Ecological Aesthetics Perspective for Coastal Wetland Conservation

  • LeeHsueh LeeEmail author
Part of the Coastal Research Library book series (COASTALRL, volume 21)


Ever increasing amounts of coastal wetlands are being destroyed; therefore, public participation in wetland conservation is important. Aesthetic preference provides a critical connection between humans and ecology that could greatly promote public awareness regarding conservation actions. The prospect-refuge theory and the preference matrix of the bioevolutionary hypothesis illustrate that aesthetic experience could drive landscape change, and pull with it ecological quality. Based on these concepts, a healthy coastal wetland with beautiful scenery might have high aesthetic value and generate positive emotional reactions that are preferred by people, thus encouraging them to venture further into such environments to explore. The comprehensive attributes of physical landscape and ecological function affect the aesthetics of coastal wetlands. In particular, 15 factors spread among four attributes influenced peoples’ perception of the aesthetic and ecological quality of coastal wetlands. Attribute 1, the quality of the waterbody, is a predominant influence on the health of coastal wetlands, which appearance of waterbody affects aesthetic value. Attribute 2, the natural water edge of coastal wetlands could maintain the health of the wetland well and ensure the quality of the ecotone, which is perceived naturalness and high aesthetic value. Attribute 3 is the quality of terrestrial plants, which affects the diversity of wetlands and benefit to protect the terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Visual penetration of terrestrial plants is the main influential attribute of aesthetic preference. Attribute 4, the overall landscape of wetlands, shows peoples’ attitudes toward wetlands, related to the quality and size of the wetland and the challenge of aesthetics.


  1. Adam P (1993) Saltmarsh ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleton J (1984) Prospects and refuges re-visited. Landsc J 3(2):91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appleton J (1996) The experience of landscape, 2nd edn. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Assessment, M E (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, p 5Google Scholar
  5. Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol 22(8):1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batzer DP, Sharitz RR (eds) (2014) Ecology of freshwater and estuarine wetlands. Univ. of California Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  7. Callicott JB (2003) Wetland gloom and wetland glory. Philos Geogr 6(1):33–45. doi: 10.1080/1090377032000063306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson A (2008) Environmental aesthetics. Retrieved June 18, 2016 from
  9. Castelle AJ (1992) Wetland buffers: use and effectiveness (No. 92). Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management ProgramGoogle Scholar
  10. Castelle AJ, Johnson AW, Conolly C (1994) Wetland and stream buffer size requirements-a review. J Environ Qual 23(5):878–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coles B, Coles JM (1989) People of the wetlands: Bogs, bodies and lake dwellers. Thames and Hudson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Cottet M, Piégay H, Bornette G (2013) Does human perception of wetland aesthetics and healthiness relate to ecological functioning? J Environ Manag 128:1012–1022. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobbie MF (2013) Public aesthetic preferences to inform sustainable wetland management in Victoria, Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 120:178–189. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fry G, Tveit MS, Ode Å et al (2009) The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecol Indic 9(5):933–947. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giblett RJ (1996) Postmodern wetlands: culture, history, ecology. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  16. Giblett RJ (2014) Canadian wetlands: Places and people. Intellect Ltd., BristolGoogle Scholar
  17. Gobster PH (2010) Development of ecological aesthetics in the West: a landscape perception and assessment perspective. Acad Res, 4:2–12 (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC et al (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22(7):959–972. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagerhall CM (2000) Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. J Environ Psychol 20(1):83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herzog TR (1987) A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: mountains, canyons, and deserts. Landsc J 6(2):140–152. doi: 10.3368/lj.6.2.140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herzog TR, Kropscott LS (2004) Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environ Behav 36(5):659–677. doi: 10.1177/0013916504264138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herzog TR, Kutzli GE (2002) Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environ Behav 34(6):819–835. doi: 10.1177/001391602237250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill D, Daniel TC (2007) Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: can information alter landscape preferences? Soc Nat Resour 21(1):34–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Houlahan JE, Findlay CS (2003) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60(9):1078–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Ryan R (1998) With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Island Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Karstens S, Buczko U, Jurasinski G et al (2016) Impact of adjacent land use on coastal wetland sediments. Sci Total Environ 550:337–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knight AJ (2008) “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. J Environ Psychol 28(1):94–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kovacs ZI, LeRoy CJ, Fischer DG et al (2006) How do aesthetics affect our ecology? J Ecol Anthropol 10(1):61. doi:–4593.10.1.5
  30. Leder H, Belke B, Oeberst A et al (2004) A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. Brit J Psychol 95(4):489–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindemann-Matthies P, Junge X, Matthies D (2010) The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol Conserv 143(1):195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Minckler LS (1980) Woodland ecology: environmental forestry for the small owner. Syracuse University Press, SyracuseGoogle Scholar
  33. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) Wetlands, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2016) Coastal wetlands. Retrieved 01 Jun 2016 from
  35. Nijhuis S, Van Lammeren R, van der Hoeven F (2011) Exploring the visual landscape: advances in physiognomic landscape research in the Netherlands (vol 2) TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  36. Office of Long Island Sound Programs (1994) Tidal wetlands buffers guidance document. Retrieved August 5, 2016 from
  37. Ramsar (2015) Wetlands for our future: act now to prevent, stop, and reverse wetland loss. Retrieved May 20, 2016 from
  38. Rolston H (2000) Aesthetics in the swamps. Perspect Biol Med 43(4):584–597. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2000.0052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sheppard SR (2001) Beyond visual resource management: emerging theories of an ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship. Forests and Landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. IUFRO Res Ser 6:149–172Google Scholar
  40. Tilman D, Reich PB, Knops J et al (2001) Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294(5543):843–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tiner RW (1993) Field guide to coastal wetland plants of the southeastern United States. University of Massachusetts Press, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  42. Tveit M, Ode Å, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc Res 31(3):229–255Google Scholar
  43. Ulrich RS (1983) Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: Altman I, Wohwill JF (eds) Human behavior and environment, behavior and the natural environment. Plenum Press, New York, pp 85–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ulrich RS (1986) Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 13:29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Landscape ArchitectureChung Hua UniversityTaiwanRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations