, 24:756 | Cite as

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

  • Joan Iverson Nassauer


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.

Key Words

public perception maintenance management monitoring biodiversity urban 

Literature Cited

  1. Baxter, E. H., G. Mulamoottil, and D. Gregor. 1985. A study of residential storm water impoundments: Perceptions and policy implications. Water Resources Bulletin 21:83–88.Google Scholar
  2. Bixler, R. D. and M. F. Floyd. 1997. Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior 29:443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohnen, J. L. and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2004. Meadow and marsh vegetation establishment from planting and natural recolonization: a case study of a wetland restoration in Minnesota (USA). Personal Communication.Google Scholar
  4. Bright, A. D., S. C. Barro, and R. T. Burtz. 2002. Public attitudes toward ecological restoration in the Chicago metropolitan region. Society and Natural Resources 15:763–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, S. 1994. Private landowner values and perceptions of rare species and natural communities in a Minnesota county. MLA Thesis. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Daily, G. C. 1993. Social constraints on restoration ecology. p. 9–16. In D. A. Saunders, R. J. Hobbs, and P. R. Ehrlich (eds.) Reconstruction of Fragmented Ecosystems: Global and Regional Perspectives: 3. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, AU.Google Scholar
  7. Debo, T. N. and H. Ruby. 1982. Detention basins—an urban experience. Public Works:42–43.Google Scholar
  8. Decamps, H. 2001. How a riparian landscape finds form and comes alive. Landscape and Urban Planning 57:169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dutcher, D. D., J. C. Finley, A. E. Luluff, and J. Johnson. 2004. Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: a qualitative analysis. Society and Natural Resources 17:329–342.Google Scholar
  10. Ferguson, B. K. 1998. Introduction to Stormwater: Concept, Purpose, Design. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Francis, M. 1989. Control as a dimension of public-space quality. p. 147–172. In I. Altman and E. H. Zube (eds.) Public Places and Spaces. Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Galatowitsch, S., J. Nassauer, R. Budelsky, R. Lehtinen, J. Mulhouse, D. Whited, and A. Capistrant. 1999. Long-Term Wetlands Ecosystems Monitoring. Report to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (ML 1997 Chap. 216, Sec. 15, Subd 14 (e).Google Scholar
  13. Gobster, P. H. 2001. Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 56:35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gorsuch, R. L. 1983. Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Guntenspergen, G. R. and C. P. Dunn. 1998. Introduction: Longterm ecological sustainability of wetlands in urbanizing landscapes. Urban Ecosystems 2:187–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hands, D. E. and R. D. Brown. 2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herzog, T. R. 1985. A cognitive analysis of preference for water-scapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 5:225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hull, R. B., D. P. Robertson, and A. Kendra. 2001. Public understandings of nature: A case study of local knowledge about “natural” forest conditions. Society and Natural Resources 14:325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities. 1978. Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes System. International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  20. Jordan, W. R. III, M. E. Gilpin, and J. D. Aber. 1987. Restoration Ecology: a Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Kaltenborn, B. and T. Bjerke. 2002. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 59:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaplowitz, M. D. and J. Kerr. 2003. Michigan residents’ perceptions of wetlands and mitigation. Wetlands 23:267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelly, N. M. 2001. Changes to the landscape pattern of coastal North Carolina wetlands under the Clean Water Act 1984–1992. Landscape Ecology 16:3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuo, F. E., M. Bacaicoa, and W. Sullivan. 1998. Transforming inner-city neighborhoods: trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior 30:28–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lehtinen, R. M. and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2001. Colonization of restored wetlands by amphibians in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 145:338–396.Google Scholar
  26. Mahan, B. L., S. Polasky, and R. M. Adams. 2000. Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Economics 76:100–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manning, O. 1979. Designing for nature in cities. p. 3–36. In I. C. Laurie (ed.) Nature in the City. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  28. Manuel, P. M. 2003. Cultural perceptions of small urban wetlands: Cases from the Halifax regional municipality, Nova Scotia, Canada. Wetlands 23:921–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matsuoka, R. H. 2002. Increasing the acceptability of urban nature through effective cues to care: a case study of the lower Arroyo Seco Natural Park, Pasadena, California. MLA thesis. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Mensing, D. M., S. M. Galatowitsch, and J. R. Tester. 1998. Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape. Journal of Environmental Management 53:349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mozingo, L. A. 1997. The aesthetics of ecological design: seeing science as culture. Landscape Journal 16:46–59.Google Scholar
  32. Nassauer, J. I. 1988. The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. HortSci 23:973–977.Google Scholar
  33. Nassauer, J. I. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecology 6:239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nassauer, J. I. 1993. Ecological function and the perception of suburban residential landscapes. p. 55–60. In P. H. Gobster (ed.) Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings. USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station St. Paul, MN, USA. General Technical Report NC-163.Google Scholar
  35. Nassauer, J. I. 1995a. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10:229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nassauer, J. I. 1995b. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 14:161–170.Google Scholar
  37. Nassauer, J. I. (ed.) 1997. Placing Nature: Culture in Landscape Ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Nassauer, J. I., S. E. Kosek, and R. C. Corry. 2001. Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prince, H. C.. 1997. Wetlands of the American Midwest: a Historical Geography of Changing Attitudes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Robertson, D. P. and R. B. Hull. 2001. Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for conservation. Conservation Biology 15: 970–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryan, R. L. 1998. Local perceptions and values for a midwestern river corridor. Landscape and Urban Planning 42:225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schrader, C. C. 1995. Rural greenway planning: the role of streamland perception in landowner acceptance of land management strategies. Landscape and Urban Planning 33:375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schroeder, H. W. and L. M. Anderson. 1984. Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research 16:178–194.Google Scholar
  44. Smardon, R. C. 1983. The Future of Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values. Allanheld Osmun, Totowa, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Sugiyama, T. 2000. Preferences concerning sustainable environments: the roles of knowledge, evaluation, attitudes, and culture. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
  46. Syme, G. J., D. M. Fenton, and S. Coakes. 2001. Lot size, garden satisfaction, and local park and wetland visitation. Landscape and Urban Planning 56:161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tuan, Y. 1984. Dominance and Affection: the Making of Pets. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA.Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. National Risk Management Research Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. EPA/625/R-99/010: 154.Google Scholar
  49. Westphal, L. M. 1999. Growing power?: social benefits from urban greening projects. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois. Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  50. Williams, K. J. H. and J. Cary. 2002. Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior 34:257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zedler, J. B. and M. K. Leach. 1998. Managing urban wetlands for multiple use: research, restoration, and recreation. Urban Ecosystems 2:189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zube, E. H., D. G. Pitt, and T. W. Anderson. 1974. Perception and Measurement of Scenic Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Institute for Man and his Environment, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations