Does human perception of wetland aesthetics and healthiness relate to ecological functioning?

Wetland management usually aims at preserving or restoring desirable ecological characteristics or functions. It is now well-recognized that some social criteria should also be included. Involving lay-people in wetland preservation or restoration projects may mean broadening project objectives to fit various and potentially competing requirements that relate to ecology, aesthetics, recreation, etc. In addition, perceived value depends both upon expertise and objectives, both of which vary from one stakeholder population to another. Perceived value and ecological functioning have to be reconciled in order to make a project successful. Understanding the perceptions of lay-people as well as their opinions about ecological value is a critical part of the development of sustainable management plans. Characterizing the environment in a way that adequately describes ecological function while also being consistent with lay perception may help reach such objectives. This goal has been addressed in a case study relating to wetlands of the Ain River (France). A photo-questionnaire presenting a sample of photographs of riverine wetlands distributed along the Ain River was submitted to 403 lay-people and self-identified experts. Two objectives were defined: (1) to identify the different parameters, whether visual or ecological, influencing the perception regarding the value of these ecosystems; (2) to compare the perceptions of self-identified experts and lay-people. Four criteria appear to strongly influence peoples' perceptions of ecological and aesthetical values: water transparency and colour, the presence and appearance of aquatic vegetation, the presence of sediments, and finally, trophic status. In our study, we observed only a few differences in perception. The differences primarily related to the value assigned to oligotrophic wetlands but even here, the differences between lay and expert populations were minimal. These results support the idea that it is possible to implement an integrated and participative management program for ecosystems. Our approach can provide a shared view of environmental value facilitating the work of managers in defining comprehensive goals for wetland preservation or restoration projects.

[1]  U. Eco,et al.  Histoire de la laideur , 2011 .

[2]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective , 1989 .

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

[4]  A. Stamps.  Demographic Effects in Environmental Aesthetics: A Meta-Analysis , 1999 .

[5]  M. Power,et al.  Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems , 2012, PLoS biology.

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

[7]  C. Morris,et al.  Changes in plant form and function across altitudinal and wetness gradients in the wetlands of the Maloti-Drakensberg, South Africa , 2010, Plant Ecology.

[8]  A. Stamps.  Use of Photographs to Simulate Environments: A Meta-Analysis , 1990 .

[9]  D. Pitt.  The Attractiveness and Use of Aquatic Environments as Outdoor Recreation Places , 1989 .

[10]  L. Alessa,et al.  Social–ecological hotspots mapping : A spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological space , 2008 .

[11]  Jean-François Augoyard.  La vue est-elle souveraine dans l'esthétique paysagère ? , 1991 .

[12]  J. R. Wherrett.  Creating Landscape Preference Models Using Internet Survey Techniques , 2000 .

[13]  Augustin Berque,et al.  Les raisons du paysage : de la Chine antique aux environnements de synthèse , 1995 .

[14]  Hervé Piégay,et al.  Fluvial remote sensing for science and management. , 2012 .

[15]  David G. Smith,et al.  Offsite measurement of the visual clarity of waters , 1992 .

[16]  G. Fry,et al.  The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[17]  Water quality perception, a dynamic evaluation , 1984 .

[18]  C. Raymond,et al.  The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment , 2007 .

[19]  G. Bornette,et al.  River incision and vegetation dynamics in cut-off channels , 1996, Aquatic Sciences.

[20]  David P. Robertson,et al.  The language of nature matters: we need a more public ecology , 2000 .

[21]  Constantino Arce,et al.  CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPES USING QUANTITATIVE AND CATEGORICAL DATA, AND PREDICTION OF THEIR SCENIC BEAUTY IN NORTH-WESTERN SPAIN , 2000 .

[22]  R. Davis,et al.  The Perception of Riverscape Aesthetics: an Example from Two Hampshire Rivers , 1993 .

[23]  Margaret A. House,et al.  Public Perception of River-Corridor Management , 1991 .

[24]  J. Meyer.  Stream Health: Incorporating the Human Dimension to Advance Stream Ecology , 1997, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[25]  David E. Simcox,et al.  Landscape change: Perceptions and physical measures , 1989 .

[26]  P. Blandin,et al.  A l'aube d'une nouvelle écologie ? Il faut admettre qu'il n'y a plus la nature d'un côté, l'homme de l'autre , 2000 .

[27]  G. Bornette,et al.  Connectivity and biocomplexity in waterbodies of riverine floodplains , 2002 .

[28]  K. Wittmann,et al.  Objective versus subjective assessments of environmental quality of standing and running waters in a large city , 2008 .

[29]  Hasan Yilmaz,et al.  Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method , 2009, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[30]  J. Stephenson.  The Cultural Values Model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes , 2008 .

[31]  G. Bornette,et al.  A Vegetation-Based Method for Ecological Diagnosis of Riverine Wetlands , 2000, Environmental management.

[32]  M. Cossin.  Caractérisation paysagère de quelques cours d'eau de taille moyenne des bassins du Rhône et de la Loire : éléments méthodologiques pour une gestion durable des corridors fluviaux , 2008 .

[33]  Jean-Luc Peiry,et al.  River incision in south-east France: morphological phenomena and ecological effects , 1997 .

[34]  J. Nassauer.  Cultural Sustainability: Aligning Aesthetics and Ecology , 1997 .

[35]  Joan Iverson Nassauer,et al.  Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural sustainability and ecological function , 2004, Wetlands.

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

[37]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Habitat Restoration—Do We Know What We’re Doing? , 2007 .

[38]  William C. Sullivan,et al.  Preferences for riparian buffers. , 2009 .

[39]  Hervé Piégay,et al.  Channel metamorphosis, floodplain disturbance, and vegetation development : Ain River, France , 1995 .

[40]  J. Whalley.  Water in the landscape , 1988 .

[41]  Hervé Piégay,et al.  Public Perception as a Barrier to Introducing Wood in Rivers for Restoration Purposes , 2005, Environmental management.

[42]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The perception of landscape style: a cross-cultural comparison , 1990 .

[43]  Eric Higgs,et al.  What is Good Ecological Restoration? , 1997 .

[44]  P. Gobster.  Restoring Nature: Human Actions, Interactions and reactions , 2000 .

[45]  R. Millward,et al.  The Experience of Landscape , 1988 .

[46]  J. Nasar,et al.  Landscape mirror: the attractiveness of reflecting water , 2004 .

[47]  R. Ulrich.  Natural Versus Urban Scenes , 1981 .

[48]  Andrew J. Boulton,et al.  An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and prognosis , 1999 .

[49]  Matthias Buchecker,et al.  Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations , 2008 .

[50]  Gérald Domon,et al.  An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents: Landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use , 2009 .