Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural sustainability and ecological function

In an interdisciplinary project to develop protocols for long-term cultural and ecological monitoring of wetland restorations in Minnesota, we compared restored and reference wetlands on several ecological and cultural measures including land-use context, cultural perceptions, and management practices. Cultural measures were drawn from our surveys of visitors, neighbors, planners, and managers of the wetlands. This paper discusses their perceptions of six metropolitan wetlands (four recent restorations and two reference sites), how cultural measures of their perceptions compared with selected site characteristics and biodiversity measures, and what results suggest for wetland design and management. Overall, sites that were perceived as more well-cared-for and as a good place to enjoy nature were perceived as more attractive. In addition, objective site characteristics, like cultural cues and natural landscape context, were related to perceived attractiveness. While plant species richness was not significantly related to perceived wetland attractiveness for our sites, bird species richness was related to attractiveness.

[1]  Brent L. Mahan,et al.  Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Price Approach , 1996 .

[2]  A. Bright,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Ecological Restoration in the Chicago Metropolitan Region , 2002 .

[3]  B. Ferguson.  Introduction to Stormwater: Concept, Purpose, Design , 1998 .

[4]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes , 1985 .

[5]  B. Kaltenborn,et al.  Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences , 2002 .

[6]  P. Gobster.  Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration , 2001 .

[7]  Mark Francis,et al.  Control as a Dimension of Public-Space Quality , 1989 .

[8]  Susan M. Galatowitsch,et al.  Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape , 1998 .

[9]  Michael E. Gilpin,et al.  Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research , 1989 .

[10]  David Pitt,et al.  Review: ‘Perception and Measurement of Scenic Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley’ Publication No r-74-1 , 1974 .

[11]  Patricia Manuel.  Cultural perceptions of small urban wetlands: Cases from the Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia, Canada , 2003, Wetlands.

[12]  H. Décamps.  How a riparian landscape finds form and comes alive , 2001 .

[13]  A. E. Luloff,et al.  Landowner Perceptions of Protecting and Establishing Riparian Forests: A Qualitative Analysis , 2004 .

[14]  Lot size, garden satisfaction and local park and wetland visitation , 2001 .

[15]  L. M. Anderson,et al.  Perception of Personal Safety in Urban Recreation Sites , 1984 .

[16]  N. M. Kelly.  Changes to the landscape pattern of coastal North Carolina wetlands under the Clean Water Act, 1984–1992 , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[17]  Joan Iverson Nassauer.  The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[18]  Louise A. Mozingo,et al.  The Aesthetics of Ecological Design: Seeing Science as Culture , 1997, Landscape Journal.

[19]  Charles C. Schrader.  Rural greenway planning: the role of streamland perception in landowner acceptance of land management strategies , 1995 .

[20]  M. Kaplowitz,et al.  Michigan residents’ perceptions of wetlands and mitigation , 2003, Wetlands.

[21]  J. Cary,et al.  Landscape Preferences, Ecological Quality, and Biodiversity Protection , 2002 .

[22]  Robert L. Ryan,et al.  Local perceptions and values for a midwestern river corridor , 1998 .

[23]  R. Bruce Hull,et al.  Public Understandings of Nature: A Case Study of Local Knowledge About "Natural" Forest Conditions , 2001 .

[24]  Introduction: Long-term ecological sustainability of wetlands in urbanizing landscapes , 1998, Urban Ecosystems.

[25]  R. Darlington,et al.  Factor Analysis , 2008 .

[26]  Y. Tuan,et al.  Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets , 1985 .

[27]  Robert D. Brown,et al.  Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites , 2002 .

[28]  Joan Iverson Nassauer,et al.  Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames , 1995, Landscape Journal.

[29]  John F. Davis,et al.  Wetlands of the American Midwest: A Historical Geography of Changing Attitudes , 1998 .

[30]  Robert D. Bixler,et al.  Nature is Scary, Disgusting, and Uncomfortable , 1997 .

[31]  Richard M. Lehtinen,et al.  Colonization of Restored Wetlands by Amphibians in Minnesota , 2001 .

[32]  Charles G. Crawford,et al.  FACTORS AFFECTING PESTICIDE OCCURRENCE AND TRANSPORT IN A LARGE MIDWESTERN RIVER BASIN 1 , 2001 .

[33]  R. Bruce Hull,et al.  Beyond Biology: toward a More Public Ecology for Conservation , 2001 .

[34]  Joy B. Zedler,et al.  Managing urban wetlands for multiple use: research, restoration, and recreation , 1998, Urban Ecosystems.

[35]  Joan Iverson Nassauer.  ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION AND THE PERCEPTION OF SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPES , 2009 .

[36]  Joan Iverson Nassauer,et al.  Culture and changing landscape structure , 1995, Landscape Ecology.

[37]  William C. Sullivan,et al.  Transforming Inner-City Landscapes , 1998 .

[38]  Joan Iverson Nassauer,et al.  The Aesthetics of Horticulture: Neatness as a Form of Care , 1988, HortScience.

[39]  E. Baxter,et al.  a Study of Residential Stormwater Impoundments: Perceptions and Policy Implications , 1985 .

[40]  Lynne M. Westphal.  Growing Power?: Social Benefits From Urban Greening Projects , 1999 .