Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T03:08:13.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Public Perception of a High-Quality River: Mixed Messages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2016

Kristan Cockerill
Kristan Cockerill*
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Studies Program, Department of Cultural, Gender, and Global Studies, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC
*
*Address correspondence to: Kristan Cockerill, Interdisciplinary Studies Program, Department of Cultural, Gender, and Global Studies, Appalachian State University, ASU Box 32080, Boone, NC 28608; (phone) 828 262 7252; (e-mail) [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Existing studies have demonstrated a lack of consensus on the relationships between what the public sees when viewing a river, the actual ecological quality of that river, and a perceived need for management measures for that river. More specifically, there is insufficient information available about public perceptions of high-quality rivers. Therefore, this study, conducted in North Carolina, assessed public perceptions of a high-quality river, including links between perceptions of how attractive or how natural the river appeared and perceptions of specific ecological conditions on the river. The study also assessed the public’s perceived need for flood protection or river rehabilitation. The study’s results show that public perception of the river studied is complex and, in some ways, aligns well with available monitoring data collected from that river, but simultaneously reflects the public’s lack of knowledge about what constitutes a high-quality river, which influenced a perceived need for flood control and rehabilitation.

Environmental Practice 18: 44–52 (2016)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 44 - 52
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appalachian State University (ASU). 2015. About Appalachian State University. Available at http://www.appstate.edu/about.Google Scholar
Brody, S.D., Highfield, W., and Alston, L.. 2004. Does Location Matter?: Measuring Environmental Perceptions of Creeks in Two San Antonio Watersheds. Environment and Behavior 36(2):229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, A., Daniels, M.D., Urban, M.A., Piégay, H., Gregory, K.J., Bigler, W., Butt, A.Z., Grable, J.L., Gregory, S.V., Lafrenz, M., Laurencio, L.R., and Wohl, E.. 2008. Perceptions of Wood in Rivers and Challenges for Stream Restoration in the United States. Environmental Management 41(6):893–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockerill, K., and Anderson, W.P. Jr. 2014. Creating False Images: Stream Restoration in an Urban Setting. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 50(2):468–482.Google Scholar
Gobster, P.H., Nassauer, J.L., Daniel, T.C., and Fry, G.. 2007. The Shared Landscape: What Does Aesthetics Have to Do with Ecology? Landscape Ecology 22(7):959–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobster, P.H., and Westphal, L.M.. 2004. The Human Dimensions of Urban Greenways: Planning for Recreation and Related Experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning 68(2–3):147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, K.J., and Davis, R.J.. 1993. The Perception of Riverscape Aesthetics: An Example from Two Hampshire Rivers. Journal of Environmental Management 39(3):171–185.Google Scholar
Junker, B., and Buchecker, M.. 2008. Aesthetic Preferences versus Ecological Objectives in River Restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning 85(3–4):141–154.Google Scholar
Larned, S.T., Suren, A.M., Flanagan, M., Biggs, B.J., and Riis, T.. 2006. Macrophytes in Urban Stream Rehabilitation: Establishment, Ecological Effects, and Public Perception. Restoration Ecology 14(3):429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, S.E., and Popp, J.S.. 2013. Public Perception of Ecosystem Integrity of an Ozark Watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68(2):89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassauer, J.I. 1992. The Appearance of Ecological Systems as a Matter of Policy. Landscape Ecology 6(4):239–250.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J.L., Allan, J.D., Johengen, T., Kosek, S.E., and Infante, D.. 2004. Exurban Residential Subdivision Development: Effects on Water Quality and Public Perception. Urban Ecosystems 7(3):267–281.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J.I., Kosek, S.E., and Corry, R.C.. 2001. Meeting Public Expectations with Ecological Innovation in Riparian Landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(6):1439–1443.Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2012. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Available at http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f3cfa483-16de-4c18-95b7-93684c1b64aa&groupId=38364 (accessed June 25, 2014).Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2013. Standard Operating Procedure Biological Monitoring Stream Fish Community Assessment Program. Available at http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=125626&name=DLFE-78577.pdf (accessed June 25, 2014).Google Scholar
Petursdottir, T., Aradottir, A.L., and Benedictsson, K.. 2012. An Evaluation of the Short-Term Progress of Restoration Combining Ecological Assessment and Public Perception. Restoration Ecology 21(1):75–85.Google Scholar
Piégay, H., Gregory, K.J., Bondarev, V., Chin, A., Dahlstrom, N., Elosegi, A., Gregory, S.V., Joshi, V., Mutz, M., Rinaldi, M., Wyzga, B., and Zawiejska, J.. 2005. Public Perception as a Barrier to Introducing Wood in Rivers for Restoration Purposes. Environmental Management 36(5):665–674.Google Scholar
Silvano, R.A.M., Udvardy, S., Ceroni, M., and Farley, J.. 2005. An Ecological Integrity Assessment of a Brazilian Atlantic Forest Watershed Based on Surveys of Stream Health and Local Farmers’ Perceptions: Implications for Management. Ecological Economics 53(3):369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State Climate Office of North Carolina. Undated. State Climate Office of North Carolina. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Available at http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu.Google Scholar
Suren, A.M. 2009. Using Macrophytes in Urban Stream Rehabilitation: A Cautionary Tale. Restoration Ecology 17(6):873–883.Google Scholar
Swinson, B.J. 2014. To Restore or Not to Restore (unpublished MA thesis). Appalachian State University, Boone, NC.Google Scholar
Tullos, D.D., Penrose, D.L., Jennings, G.D., and Cope, W.G.. 2009. Analysis of Functional Traits in Reconfigured Channels: Implications for the Bioassessment and Disturbance of River Restoration. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28(1):80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Census. 2010. Watauga County Fact Sheet. Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37189.html.Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Healthy Watersheds Initiative: National Framework and Action Plan. EPA 841-R-11-005. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, DC, 28 pp.Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds: Concepts, Assessments, and Management Approaches. EPA 841-B-11-002. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, DC, 269 pp.Google Scholar
Westling, E.L., Lerner, D.N., and Sharp, L.. 2009. Using Secondary Data to Analyse Socio-Economic Impacts of Water Management Actions. Journal of Environmental Management 91(2):411–422.Google Scholar
Wyzga, B., Zawiejska, J., and Le Lay, Y.F.. 2009. Influence of Academic Education on the Perception of Wood in Watercourses. Journal of Environmental Management 90(1):587–603.Google Scholar