.I don't want to take you through the gory details,I just want to tell you about some of the amazing features of this product.First of all,it cleverly uses redundancy by having millions of copies of each component--leukocytes,white blood cells--before they're actually needed,to create a massive buffer against the unexpected.And it cleverly leverages diversity by having not just leukocytes but B cells,T cells,natural killer cells,antibodies.The components don't really matter.The point is that together,this diversity of different approaches can cope with more or less anything that evolution has been able to throw up.And the design is completely modular.You have the surface barrier of the human skin,you have the very rapidly reacting innate immune system and then you have the highly targeted adaptive immune system.The point is,that if one system fails,another can take over,creating a virtually foolproof system. 1:54I can see I'm losing you,Bob,but stay with me,because here is the really killer feature.The product is completely adaptive.It's able to actually develop targeted antibodies to threats that it's never even met before.It actually also does this with incredible prudence,detecting and reacting to every tiny threat,and furthermore, remembering every previous threat,in case they are ever encountered again.What I'm pitching you today is actually not a stand-alone product.The product is embedded in the larger system of the human body,and it works in complete harmony with that system,to create this unprecedented level of biological protection.So Bob,just tell me honestly,what do you think of my product? 2:47And Bob may say something like,I sincerely appreciate the effort and passion that have gone into your presentation,blah blah blah-- 2:56(Laughter) 2:58But honestly,it's total nonsense.You seem to be saying that the key selling points of your product are that it is inefficient and complex.Didn't they teach you 80-20?And furthermore,you're saying that this product is siloed.It overreacts, makes things up as it goes along and is actually designed for somebody else's benefit. I'm sorry to break it to you,but I don't think this one is a winner.

关于工作的优秀英语演讲稿

关于工作的优秀英语演讲稿 Different people have various ambitions. Some want to be engineers or doctors in the future. Some want to be scientists or businessmen. Still some wish to be teachers or lawers when they grow up in the days to come. Unlike other people, I prefer to be a farmer. However, it is not easy to be a farmer for Iwill be looked upon by others. Anyway,what I am trying to do is to make great contributions to agriculture. It is well known that farming is the basic of the country. Above all, farming is not only a challenge but also a good opportunity for the young. We can also make a big profit by growing vegetables and food in a scientific way. Besides we can apply what we have learned in school to farming. Thus our countryside will become more and more properous. I believe that any man with knowledge can do whatever they can so long as this job can meet his or her interest. All the working position can provide him with a good chance to become a talent. 1 ————来源网络整理，仅供供参考

个人先进事迹简介

个人先进事迹简介 01 在思想政治方面,xxxx同学积极向上,热爱祖国、热爱中国共产党,拥护中国共产党的领导.利用课余时间和党课机会认真学习政治理论,积极向党组织靠拢. 在学习上,xxxx同学认为只有把学习成绩确实提高才能为将来的实践打下扎实的基础,成为社会有用人才.学习努力、成绩优良. 在生活中,善于与人沟通,乐观向上,乐于助人.有健全的人格意识和良好的心理素质和从容、坦诚、乐观、快乐的生活态度,乐于帮助身边的同学,受到师生的好评. 02 xxx同学认真学习政治理论,积极上进,在校期间获得原院级三好生,和校级三好生,优秀团员称号,并获得三等奖学金. 在学习上遇到不理解的地方也常常向老师请教,还勇于向老师提出质疑.在完成自己学业的同时,能主动帮助其他同学解决学习上的难题,和其他同学共同探讨,共同进步. 在社会实践方面,xxxx同学参与了中国儿童文学精品“悦”读书系,插画绘制工作,xxxx同学在班中担任宣传委员,工作积极主动,认真负责,有较强的组织能力.能够在老师、班主任的指导下独立完成学院、班级布置的各项工作. 03 xxx同学在政治思想方面积极进取,严格要求自己.在学习方面刻苦努力,不断钻研,学习成绩优异,连续两年荣获国家励志奖学金；作

