Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perspectives on Landscape Aesthetics for the Ecological Conservation of Wetlands

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wetlands are increasingly being destroyed, and a major contributory factor is the lack of the knowledge of their importance. Studies have demonstrated that healthy and aesthetic ecological landscapes might promote public awareness regarding resource protection, thereby leading to wetland conservation. In this study, reports on evolutionary theory and information-seeking preference hypothesis were reviewed to identify the ecological aesthetics of wetlands. The review highlights the importance of three aspects of ecological aesthetics. The first is the relationship between land-use and landscape changes based on the foundation concept of how structure influences landscape ecology, i.e., the concept of ecological aesthetics for landscape-scale planning. The second is the relationship between the ecological health of wetlands and the human cognitive wetland landscape, i.e., healthy wetlands might have high aesthetic value. The third is related to the correlation between physical landscape and ecological attributes, and its effect on the aesthetics of wetlands. In particular, 13 factors related to ecological quality were found to influence peoples’ perception of the ecological aesthetics of wetlands. Wetland conservation remains a considerable challenge, and some of the available viewpoints reviewed in this study might aid improvement of the ecological aesthetic value of wetlands, thereby promoting their management and conservation.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appleton J (1975) The experience of landscape. John Wiley & Sons, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleton J (1984) Prospects and refuges revisited. Landscape Journal 8:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleton J (1996) The experience of landscape. John Wiley & Sons, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Arjen E, Buijs AE, Elands BHM, Langers F (2009) No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 91:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond WK, Cox KW, Heberlein T, Manning EW, Witty DR, Yang DA (1992) Wetland evaluation guide: final report of the wetlands are not wastelands project. North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Callicott JB (2003) Wetland gloom and wetland glory. Philosophy and Geography 6:33–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottet M, Piégay H, Bornette G (2013) Does human perception of wetland aesthetics and healthiness relate to ecological functioning? Journal of Environmental Management 128:1012–1022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson TJ (1998) Wetland bioassessment fact sheets. EPA843-F-98-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobbie M (2013) Public aesthetic preferences to inform sustainable wetland management in Victoria, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 120:178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbie M, Green R (2013) Public perceptions of freshwater wetlands in Victoria, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 110:143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas I, Goode D, Houck M, Wang R (2010) The Routledge handbook of urban ecology. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW, Bunce RGH (eds.) (1998) Key concepts in landscape ecology. Proceedings of the 1998 European Congress of the International Association of landscape Ecology, IALE (UK)

  • Dramstad WE, Tveit MS, Fjellstad WJ, Fry GLA (2006) Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 78:465–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton D (2003) Aesthetics and evolutionary psychology. In: Levinson J (ed) The Oxford Handbook for Aesthetics. Oxford University Press, pp 693–704

  • Federal Register (1997) National action plan to implement the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions. Federal Register 62(119):33607–33620. Available via http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/hydrogeo.htm. Accessed 08 May 2014

  • Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry G, Tveit MS, Ode A, Velarde MD (2009) The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators 9:933–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giblett RJ (1996) Postmodern wetlands: culture, history, ecology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH (1999) An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal 18:54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH (2010) Development of ecological aesthetics in the west: a landscape perception and assessment perspective. Academic Research 4:2–12 (In Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22:959–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haber W (2004) Landscape ecology as a bridge from ecosystems to human ecology. Ecological Research 19:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerhall CM (2000) Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20:83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog TR (1987) A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: mountains, canyons and deserts. Landscape Journal 6:140–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog TR, Kropscott LS (2004) Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior 36:659–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog TR, Kutzli GE (2002) Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior 34:819–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill D, Dainel TC (2008) Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: can information alter landscape preference? Society and Natural Resources 21:34–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunziker M, Buchecker M, Hartig T (2007) Space and place–two aspects of the human-landscape relationship. In: Kienast P, Wildi O, Ghosh S (eds) A changing world. Springer, Netherlands, pp 47–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S (1988) Perception and landscaper: conceptions and misconceptions. In: Nasar JL (ed) Environmental aesthetics: theory, research and applications. Cambridge University Press, USA, pp 45–55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Ryan RL (1998) With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Island Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein LR, Hendrix WG, Lohr VI, Kaytes JB, Sayler RD, Swanson ME, Reganold JP (2015) Linking ecology and aesthetics in sustainable agricultural landscapes: lessons from the Palouse region of Washington, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 134:195–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight AJ (2008) “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28:94–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpela KM, Klemettila T, Hietanen JK (2002) Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes. Environment and Behavior 34:634–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovacs ZI, LeRoy CJ, Fisher DJ, Lurbarsky S, Burke W (2006) How do aesthetics affect our ecology? Aesthetics and Ecology 10:61–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann-Matthies P, Junge H, Matthies D (2010) The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation 143:195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuoka RH, Kaplan R (2008) People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning 84:7–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) Wetlands. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijhuis S, Van Lammeren R, Van der Hoeven F (2011) Exploring the visual landscape: advances in physiognomic landscape research in the Netherlands. IOS Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Ode A, Fry G, Tevit MS, Messager P, Miller D (2009) Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 90:375–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons R, Daniel TC (2002) Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 60:43–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RAMSAR (2015) The importance of wetlands. Available via http://www.ramsar.org/about/the-importance-of-wetlands. Accessed 20 May 2015

  • Rolston H (2000) Aesthetics in the Swamps. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 43:584–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rolston H (2009) Wetlands. In: Callicott JB, Frodeman R (eds) Encyclopedia of environmental ethics and philosophy, vol 2. Routledge, London, pp 397–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargolini M (2013) Ecology vs aesthetics. In: Sargolini M (ed) Urban Landscapes. Springer, Milan, pp 5–10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard SRJ (2001) Beyond visual resource management: emerging theories of an ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW (eds) Forests and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 149–172

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard SRJ, Achiam CM, D’Eon RG (2004) Aesthetics: are we neglecting a key issue in criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management? Journal of Forestry 102:6–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Smardon RC, Fabos JG (1983) A model for assessing visual-culture values of wetlands: a Massachusetts case study. In: Smardon RC (ed) The future of wetlands: assessing visual-culture values. Allanheld, Osmun, pp 149–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang IC, Sullivan WC, Chang CY (2015) Perceptual evaluation of natural landscapes: The role of the individual connection to nature. Environment and Behavior 47:595–617 Available via http://willsull.net/resources/Sullivan-papers/TangSullivanChang2014.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2015

  • Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology 24:1037–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toadvine T (2009) Ecological aesthetics. Handbook of Phenomenological Aesthetics 59:85–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tveit MS (2009) Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management 90:2882–2888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tveit MS, Ode A, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing landscape character. Landscape Research 31:229–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (2008) Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification system: An overview and modification to better meet the needs of the natural resources conservation service. Technical Note No. 190–8–76. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available via http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_010784.pdf. Accessed 09 May 2014

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1980) Habitat evaluation procedures. ESM102. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, D.C.

  • Ulrich RS (1983) Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: Altman I, Wohwill JF (eds) Human behavior and environment, vol 6, Behavior and the natural environment. Plenum Press, New York, pp 85–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Wherrett JR (2000) Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landscape Research 25:79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (2015) The value of wetlands. Available via http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/intro/value/. Accessed 20 May 2015

  • Zhang L, Wang MH, Hu J, Ho YS (2010) A review of published wetland research, 1991–2008: ecological engineering and ecosystem restoration. Ecological Engineering 36:973–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Landscape Architecture, Chung Hua University, 707, Sec. 2, WuFu Rd., Hsinchu, Taiwan, 300, Republic of China

    Lee-Hsueh Lee

Authors
  1. Lee-Hsueh Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee-Hsueh Lee.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 827 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, LH. Perspectives on Landscape Aesthetics for the Ecological Conservation of Wetlands. Wetlands 37, 381–389 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-016-0873-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-016-0873-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation