A Study of Student Perceptions on the Rights of Nature

By Jessica Rose Scudella

University of North Carolina Wilmington

Abstract

This research article explores the concept of the Rights of Nature by reviewing survey

results from undergraduate students at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) on

their perception of the Rights of Nature. The Rights of Nature are defined as nature having the

same right to exist as humans (Harden-Davis et al., 2020). This study found how receptive

undergraduate students are to the term Rights of Nature by analyzing their answers to a list of

questions, both multiple choice and short answers. The research findings concluded that students

at UNCW agree with the theoretical conceptualization of the Rights of Nature. However, they

think it is politically infeasible as a solution to environmental problems.

Acknowledgments

First, I would like to express gratitude toward my faculty advisor, Dr. Jennifer Biddle, for

being a constant resource, trouble-shooter and for remaining supportive throughout the past year.

Next, I would like to thank my Honors Thesis Committee members, Dr. Jessica Weinkle and Dr.

Christopher Dumas, who have provided another outlet to pass ideas through and help revise my

thesis with their continual support.

I want to acknowledge the UNCW Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approving my

study and providing quick answers to any questions regarding the process.

I would also like to acknowledge the UNCW Institutional Research and Planning Office

(IRP) for providing the 3,500 student emails to which this survey was sent out.

Introduction

This article examines the concept of the Rights of Nature by focusing on the University

of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) students to learn about their views on the environment

and the Rights of Nature. The term Rights of Nature was invented in the later twentieth century.

A law professor from Southern California Law Review, Christopher Stone, wrote an article

about the lack of rights given to nature (1972). The popularity of the construct began in the

1970s when major environmental laws and policies were enacted (Kotzé & Calzadilla, 2017).

For this paper, the Rights of Nature is defined as awarding nature the same right to exist as

humans (Harden-Davis et al., 2020). Although nature and humans are incomparable to many

people, giving natural resource systems the right to exist helps ensure humans have a healthy

environment (Kotzé & Calzadilla, 2017). The Rights of Nature extends existing rights to the

environment already provided by the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act that treat

natural resource systems as protected entities. Recently in the United States, environmental

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

policies have become very political and polarized (Karakas & Mitra, 2020). Socioeconomic

ideologies have been found to categorize those with similar climate change and environmental

beliefs (Karakas & Mitra, 2020).

Most people think of nature as something a person can own (Community Environmental

Legal Defense Fund [CELDF], 2016). By owning a part of nature, that person can do what they

wish with that area; therefore, it is that person's right to do as they please (CELDF, 2016).

Creating laws and ordinances for the Rights of Nature ensures the area is recognized as needing

to be protected (CELDF, 2016). Normal environmental laws regulate what happens, whereas the

Rights of Nature can prevent environmental disruption (CELDF, 2016). The Rights of Nature

approach is precautionary and preemptive. By giving Rights to Nature, the designated area has

"the right to exist and flourish" and "people, communities, and governments have the authority to

defend those rights" (CELDF, 2016). Part of the necessity for having the Rights of Nature is to

ensure that the environment stays healthy for humans; therefore, it can also be a human right, as

humans should have the right "to a healthy environment" (CELDF, 2016).

One of the viewpoints in this study is the anthropocentric perspective: that humans are

the most important entity on Earth (Burdon, 2020). This viewpoint has been strong in Americans

until recently and has been linked to the rise of the Rights of Nature construct (Burdon, 2020).

This viewpoint shifted in the 1960s as protection of the environment became widespread (Kotzé

& Calzadilla, 2017). The Rights of Nature remain a hot topic in international and United States

politics as cities, states, and countries decide whether to implement the concept (Kotzé &

Calzadilla, 2017). Unfortunately, in the United States and other countries such as Ecuador, there

is a polarized society in how citizens view the environment, and it can even be based on

indigenous philosophies (Tănăsescu, 2020). The Rights of Nature can be more effective than

normal environmental laws and policies because giving "rights" to a subject can provide more

protection (Kotzé & Calzadilla, 2017).

The Rights of Nature are not meant to draw away rights from humans. Instead, it is meant

to emphasize and strengthen human rights to privileges such as a healthy environment. Public

buy-in may be necessary for the Rights of Nature to be viable. Therefore I am collecting

students' opinions to learn if it is even something students would approve of. Citizens may also

need a clearer understanding of the term. Public participation and buy-in are important for the

success of most laws and policies. If people are involved initially, they may even be more likely

to support the Rights of Nature in their area. Since nature is a common pool resource, it is open

to anyone. Most common pool resources have a limit and can be susceptible to the tragedy of the

commons, wherein people will use the resource without thinking that others have access to it too.

This can mean that the resource ends up being depleted or polluted without consideration of what

this could mean to others. The rights of nature are important for this reason. It could help combat

the tragedy of the commons for common-pool resources, especially since we are in an age where

corporations have human rights through the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

(FEC) case (2010). Since rights have been given to non-humans before, why would they not be

able to be given to nature? This leads to the research question that this article will answer: what

are the UNCW students' perceptions of the Rights of Nature?

Literature Review

Rights of Nature was first conceived in the article “Should Trees Have Standing? -

Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects” by Christopher D. Stone (1972). This article explains

that no rights for nature have been recognized but that corporations and non-person entities have

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

recognized rights (Stone, 1972). Stone points out that even the thought of giving corporations

humanlike rights used to be taboo: “throughout legal history, each successive extension of rights

to some new entity has been, theretofore, a bit unthinkable” (1972, p. 453). This changed the

thought process that nature could have humanlike rights. We have already given corporations

and other entities extended rights, so in theory, nature should be able to have extended rights too.

Corporations were given extended rights in the Citizens United v. FEC case in 2010. In this case

that started in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, granting corporations

extended rights, such as the right to donate to political campaigns (2010). This ensured that

corporations could influence policy decisions as citizens do through political campaign

donations. Therefore, it is important to decide how the rights of corporations and nature will be

balanced, especially when only one has confirmed rights in the United States. Usually, in order

for change to occur, a possibly taboo subject has to become a forefront issue. This can be applied

to the Rights of Nature, especially since non-human entities are already entitled to humanlike

rights in some places.

Another stepping stone for the environmental protection construct is the book The Rights

of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics by Roderick Frazier Nash (1989). He explains

how many legal battles have been fought to ensure rights were gained and how this applies to

nature (Nash, 1989). At the beginning of American environmentalism, the privileges of nature

were given to white men (Nash, 1989, p. 33). The ethics of the environment and how it was

treated were not given much thought until the twentieth century (Nash, 1989, p. 34). The

concerns with nature in American history were not abundant until then because there was still a

struggle for the rights of people (Nash, 1989, p. 35). The rights of humans and nature can

conflict. When this happens, the decision is given to the court to determine how to balance the

situation (CELDF, 2016).

In 2006, the first mention of a violation of the Rights of Nature was made in Tamaqua

Borough, Pennsylvania, where “The Army For A Clean Environment” was formed and aimed to

stop the dumping of chemicals in the area (CELDF, n.d.; Community Environmental Legal

Defense Fund [CELDF], 2015). The dumping was toxic, and residents stated that the Rights of

Nature were being violated by the action of corporations (CELDF, 2015). An ordinance was

passed to protect nature and the residents around the area of the incident (CELDF, 2015). Below

is the opening line of the ordinance (Tamaqua Borough Sewage Sludge Ordinance, 2006):

“An ordinance to protect the health safety and general welfare of the citizens and environment of

Tamaqua Borough by banning corporations from engaging in the land application of sewage

sludge, by banning persons from using corporations to engage in land application of sewage

sludge, by providing for the testing of sewage sludge prior to land application in the borough, by

removing constitutional powers of corporations within the borough, by recognizing and

enforcing the rights of residents to defend natural communities ecosystems.”

Ecuador was the first country to add the Rights of Nature to its Constitution in 2008

(CELDF, n.d.). As the first country to add the Rights of Nature to its Constitution, Ecuador

became an experiment to see how well it could be followed and enforced (Kotzé & Calzadilla,

2017). The goddess Pacha Mama, considered “mother earth,” helped Ecuadorians accept the

concept (Knauß, 2018, p. 707). As the concept was part of indigenous belief, Pacha Mama

already strongly influenced everyday life (Knauß, 2018, pp. 707-708). Listed below are some

excerpts from the 2008 Ecuadorian Constitution that include mentions of the Rights of Nature

(Comparative Constitutions Project, 2021):

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Table 1: Ecuadorian Constitution Implications of Rights of Nature

Location of Text Wording Implications

Preamble “CELEBRATING nature, the Pacha

Mama (Mother Earth), of which we are a

part and which is vital to our existence,”

This section recognizes the

importance of the earth.

Chapter 1, Article

“Nature shall be the subject of those

rights that the Constitution recognizes for

it.”

This section recognizes that

nature has rights.

Chapter 6, Article

66, Section 27

“The right to live in a healthy

environment that is ecologically

balanced, pollution-free and in harmony

with nature.”

This section recognizes that

humans have the right to a

healthy environment, and

therefore the environment

needs to be protected.

Chapter 7, Article

“Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is

reproduced and occurs, has the right to

integral respect for its existence and for

the maintenance and regeneration of its

life cycles, structure, functions and

evolutionary processes. God or other

deities All persons, communities, peoples

and nations can call upon public

authorities to enforce the rights of nature.

To enforce and interpret these rights, the

principles set forth in the Constitution

shall be observed, as appropriate. The

State shall give incentives to natural

persons and legal entities and to

communities to protect nature and to

promote respect for all the elements

comprising an ecosystem.”

This section recognizes the

Rights of Nature comes from

Pacha Mama, or “mother

earth.” In order for these

rights to be met, they must be

implemented in the

Constitution.

The implications are the opinion of the researcher.

Chapter 7 is specifically about the Rights of Nature. Four articles address the concept and how

citizens are expected to proceed (Comparative Constitutions Project, 2021). These quotes were

included to showcase the wording used to describe the Rights of Nature in a constitutional

setting. Specifically in the Ecuadorian Constitution, the Rights of Nature was included because

of the prominent feature that Pacha Mama plays.

Methodology

This study utilized a survey to collect responses from students at UNCW regarding their

perspectives on the Rights of Nature construct and its applicability to the Cape Fear River (See

copy of the questionnaire in the Appendix). Data were collected to find how receptive

undergraduate students were to giving nature humanlike qualities to ensure nature has the same

rights as humans. UNCW Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was gained in the fall of

2021. After IRB approval, the UNCW Institutional Research and Planning Office (IRP) released

3,500 students' emails, about 30% of the student population, to complete the survey. The UNCW

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

emails consisted of undergraduate students over 18 years old and were not in distance education.

These emails are only accessible to the surveyor to keep results anonymous. The email that the

IRB approved was sent out to these students through Qualtrics, an online survey software.

This survey was voluntary, and no questions were required. This can cause a difference in

the amount of data received for each question. For students to remain anonymous, questions

about majors, minors, or the specific department of the student were not taken. This information

could have provided a new perspective to this study that cannot be examined at this time. No

emails or IP addresses were recorded for anonymity. The minimum consent language was

embedded at the top of the electronic survey so that students could give their consent for their

results to be used (See Appendix). Students had two weeks in November 2021 to complete the

survey.

Data

Both quantitative and qualitative data were recorded during this study. The survey

consisted of 21 questions, starting with inquiries to develop an understanding of the background

of the research subjects and the demographics questions (See Appendix, demographics questions

block). Then, a section asking about students' opinions on nature, the nature questions (See

Appendix, nature questions block). Finally, an overview of the term Rights of Nature with

follow-up questions, the Rights of Nature questions (See Appendix, Rights of Nature questions

block). There were a variety of question types used, including multiple-choice and open-ended.

In the end, there were 217 responses. Of these, only 211 could be used in the study. This was

about a 6% response rate from the sample population provided by the IRP. The six responses

taken out were responses with no data collected. For question 19, the qualitative question of the

survey, only 113 responses were recorded. These responses were taken out and numbered in no

specific order. These answers will provide themes within the data, described in more detail in the

results section. The research hypothesis for this study is that UNCW students are receptive to the

Rights of Nature concept if they believe it is politically feasible.

Analysis

After the Qualtrics survey closed and the completely blank responses were taken out, data

was looked at using the Qualtrics Reports. These reports show the distribution of data for each

question. Of the 211 respondents for question 1, 51.66% are 18-20, 36.49% are 21-24, and

11.85% are 25 years or older (See Chart 1). Of the 210 respondents for question 2, 81.43% are

white/Caucasian, 6.19% are from multiple races, 5.24% are Hispanic/Latino, 4.29% are

black/African American, 2.38% are Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.48% prefer not to state their

ethnicity (See Chart 2). In 2021, the UNCW student population of full-time undergraduates was

78.4% white (College Factual, 2021). The high correlation of white students shows that the

research paper's subset population is similar to the entire population. Of the 210 respondents for

question 3, 28.10% are male, 68.57% are female, 2.86% are non-binary/third gender, and 0.48%

are genderqueer (See Chart 3). This data is similar to that of the overall percentage of

undergraduates at UNCW in 2021, which was 61.1% female and 38.9% male (College Factual,

2021). This data does differ as there are no other gender options other than women and men in

the College Factual data. The data gathered for this research paper is still a good representation

of the student population.

Chart 1

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Chart 2

52%36%

12%

Q1 - Which category below includes your age?

18-20

21-24

25 or older

82%

4%
0%

Q2 - What is your ethnicity?

White/Caucasian

Hispanic/Latino

Black/African American

Native American/American Indian

Asian/Pacific Islander

From multiple races

Other (please specify)

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Chart 3

Of the 211 respondents for question 5, 14.69 % 70.62% have lived or gone to school in New

Hanover County for less than one year, 70.62% for 1 to 4 years, 5.21% for 5 to 9 years, 6.16%

for 10 to 19 years, and 3.32% for 20 to 29 years. For question 6 of the 211 respondents, 34.60%

are seniors, 31.75% are juniors, 22.75% are sophomores, 6.64% are freshmen, and 4.27% are

super seniors. This is not as distributive as the normal population of undergraduates at UNCW.

The total enrollment for undergraduates in the fall of 2021 was 14,488 students, and of this,

2,435 were part of the Freshman Class (University of North Carolina Wilmington [UNCW],

2021). This means that closer to 16.81% of the study should have been freshmen. The

distribution of classes is hard to control when answers are to remain anonymous. The majority of

the sample population was 18-20 years old, white/Caucasian, female, seniors, and had lived or

gone to school in New Hanover County.

Chart 4

Chart 5

28%

69%

3% 0%

Q3 - What is your gender?

Male

Female

Non-binary/third gender

Other (please specify)

15%

71%

5%
6% 3% 0%

Q5 - How long have you lived or gone to school in

New Hanover County?

Less than 1 year

1 to 4 years

5 to 9 years

10 to 19 years

20 to 29 years

30 years or more

23%

32%

34%

Q6 - What year are you at UNCW?

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Super Senior

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Results

The second and third blocks were analyzed to gain insight into UNCW student

perceptions. This section of the research is broken down into the nature and Rights of Nature

questions, as done in the survey. This breakdown was deemed necessary as the second block

helps to gain perspective on how students feel about nature and the third block on the construct

specifically.

Block 2: Nature Questions

The second block, nature questions, provides an overview of students' perceptions of

nature and their views on public affairs and news. Questions 9 through 12, Table 2, gather

responses on how aware students are of news and how they acquire information. It is important

to learn how aware students are of public affairs to see if this could influence their decisions on

how they view nature. The definition of public affairs is given to students as follows: a term used

to describe an organization's relationship with stakeholders (See Appendix). For the students that

know more about public affairs, it can be assumed they may know about the Citizens United v.

FEC case. If they knew about the Citizens United case, they would know that non-humans have

received rights. If they have this knowledge, it could influence how they answered the Rights of

Nature questions in block three. Even though a majority of students are either “not aware” or

“slightly aware” of public affairs, many believe it is either “slightly important,” “moderately

important,” or “very important” to be up to date on the news (Table 2). These data points are

contradictory to each other as it could be assumed that those aware of public affairs would find it

important to be updated on the news. It would also be assumed that students would be checking

the news more often than weekly, even though Table 2 shows that 44.85% of students only check

the news “weekly.” Respondents are also primarily receiving their news from social media, with

40.22% of students marking this option as one of the possible ways they source their news.

Table 2: Questions on Students Awareness of News

Q9 – How aware are you of public affairs?

Field Percentage Count

Not aware 30.57% 59

Slightly aware 46.11% 89

Aware 20.21% 39

Very aware 3.11% 6

100% 193

Q10 – How important is it for you to be up to date on the news?

Field Percentage Count

Not at all important 4.12% 8

Slightly important 25.77% 50

Moderately important 43.30% 84

Very important 20.10% 39

Extremely important 6.70% 13

100% 194

Q11 – How often do you check the news?

Field Percentage Count

Never 10.31% 20

Monthly 14.95% 29

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Weekly 44.85% 87

Daily 28.35% 55

Hourly 1.55% 3

100% 194

Q12 – What are the sources of your news?

Field Percentage Count

Network news outlets 29.48% 107

Print news outlets

(newspapers, magazines, etc.)

8.54% 31

Social media 40.22% 146

Cable news 9.92% 36

News related podcasts 11.85% 43

100% 363

The above data was collected from the Qualtrics survey of undergraduate students at UNCW.

The questions specific to nature in the second block are 8, 13, 14, and 15 and help create

a better idea of how students at UNCW feel about the environment without mentioning the

Rights of Nature. The data from question 8 can be found in Table 3. Over 50% of respondents

stated that the natural environment was in bad condition and there would need to be a lot of

effort put in to save it. This is a high percentage of respondents, and only 20 believe the natural

environment is in good condition. Question 13 explains the respondents' view on what New

Hanover County, North Carolina, is doing to protect its environment. Table 3 shows that the

largest group of students “neither agree nor disagree” that New Hanover County does a good job

of protecting natural resources. The next largest group of respondents somewhat disagrees and

believes that New Hanover County does not do a good job of protecting natural resources.

Question 15 provides data on respondent beliefs that the environment has changed, for example,

by increased flooding, stronger storms, higher temperatures, etc. These examples were provided

to students. Table 3 shows that most students believe that there have probably or definitely been

changes to their environment.

Table 3: Questions on Students’ View on the Environment

Q8 – In your opinion, how would you describe the condition of our natural environment?

Field Percentage Count

In good condition 10.36% 20

In some trouble and could be saved with a little

effort

36.27% 70

In bad condition and will take a lot of effort to

save it

52.85% 102

In such bad condition, that not much can be done 0.52% 1

100% 193

Q13 – Do you think New Hanover County does a good job protecting natural resources?

Field Percentage Count

Strong disagree 16.06% 31

Somewhat disagree 29.53% 57

Neither agree nor disagree 37.31% 72

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Somewhat agree 15.03% 29

Strong agree 2.07% 4

100% 193

Q15 – Have you noticed changes in your environment?

Field Percentage Count

Definitely not 0.52% 1

Probably not 6.70% 13

Might or might not 9.79% 19

Probably yes 43.81% 85

Definitely yes 39.18% 76

100% 194

The above data was collected from the Qualtrics survey of undergraduate students at UNCW.

Table 4 shows the data collected on question 14. This information was collected to learn

respondents' values and how they view the environment. Each viewpoint represents a popular

viewpoint in both past and present American environmentalism. The book, The Rights of Nature:

A History of Environmental Ethics, discussed in the Literature Review of this paper, focuses on

changing attitudes toward nature, which number 14 touches on (Nash, 1989; See Appendix). A

large majority of UNCW students consider themselves “conservationist” at 65.10%, with the

following largest category considering themselves “ecocentric” at 26.04%. The definitions

provided in the survey are given for each answer in Table 4. These definitions were listed for the

students so that respondents would not pick based on their assumptions of each value option.

Table 4: Question and Definitions on the Students’ Viewpoint of Earth

Q14 – Which viewpoint do you find aligns best with your values?

Field Definitions Percentage Count

Anthropocentric Humans are the most

important entity on earth

2.08% 4

Ecocentric Value and importance are

on nature as a whole

26.04% 50

Cornucopian Population-growth

projections do not affect

the earth and that there

are infinite resources

0.00% 0

Conservationist Extracting natural

resources from the earth

while still keeping a

sustainable relationship

with the environment

65.10% 125

Preservationist Humans should not

consume lands and

natural resources and

should be maintained in

their pristine form

6.77% 13

100% 192

The above data was collected from the Qualtrics survey of undergraduate students at UNCW.

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Block 3: Rights of Nature Questions

The third block in the survey, the Rights of Nature questions, starts with an overview and

a brief definition of the concept to give the respondents some knowledge before answering the

last six questions. Table 5 questions were regarding the execution of the Rights of Nature (See

Appendix for survey questions 16, 17, 20, and 21). These questions are all about how it could be

feasibly implemented. For question 16, there was an example given for respondents to

understand better what it was asking. The example was: “New Hanover County decides to give

the Cape Fear River humanlike rights. This would make it illegal to pollute the Cape Fear River

within New Hanover County.” The example for question 17, for better respondents'

understanding, was “the Cape Fear River.” The Cape Fear River is an example for questions 16,

17, 20, and 21 because it is a local river running through New Hanover County and is where

most residents get their water. In 2017, information was released that GenX, a chemical

compound, was dumped into the river in Fayetteville, North Carolina, a town upstream (Cape

Fear River Watch, n.d.). This quickly spread around New Hanover County, and now residents

are told to filter their water with either a reverse osmosis filter or using activated charcoal or

carbon filters (North Carolina Government, n.d.). This local pollution was an example because

most students learn about the problem at orientation. Therefore, it was pleasantly surprising to

learn that the answers to 16, 17, 20, and 21 favor the Rights of Nature and increasing water

quality protections.

Table 5: Questions Regarding the Implementation of the Rights of Nature

Q16 – If New Hanover County were to try to implement a Rights of Nature statute would

your gut reaction to be for or against it?

Field Percentage Count

Strongly disagree 5.17% 9

Somewhat disagree 5.75% 10

Neither agree nor disagree 10.34% 18

Somewhat agree 32.18% 56

Strongly agree 46.55% 81

100% 174

Q17 – Do you think the concept of Rights of Nature could be a good protection strategy

for natural resources?

Field Percentage Count

Definitely not 3.43% 6

Probably not 7.43% 13

Might or might not 13.71% 24

Probably yes 47.43% 83

Definitely yes 28.00% 49

100% 175

Q20 – If the government were to put more emphasis on water quality protection, would

you as an individual be more likely to pay high drinking water rates?

Field Percentage Count

Strongly disagree 7.43% 13

Somewhat disagree 10.86% 19

Neither agree nor disagree 16.00% 28

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Somewhat agree 44.57% 78

Strongly agree 21.14% 37

100% 175

Q21 – Would you be willing to pay more for tap water if you knew it was higher quality?

Field Percentage Count

Strongly disagree 5.71% 10

Somewhat disagree 10.86% 19

Neither agree nor disagree 12.00% 21

Somewhat agree 36.57% 64

Strongly agree 34.86% 61

100% 175

The above data was collected from the Qualtrics survey of undergraduate students at UNCW.

UNCW student perceptions of the Rights of Nature can be determined by combining

questions 18 and 19. Question 18 states, “Do you think giving the Cape Fear River the same

rights as a person is possible?” Question 19 states, “Regarding the previous question, why or

why not?” Using the quantitative data from 18 and the qualitative data from 19, each question

can be put into distinguishable value groups. Six groups were created from the given answers to

number 19: economic, miscellaneous, ecological, doubt, non-human, and political. These values

were decided by finding common themes throughout the 113 responses. Each response was read

thoroughly before deciding on common themes. These themes could be broken down more, but

for this survey, only choosing six groups kept response values concise. These groups could help

future research when comparing answers between values. Below, in Table 6, are the value

groups with a definition and example from the survey respondents.

Table 6: Delineating Question 19 Data

Value Definition Example

Economical Respondent answers are based

on how the Rights of Nature

could affect the economy.

Survey Respondent #18: “We are heavily

dependent on the Cape Fear River, like

many other natural resources in the world

and in North Carolina. It would be hard

for us to completely change our habits

without having an impact on the

economy.”

Survey Respondent #21: “The heavy

resistance that it would face by those who

use the resources of or gain economic

advantage by their relationship with the

river that would likely have to be stoped

due to implementing this.”

Miscellaneous Respondent answers could not

fit into one of the other five

categories.

Survey Respondent #11: “It is a river.”

Survey Respondent #88: “I do not

understand the concept.”

Ecological Respondent answers are based

on wanting to maintain and

Survey Respondent #24: “Aside from it

maintaing intrinsic value for existing, the

rights of nature must be maintained in

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

preserve the natural

environment.

order for humans and nature to have a

balanced existence with one another.”

Survey Respondent #40: “Because the

natural environment needs protecting just

as much as individual people.”

Doubt Respondent answers are based

on people not believing or being

apprehensive of the Rights of

Nature.

Survey Respondent #3: “I think there are a

lot of people in this area that won't ‘get’ it

and will successfully spin it negatively.”

Survey Respondent #33: “People are

selfish and entitled. If you can't get

someone to respect another person-

especially if they have the same beliefs-

they won't respect nature. If they can

respect a body of water as a person, but

not another person as a person, they are a

liar and a hypocrite.”

Non-human Respondent answers are based

on believing that nature can not

be compared to a human.

Survey Respondent #1: “In my opinion a

body of water cannot have the same rights

as a human.”

Survey Respondent #16: “Public

perception will not view it as a human

right.”

Political Respondent answers are based

on how politics will affect the

Rights of Nature.

Survey Respondent #13: “Because I

seriously doubt that all the counties that

border the Cape Fear are gonna approve

such a bill, nor is the state government

likely to step in.”

Survey Respondent #15: “Government is

influenced by people who aren’t

concerned about the environment.”

The above table has definitions based on the opinion of the researcher.

Table 7 creates a spectrum from the various answers to question 19. By combining the

distinguishable values with 18, answers align with if respondents were for or against the Rights

of Nature and their perceptions of it. Of the responses to question 19, 37.17% of them are

“political,” and most of those responses believe that it is probably not possible to give the Cape

Fear River the same rights as a person. One of these responses stated that they believe human

rights are still a concern; therefore, the Rights of Nature can not be focused on until humans are

equal. The largest overall categories were people who believe that since the Cape Fear River is

not human, it is “definitely not” or “probably not” possible to implement in New Hanover

County.

Table 7: Distinguishable Values Condensed

Economic

Miscellaneo

Ecologic

Doubt Non-

huma

Politic

Total

(Percentag

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Definitely

not

0 1 0 2 13 4 17.70%

Probably

not

1 3 0 7 13 12 31.86%

Might or

might not

1 2 1 5 5 12 23.01%

Probably

yes

1 0 6 2 1 9 16.81%

Definitely

yes

1 0 5 0 1 5 10.62%

Total

(Percentag

3.54% 5.31% 10.62% 14.16

29.20

37.17% 113

Table 7 shows groupings of the distinguishable values found in questions 18 and 19 of the

survey.

Conclusion

The research question asked: what are the UNCW students' perceptions of the Rights of

Nature? The bigger picture of this research question is the perceptions of the Rights of Nature.

The knowledge gained from this study can be used to further the Rights of Nature from the

distinguishable values discovered on the perspectives of the Rights of Nature. This topic is

important to research as the construct did pose some concerns to students on the feasibility. To

further the possibility of enacting laws, ordinances, or policies using the Rights of Nature, the

feasibility of the concept needs to be demonstrated. Overall, Table 7 shows that most

respondents believe it is probably impossible to give the Cape Fear River the same rights as a

person. Of these respondents, the theme that many of their answers to question 19 fell into was

either political or non-human. Many of the respondents who fell into the political value category

had answers based on the government not supporting the concept of the Rights of Nature. This

can be seen in survey respondents 4, 13, 15, and many more (Table 8). Studying UNCW student

perceptions helped to discover how future decision-makers and voters currently feel about the

environment and if it is possible to extend the Rights of Nature.

Table 8: Examples of Political Responses

Respondent

Number

Respondent Answer to Question 19

4 “Because for some reason taking care of the earth is a political issue. It

should not be but it is. You would have to jump through so many hoops to

make this happen and then somehow get the public on board.”

13 “Because I seriously doubt that all the counties that border the Cape Fear

are gonna approve such a bill, nor is the state government likely to step in.”

15 “Government is influenced by people who aren’t concerned about the

environment.”

Table 8 shows examples of respondents who answered in a political fashion. The numbers given

to each answer have no specific meaning. No edits were made to the answers.

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

The significance of the results is that although UNCW students are receptive to the

concept of the Rights of Nature, they do not believe it is politically feasible. Many respondents

thought it would be a good addition to protect the environment but lacked feasibility. The

research hypothesis that UNCW students are receptive to the concept of the Rights of Nature if

they believe it is politically feasible was found more false than true. This is because more

students believe it is “definitely not” possible and “probably not” possible to give the Cape Fear

River the same rights as a person for political reasons. This combined data would be 49.56% of

respondents, whereas students who believe it is “definitely” and “probably” possible to give the

Cape Fear River the same rights as a person for political reasons account for only 27.43% of the

data collected. The other respondents fall in the middle, believing that it "might or might not" be

possible to give the Cape Fear River the same rights as a person for political reasons, at 23.01%

of respondents. This concern must be addressed each time the Rights of Nature are implemented.

Future research could focus on how to make this happen.

Research Limitations

There has not been a study done on a college campus before to learn about student

perception of the Rights of Nature. One limitation is that there was a disproportionate number of

students per grade level. There were fewer freshmen and more juniors and seniors. There was

also limited racial diversity in participants as this college is predominantly white. Therefore,

future studies, including a more ethnically diverse set of students, would be of interest. As this

study was conducted on a college campus, it limits the information gathered on demographics

outside of considered normality inside a college. This would be a limitation in age, location, and

employment status. Another limitation was based on Question 21, “Would you be willing to pay

more for tap water if you knew it was higher quality?” as it lacked a specific number, which

could have led to variability when being answered. If the sample population was divided into

different groups and these students were asked the same question with a specific number, we

could find out the students' willingness to pay. There is a difference in perceptions between the

value groups decided in this study. In future research, the six groups can be used to compare

their values with other factors from the survey. The importance of this study was to flush out the

data received. In the future, the variables and categorized groups can be studied to discover if

there are any relationship patterns. An ANOVA and t-test can be used to compare the

relationships. An ANOVA test can be used to compare the demographic questions and

theoretical construct questions, Question 19, and answers. The smaller value groups, economical,

miscellaneous, and ecological, would have to be combined to use an ANOVA test. Post-

stratification can also adjust the survey results to be more proportional and in line with the entire

population results at UNCW for undergraduate students over 18 who are not in distance

education. An additional limitation would be that the students at this college are possibly more

aware of environmental issues because of the water quality issues within this community. Even

so, the students did not strongly advocate for the Rights of Nature. Thus, a study on students with

no linkage to an environmental issue may show a different level of support for the Rights of

Nature and even the future of the concept.

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

References

Boyd, D. R. (2017). Rights of nature: A legal revolution that could save the world. ECW Press.

Burdon, P. D. (2020). Obligations in the Anthropocene. Law and Critique 31, 309–328.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-020-09273-9

Cape Fear River Watch. (n.d.). Genx and PFAS: Short History. Advocacy.

https://capefearriverwatch.org/genx/

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), 08–205 (2010).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZS

College Factual. (2021). University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-north-carolina-at-

wilmington/student-life/diversity/#overview

Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund [CELDF]. (n.d.). Rights of nature: Timeline.

https://celdf.org/rights-of-nature/timeline/

Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund [CELDF]. (2015). Tamaqua Borough,

Pennsylvania. https://celdf.org/2015/08/tamaqua-borough/

Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund [CELDF]. (2016). Rights of nature FAQs.

https://celdf.org/2016/03/rights-nature-

faqs/#:~:text=In%20November%202010%2C%20the%20City,established%20Rights%20

of%20Nature%20laws.

Comparative Constitutions Project. (2021). Ecuador Constitution of 2008.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ecuador_2008.pdf

Hardin-Davies, H., Humphries, F., Maloney, M., Wright, G., Gjerde, K., & Vierros, M. (2020).

Rights of nature: Perspectives for global ocean stewardship. Marine Policy 122, 104059.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104059

Karakas, L. D., & Mitra, D. (2020). Believers vs. deniers: Climate change and environmental

policy polarization. European Journal of Political Economy 65, 101948.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2020.101948

Knauß, S. (2018). Conceptualizing human stewardship in the Anthropocene: The rights of nature

in Ecuador, New Zealand and India. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics

31, 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9731-x

Kotzé, L. J., & Calzadilla, P. V. (2017). Somewhere between rhetoric and reality: Environmental

constitutionalism and the rights of nature in Ecuador. Transnational Environmental Law,

6(2), 401–434. https://heinonline-

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-020-09273-9
https://capefearriverwatch.org/genx/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZS
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-north-carolina-at-wilmington/student-life/diversity/#overview
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-north-carolina-at-wilmington/student-life/diversity/#overview
https://celdf.org/rights-of-nature/timeline/
https://celdf.org/2015/08/tamaqua-borough/
https://celdf.org/2016/03/rights-nature-faqs/#:~:text=In%20November%202010%2C%20the%20City,established%20Rights%20of%20Nature%20laws
https://celdf.org/2016/03/rights-nature-faqs/#:~:text=In%20November%202010%2C%20the%20City,established%20Rights%20of%20Nature%20laws
https://celdf.org/2016/03/rights-nature-faqs/#:~:text=In%20November%202010%2C%20the%20City,established%20Rights%20of%20Nature%20laws
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ecuador_2008.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104059
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2020.101948
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9731-x
https://heinonline-org.liblink.uncw.edu/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/tevl6&id=424&men_tab=srchresults

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

org.liblink.uncw.edu/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/tevl6&id=42

4&men_tab=srchresults

Nash, R. F. (1989). The rights of nature: A history of environmental ethics. The University of

Wisconsin Press.

North Carolina Government. (n.d.). GenX frequently asked questions.

https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/GenX/SAB/FAQ_updated_021518.pdf

Stone, C. D. (1972). Should trees have standing? – toward legal rights for national objects.

Southern California Law Review, 45(2), 450–501.

Tamaqua Borough Sewage Sludge Ordinance, Ordinance No. 612. (2006).

http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload666.pdf

Tănăsescu, M. (2020). Rights of nature, legal personality, and indigenous philosophies.

Transnational Environmental Law, 9, 429–453. https://doi-

org.liblink.uncw.edu/10.1017/S2047102520000217

University of North Carolina Wilmington [UNCW]. (2021). UNCW at a Glance.

https://uncw.edu/aboutuncw/facts.html

https://heinonline-org.liblink.uncw.edu/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/tevl6&id=424&men_tab=srchresults
https://heinonline-org.liblink.uncw.edu/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/tevl6&id=424&men_tab=srchresults
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/GenX/SAB/FAQ_updated_021518.pdf
http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload666.pdf
https://doi-org.liblink.uncw.edu/10.1017/S2047102520000217
https://doi-org.liblink.uncw.edu/10.1017/S2047102520000217
https://uncw.edu/aboutuncw/facts.html

A STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF NATURE

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Appendix

Rights of Nature Qualtrics Survey

Start of Block: Participation is Voluntary

Your participation is voluntary. You may refuse to participate or refuse to answer any

question. You may stop at any time without penalty.