为一名学生干部,她总是充满激情的迎接并完成各项工作,荣获优秀团干部称号.在社会实践和志愿者活动中起到模范带头作用. 04 xxxx同学在思想方面,积极要求进步,为人诚实,尊敬师长.严格要求自己.在大一期间就积极参加了党课初、高级班的学习,拥护中国共产党的领导,并积极向党组织靠拢. 在工作上,作为班中的学习委员,对待工作兢兢业业、尽职尽责的完成班集体的各项工作任务.并在班级和系里能够起骨干带头作用.热心为同学服务,工作责任心强. 在学习上,学习目的明确、态度端正、刻苦努力,连续两学年在班级的综合测评排名中获得第1.并荣获院级二等奖学金、三好生、优秀班干部、优秀团员等奖项. 在社会实践方面,积极参加学校和班级组织的各项政治活动,并在志愿者活动中起到模范带头作用.积极锻炼身体.能够处理好学习与工作的关系,乐于助人,团结班中每一位同学,谦虚好学,受到师生的好评. 05 在思想方面,xxxx同学积极向上,热爱祖国、热爱中国共产党,拥护中国共产党的领导.作为一名共产党员时刻起到积极的带头作用,利用课余时间和党课机会认真学习政治理论. 在工作上,作为班中的团支部书记,xxxx同学积极策划组织各类团活动,具有良好的组织能力. 在学习上,xxxx同学学习努力、成绩优良、并热心帮助在学习上有困难的同学,连续两年获得二等奖学金. 在生活中,善于与人沟通,乐观向上,乐于助人.有健全的人格意识和良好的心理素质.

自我管理演讲稿英语翻译

尊敬的领导，老师，亲爱的同学们，大家好！我是5班的梁浩东。今天早上我坐车来学校的路上，我仔细观察了路上形形色色的人，有开着小车衣着精致的叔叔阿姨，有市场带着倦容的卖各种早点的阿姨，还有偶尔穿梭于人群中衣衫褴褛的乞丐。于是我问自己，十几年后我会成为怎样的自己，想成为社会成功人士还是碌碌无为的人呢，答案肯定是前者。那么十几年后我怎样才能如愿以偿呢，成为一个受人尊重，有价值的人呢？正如我今天演讲的题目是：自主管理。大家都知道爱玩是我们孩子的天性，学习也是我们的责任和义务。要怎样处理好这些矛盾，提高自主管理呢？首先，我们要有小主人翁思想，自己做自己的主人，要认识到我们学习，生活这一切都是我们自己走自己的人生路，并不是为了报答父母，更不是为了敷衍老师。我认为自主管理又可以理解为自我管理，在学习和生活中无处不在，比如通过老师，小组长来管理约束行为和同学们对自身行为的管理都属于自我管理。比如我们到一个旅游景点，看到一块大石头，有的同学特别兴奋，会想在上面刻上：某某某到此一游话。这时你就需要自我管理，你需要提醒自己，这样做会破坏景点，而且是一种素质低下的表现。你设想一下，如果别人家小孩去你家墙上乱涂乱画，你是何种感受。同样我们把自主管理放到学习上，在我们想偷懒，想逃避，想放弃的时候，我们可以通过自主管理来避免这些，通过他人或者自己的力量来完成。例如我会制定作息时间计划表，里面包括学习，运动，玩耍等内容的完成时间。那些学校学习尖子，他们学习好是智商高于我们吗，其实不然，在我所了解的哪些优秀的学霸传授经验里，就提到要能够自我管理，规范好学习时间的分分秒秒，只有辛勤的付出，才能取得优异成绩。在现实生活中，无数成功人士告诉我们自主管理的重要性。十几年后我想成为一位优秀的，为国家多做贡献的人。亲爱的同学们，你们们？让我们从现在开始重视和执行自主管理，十几年后成为那个你想成为的人。谢谢大家！

关于工作的英语演讲稿

关于工作的英语演讲稿【篇一：关于工作的英语演讲稿】关于工作的英语演讲稿 different people have various ambitions. some want to be engineers or doctors in the future. some want to be scientists or businessmen. still some wish to be teachers or lawers when they grow up in the days to come. unlike other people, i prefer to be a farmer. however, it is not easy to be a farmer for iwill be looked upon by others. anyway,what i am trying to do is to make great contributions to agriculture. it is well known that farming is the basic of the country. above all, farming is not only a challenge but also a good opportunity for the young. we can also make a big profit by growing vegetables and food in a scientific way. besides we can apply what we have learned in school to farming. thus our countryside will become more and more properous. i believe that any man with knowledge can do whatever they can so long as this job can meet his or her interest. all the working position can provide him with a good chance to become a talent. 【篇二：关于责任感的英语演讲稿】 im grateful that ive been given this opportunity to stand here as a spokesman. facing all of you on the stage, i have the exciting feeling of participating in this speech competition. the topic today is what we cannot afford to lose. if you ask me this question, i must tell you that i think the answer is a word---- responsibility. in my elementary years, there was a little girl in the class who worked very hard, however she could never do satisfactorily in her lessons. the teacher asked me to help her, and it was obvious that she expected a lot from me. but as a young boy, i was so restless and thoughtless, i always tried to get more time to play and enjoy myself. so she was always slighted over by me. one day before the final exam, she came up to me and said, could you please explain this to me? i can not understand it. i

