Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 85, Issue 3-4, 2008, Pages 141-154

  Junker, Berit ^a   Buchecker, Matthias ^a  

^a SWISS FEDERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE WSL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Decision making; Expert objectives; Perceived naturalness; Perception; Planning; Rehabilitation measures; Water management

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; RESTORATION; RIVERS; WATER MANAGEMENT;

EXPERT OBJECTIVES; PERCEIVED NATURALNESS; REHABILITATION MEASURES;

URBAN PLANNING;

DECISION MAKING; ECOMORPHOLOGY; ESTHETICS; NATURAL RESOURCE; PERCEPTION; RIVER MANAGEMENT; WATER PLANNING;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 40849116282     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape (1995), Wiley, New York
2. Appleyard D. The environment as a social symbol-within a theory of environmental action and perception. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 45 (1979) 143-153
3. Akbar K.F., Hale W.H.G., and Headley A.D. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape Urban Plan. 63 (2003) 139-144
4. Barro S.C., and Bright A.D. Public views on ecological restoration. A snapshot from the Chicago area. Restorat. Manage. Notes 16 (1998) 59-65
5. Boon P.J., Davies B.R., and Petts G.E. Global Perspectives on River Conservation: Science, Policy, and Practice (2000), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK
6. Booth K. Foreshore access is now a statutory right. Aust. Parks Leisure 8 (2005) 38-39
7. Bortz J. Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler (1999), Springer, Berlin
8. Bratrich, C., 2004. Planung, Bewertung und Entscheidungsprozesse im Fliessgewässer Management. Kennzeichen erfolgreicher Revitalisierungsprojekte. Dissertation ETHZ Nr. 15440, Zürich, CH. Available at: http://www.e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/cgi-bin/show.pl?type=diss&nr=15440.
9. Buchecker M., Hunziker M., and Kienast F. Participatory landscape development: overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape Urban Plan. 64 (2003) 29-47
10. BUWAL. Methoden zur Untersuchung und Beurteilung der Fliessgewässer: Modul-Stufen-Konzept vol. 26 (1998), Mitteilungen zum Gewässerschutz, Bern
11. BUWAL. Landschaft 2020. Analysen und Trends (2003), Grundlagen zum Leitbild des BUWAL für Natur und Landschaft, Bern p. 152
12. BWG, Kantone Appenzell I.Rh. and A.Rh., St. Gallen, Thurgau, Zürich, 2001. Die Thur. Ein Fluss mit Zukunft für Mensch, Natur und Landschaft. Appenzeller Medienhaus, Herisau.
13. BWG. Hochwasserschutz an Fliessgewässern (2001), Wegleitungen des BWG, Biel
14. Camenisch A., Droux R., Hoeck T., Hügli A., and Rast D. Wer rettet die Belpau? Zur Wahrnehmung und Akzeptanz eines Hochwasserschutz- und Revitalisierungsprojektes vol. 24 (2001), Schriftenreihe Studentische Arbeiten, IKAÖ, Bern
15. Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape Urban Plan. 54 (2001) 267-281
16. Daniel T.C. Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. In: Sheppard S.R.J., and Harshaw H.W. (Eds). Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics (2001), CABI Publishing, New York 15-29
17. Daniel T.C., and Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of visual landscape quality. In: Altman I., and Wohlwill J. (Eds). Human Behavior and the Environment. Behavior and the Natural Environment vol. 6 (1983), Plenum Press, New York 38-84
18. Decamps H. How a riparian landscape finds form and comes alive. Landscape Urban Plan. 57 (2001) 169-175
19. Duelli P., Baur P., Buchecker M., Gugerli F., Holderegger R., and Wohlgemuth T. The role of value systems in landscape research. In: Kienast F., Ghosh S., and Wildi O. (Eds). A Changing World: Challenges for Landscape Research (2007), Springer Landscape Series
20. European Union, 2000. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive).
21. Gobster P.H. The Urban Savanna. Reuniting ecological preference and function. Restorat. Manage. Notes 12 (1994) 64-71
22. Gobster P.H. Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape Urban Plan. 56 (2001) 35-51