The data you provide will be kept secure once it is in the researcher's possession.

However, the researcher cannot guarantee security during transmission of the data due to

keylogging or other spyware that may exist on the computer you are using.

If you are under 18 or not an undergraduate student at the University of North Carolina

Wilmington, please do not continue.

All responses will be kept anonymous and there will be no identifiers reported.

End of Block: Participation is Voluntary

Start of Block: Demographic Questions

1. Which category below includes your
age? (If you are under 18, please do

not continue)

o 18-20

o 21-24

o 25 or older

2. What is your ethnicity?
o White/Caucasian

o Hispanic/Latino

o Black/African American

o Native American/American

Indian

o Asian/Pacific Islander

o From multiple races

o Other (please specify)

___________________________

3. What is your gender?
o Male

o Female

o Non-binary / third gender

o Other (please specify)

___________________________

4. Which of the following categories
best describes your employment

status? (You may select more than

one answer.)

▢ Employed, working full-time

(40+ hours a week)

▢ Employed, working part-time

(less than 40 hours a week)

▢ Unemployed (currently looking

for work)

▢ Unemployed (not currently

looking for work)

▢ Student

▢ Retired

▢ Self-Employed

▢ Disabled, not able to work

▢ Other (please specify)

___________________________

5. How long have you lived or gone to
school in New Hanover County?

o Less than 1 year

o 1 to 4 years

o 5 to 9 years

o 10 to 19 years

o 20 to 29 years

o 30 years or more

6. What year are you at UNCW? (If
you are not an undergraduate student

at UNCW, please do not continue.)

o Freshman

o Sophomore

o Junior

o Senior

o Super Senior

7. Do you identify as an in-state or out-
of-state student?

o In-state

o Out-of-state

End of Block: Demographic Questions

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

Start of Block: Nature Questions

8. In your opinion, how would you
describe the condition of our natural

environment?

o In good condition

o In some trouble and could be

saved with a little effort

o In bad condition and will take a

lot of effort to save it

o In such bad condition, that not

much can be done

9. How aware are you of public affairs?
(Public affairs: a term used to

describe an organization's

relationship with stakeholders.)

o Not aware

o Slightly aware

o Aware

o Very aware

10. How important is it for you to be up
to date on the news?

o Not at all important

o Slightly important

o Moderately important

o Very important

o Extremely important

11. How often do you check the news?
o Never

o Monthly

o Weekly

o Daily

o Hourly

12. What are the sources of your news?

▢ Network news outlets

▢ Print news outlets (newspapers,

magazines, etc.)

▢ Social media

▢ Cable news

▢ News related podcasts

13. Do you think New Hanover County
does a good job protecting natural

resources? (for example, river water

quality)

o Strongly disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat agree

o Strongly agree

14. Which viewpoint do you find aligns
best with your values?

o Anthropocentric (humans are

the most important entity on earth)

o Ecocentric (value and

importance is on nature as a whole)

o Cornucopian (population-

growth projections do not affect the Earth

and that there are infinite resources)

o Conservationist (extracting

natural resources from the Earth while still

keeping a sustainable relationship with the

environment)

o Preservationist (humans should

not consume lands and natural resources and

should instead be maintained in their pristine

form)

15. Have you noticed changes in your
environment? (for example,

increased flooding, stronger storms,

higher temperatures, etc.)

o Definitely not

o Probably not

o Might or might not

o Probably yes

o Definitely yes

End of Block: Nature Questions

Start of Block: Rights of Nature Questions

Block 3 The following set of questions talks about the concept of Rights of Nature.

Rights of Nature is the concept that nature has the right to exist the same way as humans

(Harden-Davies, et. al., 2020). This concept is based on giving nature the ability to have

personhood, which in turn gives the specific part of nature rights that a human would have

Undergraduate Journal of Community-Based Research and Service Learning, Vol. 13 Issue 2, Winter 2023

(Kinkaid, 2019). This ability for nature to have personhood means that there are certain aspects

of respect that nature then receives.

16. If New Hanover County were to try
to implement a Rights of Nature

statute would your gut reaction to be

for or against it? (For instance, New

Hanover County decides to give the

Cape Fear River human-like rights.

This would make it illegal to pollute

the Cape Fear River within New

Hanover County.)

o Strongly disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat agree

o Strongly agree

17. Do you think the concept of Rights
of Nature could be a good protection

strategy for natural resources? (for

example: the Cape Fear River)

o Definitely not

o Probably not

o Might or might not

o Probably yes

o Definitely yes

18. Do you think giving the Cape Fear
River the same rights as a person is

possible?

o Definitely not

o Probably not

o Might or might not

o Probably yes

o Definitely yes

19. Regarding the previous question,
why or why not?

___________________________

20. If the government were to put more
emphasis on water quality

protection, would you as an

individual be more likely to pay high

drinking water rates?

o Strongly disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat agree

o Strongly agree

21. Would you be willing to pay more
for tap water if you knew it was

higher quality?

o Strongly disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat agree

o Strongly agree

End of Block: Rights of Nature Questions