关于时间管理的英语演讲

Dear teacher and colleagues: my topic is on “spare time”. It is a huge blessing that we can work 996. Jack Ma said at an Ali's internal communication activity, That means we should work at 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week .I question the entire premise of this piece. but I'm always interested in hearing what successful and especially rich people come up with time .So I finally found out Jack Ma also had said :”i f you don’t put out more time and energy than others ,how can you achieve the success you want? If you do not do 996 when you are young ,when will you ?”I quite agree with the idea that young people should fight for success .But there are a lot of survival activities to do in a day ,I want to focus on how much time they take from us and what can we do with the rest of the time. As all we known ,There are 168 hours in a week .We sleep roughly seven-and-a-half and eight hours a day .so around 56 hours a week . maybe it is slightly different for someone . We do our personal things like eating and bathing and maybe looking after kids -about three hours a day .so around 21 hours a week .And if you are working a full time job ,so 40 hours a week , Oh! Maybe it is impossible for us at

关于人英语演讲稿(精选多篇)

关于人英语演讲稿(精选多篇) 关于人的优美句子 1、“黑皮小子”是我对在公交车上偶遇两次的一个男孩的称呼代号。一听这个外号，你也定会知道他极黑了。他的脸总是黑黑的；裸露在短袖外的胳膊也是黑黑的；就连两只有厚厚耳垂的耳朵也那么黑黑的，时不时像黑色的猎犬竖起来倾听着什么；黑黑的扁鼻子时不时地深呼吸着，像是在警觉地嗅着什么异样的味道。 2、我不知道，如何诠释我的母亲，因为母亲淡淡的生活中却常常跳动着不一样的间最无私、最伟大、最崇高的爱，莫过于母爱。无私，因为她的爱只有付出，无需回报；伟大，因为她的爱寓于

普通、平凡和简单之中；崇高，是因为她的爱是用生命化作乳汁，哺育着我，使我的生命得以延续，得以蓬勃，得以灿烂。 3、我的左撇子伙伴是用左手写字的，就像我们的右手一样挥洒自如。在日常生活中，曾见过用左手拿筷子的，也有像超级林丹用左手打羽毛球的，但很少碰见用左手写字的。中国汉字笔画笔顺是左起右收，适合用右手写字。但我的左撇子伙伴写字是右起左收的，像鸡爪一样迈出田字格，左看右看，上看下看，每一个字都很难看。平时考试时间终了，他总是做不完试卷。于是老师就跟家长商量，决定让他左改右写。经过老师引导，家长配合，他自己刻苦练字，考试能够提前完成了。现在他的字像他本人一样阳光、帅气。 4、老师，他们是辛勤的园丁，帮助着那些幼苗茁壮成长。他们不怕辛苦地给我们改厚厚一叠的作业，给我们上课。一步一步一点一点地给我们知识。虽然

他们有时也会批评一些人，但是他们的批评是对我们有帮助的，我们也要理解他们。那些学习差的同学，老师会逐一地耐心教导，使他们的学习突飞猛进。使他们的耐心教导培养出了一批批优秀的人才。他们不怕辛苦、不怕劳累地教育着我们这些幼苗，难道不是美吗？ 5、我有一个表妹，还不到十岁，她那圆圆的小脸蛋儿，粉白中透着粉红，她的头发很浓密，而且好像马鬓毛一样的粗硬，但还是保留着孩子一样的蓬乱的美，卷曲的环绕着她那小小的耳朵。说起她，她可是一个古灵精怪的小女孩。 6、黑皮小子是一个善良的人，他要跟所有见过的人成为最好的朋友！这样人人都是他的好朋友，那么人人都是好友一样坦诚、关爱相交，这样人与人自然会和谐起来，少了许多争执了。 7、有人说，老师是土壤，把知识化作养分，传授给祖国的花朵，让他们茁壮成长。亦有人说，老师是一座知识的桥梁，把我们带进奇妙的科学世界，让