23. Gobster P.H., and Barro S.C. Negotiating nature. Making restoration happen in an urban park context. In: Gobster P.H., and Hull R.B. (Eds). Restoring Nature. Pèrspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities (2000), Island Press, Washington, DC 185-207
24. Gobster P.H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.C., and Fry G. The shared landscape:What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landscape Ecology 22 (2007) 959-972
25. Gobster P.H., and Westphal L.M. The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2004) 147-165
26. Green C.H., and Tunstall S.M. The amenity and environmental value of river corridors in Britain. In: Boon P.J., Calow P., and Petts G.E. (Eds). River Conservation and Management (1992), Wiley, Chichester 425-441
27. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis (1997), Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
28. Hands D.E., and Brown R.D. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape Urban Plan. 58 (2002) 57-70
29. Harvey T. An education 21 programme: orienting environmental education towards sustainable development andcapacity building for Rio. The Environmentalist 15 (1995) 202-2120
30. Hoisl R., Nohl W., Zekorn S., and Zöllner G. Landschaftsästhetik in der Flurbereinigung vol. 11 (1987), Reihe Materialien zur Flurbereinigung, München
31. House M.A., and Sangster E.K. Public perceptions of river corridor management. J. IWEM 5 (1991) 312-317
32. Howell S.E., and Laska S.B. The changing face of the environmental coalition. Environ. Behav. 24 (1992) 134-144
33. Hull R.B., and Robertson D.P. The language of nature matters: we need a more public ecology. In: Gobster P.H., and Hull R.B. (Eds). Restoring Nature. Pèrspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities (2000), Island Press, Washington, DC 97-118
34. Hull R.B., Robertson D.P., and Kendra A. Public understandings of nature: a case study of local knowledge about "natural" forest conditions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 14 (2001) 325-340
35. Hunziker M., and Kienast F. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty-a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecol. 14 (1999) 161-176
36. Junker B., and Buchecker M. Social science contributions to the participatory planning of water systems-results from Swiss case studies. In: Castelletti A., and Soncini-Sessa R. (Eds). Topics on System Analysis and Integrated Water Resources Management (2006), Elsevier, Oxford 243-255
37. Junker, B., Baumeler, M., Debrunner, R., Nigg, P., Poncini, C., Zschokke, M., 2003. Wie sieht die Bevölkerung aus Weinfelden und Bürglen ihre Thur? Natur+Mensch 5, 4-7. Available at: http://www.rheinaubund.ch/natur+mensch/index.html.
38. Kaplan R., and Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective (1989), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
39. Karjalainen E. Scenic preferences concerning clear-fell areas in Finland. Landscape Res. 21 (1996) 159-173
40. Karr J.R. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol. Appl. 1 (1991) 66-84
41. Kimmins J.P. Visible and non-visible indicators of forest sustainability: beauty, beholders and belief systems. In: Sheppard S.R.J., and Harshaw H.W. (Eds). Forests and Landscapes. Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series 6. (2001), CABI publishing, New York 43-56
42. Kort Y.A.W., de Gal M., and Staats H.J. Restoration in place: the impact of social context and type of setting on restorative effects. In: Martens B., and Keul A.G. (Eds). Proceedings of IAPS 2004, 151 IAPS (2004) 12
43. Milbrath L.W. Environmentalists. Vanguard for a New Society (1984), State University of New York Press, Albany
44. Mozingo L.A. The aesthetics of ecological design: seeing science as culture. Landscape J. 16 (1997) 46-59
45. Nassauer J.I. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecol. 6 (1992) 239-250
46. Nassauer, J.I., 1993. Ecological function and the perception of suburban residental landscapes. In: Gobster, P.H. (Ed.), Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings. United States Department of Agriculture. General Technical Report NC-163, pp. 55-72.
47. Nassauer J.I. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. In: Nassauer J.I. (Ed). Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology (1997), Island Press, Washington, DC 65-83
48. Nassauer J.I., Kosek S.E., and Corry R.C. Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 37 (2001) 1439-1443
49. Nassauer J.I. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: cultural sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands 24 (2004) 756-765
50. Nohl W. Thesen einer 'anderen' Aesthetik (1983), Natur und Landschaft 58/1
51. Nohl W. The aesthetics of home separated gardens in Germany-traces of participatory aesthetics. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 4 (1987) 212-227
52. Özguner H., and Kendle A.D. Public atitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape Urban Plan. 74 (2004) 139-157
53. Parsons R. Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: conundrum, canärd or curiosity. Landscape Urban Plan. 32 (1995) 227-244
54. Parson R., and Daniel T.C. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aethetics. Landscape Urban Plan. 60 (2002) 43-56
55. Purcell A.T., and Lamb R.J. Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach. Landscape Urban Plan. 42 (1998) 57-66
56. Raffetto, J., 1993. Perceptions of ecological restoration in urban parks. In: Gobster, P.H. (Ed.), Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings. General Technical Report NC-163. United States Department of Agriculture, pp. 61-67.
57. Ribe R.G. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in Northern Hardwood forests. Landscape J. 9 (1990) 86-101
58. Schaumann S., and Salisbury S. Restoring nature in the city: Puget Sound experiences. Landscape Urban Plan. 42 (1998) 287-295
59. Schulhof R. Public perceptions of native vegetation. Restor. Manage. Notes 7 (1989) 69-72
60. Schroeder H.W. Preferences and meaning of arboretum landscapes: combining quantitative and qualitative data. J. Environ. Psychol. 11 (1991) 231-248
61. Steel B., List P., and Schindler B. Conflicting values about federal forests: a comparison of national and oregon publics. Soc. Nat. Resour. 7 (1994) 137-153
62. Steinitz C. Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the Loop Road in Acadia National Park, USA. Landscape Urban Plan. 19 (1990) 213-250
63. Tahvanainen L., Tyrväinen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., and Kolehmainen O. Forest management and public perceptions-visual versus verbal information. Landscape Urban Plan. 53 (2001) 53-70
64. Tremblay K., and Dunlap R. Rural-urban residence and concern with environmental quality: a republican and extension. Rural Sociol. 43 (1978) 474-491
65. Tunstall S., Penning-Rowsell E.C., Tapsell S.M., and Eden S.E. River restoration: public attitudes and expectations. J. CIWEM 14 (2000) 363-370
66. Van den Berg A.E., and Koole S. New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 78 (2006) 362-372
67. Van den Berg A.E., and Vlek C.A.J. The influence of planned-change context on the evaluation of natural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 43 (1998) 1-10
68. Williams K.J.H., and Cary J. Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environ. Behav. 34 (2002) 257-274
69. Woolley J.T., and McGinnis M.V. The conflicting discourses of restoration. Soc. Nat. Resour. 13 (2000) 339-357
70. WWF Switzerland, 2004. Medienmitteilung Sept. 5, http://www.wwf.ch/de/newsundservice/news/medien/index.cfm, last access Feb. 26, 2007.
71. Zaugg M. More space for running waters: negotiating institutional change in the Swiss flood protection system. GeoJournal (2003) 1-10
72. Zaugg M. Philosophiewandel im schweizerischen Wasserbau. Zur Vollzugspraxis des nachhaltigen Hochwasserschutzes. Schriftenreihe Humangeographie vol. 20 (2005), Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Zurich
73. Zedler J.B., and Leach M.K. Managing urban wetlands for multiple use: research, restoration, and recreation. Urban Ecosyst. 2 (1998) 189-204
74. Zube E.H. Scenery as a natural resource: implications of public policy and problems of definition, description, and evaluation. Landscape Arch. 5 (1973) 126-132