Mowing, as it turns out, is one of the most harmful activities that we do in terms of its impact on biodiversity—something that extends to our land management practices more generally. Yet, when we talked to our local council about considering a reduced mowing schedule, they indicated some reluctance because of the number of complaints they get from constituents whenever there was ‘too little’ mowing in the eyes of the complainants.

But isn’t it often that the loudest number amongst the few? The answer seemed ‘often enough’ for us to wonder if the complaints were reflective of the general publics’ view. And then we further wondered what levers could be used to sway public perceptions of ecologically conscious land-management (ECLM) practices.

So, we set out on a collaborative journey with Durham County Council and designed a survey to assess preferences for ECLM practices and to test the perceptions and concerns that most predicted those perceptions.

We sent out a survey via the council’s mailing list in which we asked people to indicate how much they would support (a) a reduction in mowing and (b) an increase in wilding for greenspaces. We then asked them how they tended to perceive mown greenspaces (e.g., as pretty, as safe, as good/bad for the environment) and how concerned they were, when it came to mowing those spaces, about certain issues (e.g., neatness, cost, ecological impact). We also asked them a number of questions about specific spaces but you’ll just have to read the paper for that level of nuance!

On the whole, we found that people were slightly supportive of reduced mowing (significantly more supportive than ‘ambivalent’ at the very least) and VERY supportive of increased wilding. Good news!

We also found that of the various concerns and perceptions that we measured, ecological concerns/perceptions were NOT the most important lever. That is, while we did find that people overwhelmingly said that the ecological impact was their top priority, this wasn’t the most important predictor of ECLM preferences. This makes sense when you think about it. If everyone says ‘I care about the environment a lot’ (which is what our sample reported), but some of those people say they want more mowing and some say they want less mowing, well then its not going to help us differentiate who wants mowing and who doesn’t—and it certainly indicates that concern about the environment isn’t pushing people in one direction or the other.

Instead, we found that concerns about aesthetic appeal (e.g., neatness) were the biggest driver of ECLM preferences, over and above everything else we measured in the survey.

So, what this tells us is that it might be better to frame solutions in terms of their aesthetic benefits and it might be better to pick solutions that are more aesthetically pleasing—for example, sowing a field of wildflowers rather than simply letting a greenspace grow completely wild.

---

Read more here:

Hughes, J. P., Lengieza, M., & Knight, G. (2025). Beauty not Sustainability: Support for mowing and rewilding is most influenced by subjective visual appeal not ecological friendliness. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 129076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.129076