优秀党务工作者事迹简介范文

优秀党务工作者事迹简介范文优秀党务工作者事迹简介范文 ***，男，198*年**月出生，200*年加入党组织，现为***支部书记。从事党务工作以来，兢兢业业、恪尽职守、辛勤工作，出色地完成了各项任务，在思想上、政治上同党中央保持高度一致，在业务上不断进取，团结同事，在工作岗位上取得了一定成绩。一、严于律己，勤于学习作为一名党务工作者，平时十分注重知识的更新，不断加强党的理论知识的学习，坚持把学习摆在重要位置，学习领会和及时掌握党和国家的路线、方针、政策，特别是党的十九大精神，注重政治理论水平的提高，具有坚定的理论信念;坚持党的基本路线，坚决执行党的各项方针政策，自觉履行党员义务，正确行使党员权利。平时注重加强业务和管理知识的学习，并运用到工作中去，不断提升自身工作能力，具有开拓创新精神，在思想上、政治上和行动上时刻同党中央保持高度一致。二、求真务实，开拓进取在工作中任劳任怨，踏实肯干，坚持原则，认真做好学院的党务工作，按照党章的要求，严格发展党员的每一个步骤，认真细致的对待每一份材料。配合党总支书记做好学院的党建工作，完善党总支建设方面的文件、材料和工作制度、管理制度等。

三、生活朴素，乐于助人平时重视与同事间的关系，主动与同事打成一片，善于发现他人的难处，及时妥善地给予帮助。在其它同志遇到困难时，积极主动伸出援助之手，尽自己最大努力帮助有需要的人。养成了批评与自我批评的优良作风，时常反省自己的工作，学习和生活。不但能够真诚的指出同事的缺点，也能够正确的对待他人的批评和意见。面对误解，总是一笑而过，不会因为误解和批评而耿耿于怀，而是诚恳的接受，从而不断的提高自己。在生活上勤俭节朴，不铺张浪费。身为一名老党员，我感到责任重大，应该做出表率，挤出更多的时间来投入到**党总支的工作中，不找借口，不讲条件，不畏困难，将总支建设摆在更重要的位置，解开工作中的思想疙瘩，为攻坚克难铺平道路，以支部为纽带，像战友一样团结，像家庭一样维系，像亲人一样关怀，践行入党誓言。把握机遇，迎接挑战，不负初心。

关于时间的英语演讲稿范文_演讲稿.doc

关于时间的英语演讲稿范文_演讲稿 and organizing people to learn from advanced areas to broaden their horizons in order to understand the team of cadres working conditions in schools, the ministry of education has traveled a number of primary and secondary schools to conduct research, listen to the views of the school party and government leaders to make school leadership cadres receive attention and guidance of the ministry of education to carry out a variety of practical activities to actively lead the majority of young teachers work hard to become qualified personnel and for them to put up the cast talent stage, a single sail swaying, after numerous twists and turns arrived in port, if there is wind, a hand, and naturally smooth arrival and guide students to strive to e xcel, need to nazhen “wind” - teacher. teachers should be ideological and moral education, culture education and the needs of students organically combining various activities for the students or students to carry out their own. for example: school quiz competitions, essay contests, ke benju performances and other activities to enable students to give full play to their talents. teachers rush toil, in order to that will enable students to continue to draw nutrients, to help them grow up healthily and become pillars of the country before. for all students in general education, the government departments have also not forget those who cared about the

Stakeholder perceptions of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems

如何写先进个人事迹

关于时间管理的英语作文 manage time

英语演讲稿：未来的工作

最新小学生个人读书事迹简介怎么写800字

关于坚持的英语演讲稿

关于管理的英语演讲

关于工作的优秀英语演讲稿

个人先进事迹简介

自我管理演讲稿英语翻译

关于工作的英语演讲稿

关于时间管理的英语演讲

关于人英语演讲稿(精选多篇)

优秀党务工作者事迹简介范文

关于时间的英语演讲稿范文_演讲稿.doc

相关文档

最新文档