Naturalness

About: Naturalness is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1305 publications have been published within this topic receiving 31737 citations.

Contingent and A Priori Structures in Sequential Analysis

Abstract: This discussion will attempt to exploit a distinction to be drawn between con? tingent and a priori structures of illocutionary actions in the service of formulat? ing a response to the following problem: to what extent, if at all, do claims for the conventionality of any given, identified sequential arrangement of utterances arising in natural conversational interaction depend upon statistical arguments? Given that there are indefinitely many conversations going on in the world, how are serious analytical claims for the "naturalness" or "organizational priority" of specific sequential arrangements to be justified? I shall propose that two major sorts of analytical findings advanced within the sequential analysis of discourse need to be brought into clearer focus. One type of finding is concerned with the specification of empirically contingent organiza? tions of utterances for vernacularly-defined sequence-types such as "request sequences," "trouble sequences," "complaint sequences" and the like. These findings characteristically take the shape of exhibiting a local orderliness to inter (and intra-) utterance relations without strong claims for distributive scope across a set. Where such a distributive claim is advanced it is usually based upon having discovered closely similar sequential arrangements in some corpus of intuitively defined "like cases," and the warrant for the claim for conventionality is weak inductive evidence. On the other hand, by far the strongest arguments have been advanced for the more "abstract" structures which may be evident in materials of a vast variety and which do not appear to be restricted in their occurrence to vernacularly-defined sequence-types of any specific sort. Claims for their con? ventionality appear to be much stronger and relatively impervious to demands for their statistical distribution as a basis for grounding. In other words, whilst analysts may be vulnerable to the charge of weak inductive support for the generality they claim for some contingent sequential arrangements proposed to

The Naturalness versus Wildness Debate: Ambiguity, Inconsistency, and Unattainable Objectivity

Abstract: The naturalness versus wildness debate has gained some prominence in recent years and has seen considerable discussion of issues akin to those that have generated such tension between restorationists and preservationists. This debate is hampered by the terms in which it is framed. The primary meaning of both naturalness and wildness relates to the description of processes or behavior that lack human intervention. This enables human activities and artifacts (such as childbirth, food, and medicine) to be rated according to naturalness. However, when the terms are applied to the description of species and ecosystems, process-oriented definitions are forgotten in favor of historical benchmarks. This can result in serious inconsistencies between those who adhere to the different interpretations, exemplified by the tendency of conservationists to view ‘‘naturalness’’ as being consistent with human intervention in natural processes. The choice of one or the other interpretation is motivated by whether one prioritizes the conservation of biodiversity or minimizing human intervention. There have been claims that naturalness provides an objective measure for assessing biodiversity and calls for value-laden terms to be avoided. Yet, the values are central, and the best that can be hoped for is that the debate be framed using terms that are more indicative of these underlying values. It is suggested here that naturalness versus wildness be recast as ‘‘protecting biodiversity’’ versus ‘‘respect for nature’s autonomy.’’ Not only do these terms avoid the ambiguities of their forebears but they also expose the debate as the result of slight shifts in value priorities rather than fundamentally opposed worldviews.

What determines how we see nature? Perceptions of naturalness in designed urban green spaces

Abstract: 1. The multiple benefits of ‘nature’ for human health and well‐being have been documented at an increasing rate over the past 30 years. A growing body of research also demonstrates the positive well‐being benefits of nature‐connectedness. There is, however, a lack of evidence about how people's subjective nature experience relates to deliberately designed and managed urban green infrastructure (GI) with definable ‘objective’ characteristics such as vegetation type, structure and density. Our study addresses this gap. 2. Site users (n = 1411) were invited to walk through woodland, shrub and herbaceous planting at three distinctive levels of planting structure at 31 sites through‐out England, whilst participating in a self‐guided questionnaire survey assessing reactions to aesthetics, perceived plant and invertebrate biodiversity, restorative effect, nature‐connectedness and socio‐demographic characteristics. 3. There was a significant positive relationship between perceived naturalness and planting structure. Perceived naturalness was also positively related to the perceived plant and invertebrate biodiversity value, participants’ aesthetic appreciation and the self‐reported restorative effect of the planting. A negative relationship was recorded between perceived naturalness and perceived tidiness and care. Our findings showed that participants perceived ‘naturalness’ as biodiverse, attractive and restorative, but not necessarily tidy. Perceived naturalness was also related to participants’ educational qualifications, gender and nature‐connectedness, with women and more nature‐connected participants perceiving significantly greater levels of naturalness in the planting. 4. These findings are highly significant for policymakers and built environment professionals throughout the world aiming to design, manage and fund urban GI to achieve positive human health and biodiversity outcomes. This applies particularly under austerity approaches to managing urban green spaces where local authorities have experienced cuts in funding and must prioritise and justify GI maintenance practices and regimes.