Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • 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 

  • Bixler, R. D. and M. F. Floyd. 1997. Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior 29:443–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Debo, T. N. and H. Ruby. 1982. Detention basins—an urban experience. Public Works:42–43.

  • Decamps, H. 2001. How a riparian landscape finds form and comes alive. Landscape and Urban Planning 57:169–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ferguson, B. K. 1998. Introduction to Stormwater: Concept, Purpose, Design. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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).

  • Gobster, P. H. 2001. Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 56:35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. L. 1983. Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guntenspergen, G. R. and C. P. Dunn. 1998. Introduction: Longterm ecological sustainability of wetlands in urbanizing landscapes. Urban Ecosystems 2:187–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hands, D. E. and R. D. Brown. 2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, T. R. 1985. A cognitive analysis of preference for water-scapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 5:225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kaltenborn, B. and T. Bjerke. 2002. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 59:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz, M. D. and J. Kerr. 2003. Michigan residents’ perceptions of wetlands and mitigation. Wetlands 23:267–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen, R. M. and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2001. Colonization of restored wetlands by amphibians in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 145:338–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahan, B. L., S. Polasky, and R. M. Adams. 2000. Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Economics 76:100–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Manuel, P. M. 2003. Cultural perceptions of small urban wetlands: Cases from the Halifax regional municipality, Nova Scotia, Canada. Wetlands 23:921–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mozingo, L. A. 1997. The aesthetics of ecological design: seeing science as culture. Landscape Journal 16:46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer, J. I. 1988. The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. HortSci 23:973–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer, J. I. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecology 6:239–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nassauer, J. I. 1995a. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10:229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer, J. I. 1995b. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 14:161–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer, J. I. (ed.) 1997. Placing Nature: Culture in Landscape Ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, H. C.. 1997. Wetlands of the American Midwest: a Historical Geography of Changing Attitudes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D. P. and R. B. Hull. 2001. Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for conservation. Conservation Biology 15: 970–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. L. 1998. Local perceptions and values for a midwestern river corridor. Landscape and Urban Planning 42:225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Smardon, R. C. 1983. The Future of Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values. Allanheld Osmun, Totowa, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuan, Y. 1984. Dominance and Affection: the Making of Pets. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Westphal, L. M. 1999. Growing power?: social benefits from urban greening projects. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois. Chicago, IL, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. J. H. and J. Cary. 2002. Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior 34:257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J. B. and M. K. Leach. 1998. Managing urban wetlands for multiple use: research, restoration, and recreation. Urban Ecosystems 2:189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Dana Building 430 E. University, 48109-1115, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    Joan Iverson Nassauer

Authors
  1. Joan Iverson Nassauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan Iverson Nassauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nassauer, J.I. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands 24, 756–765 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0756:MTSOMW]2.0.CO;2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0756:MTSOMW]2.0.CO;2

Key Words

Search

Navigation