Public perception of the naturalness and aesthetic value of riverside landscapes along the Zagyva river, based on a questionnaire survey
Abstract
The restoration of urban river reaches is becoming increasingly important today, often because of their poor condition, and their role in the green infrastructure system. Involving local people into these projects can be useful. In the present research, we aim to explore the perceived naturalness and aesthetic value of riverside landscapes, and their relationship. We conducted our research via an online questionnaire survey with photographs involving three cities along the Zagyva river in Hungary. Our results show that perceived naturalness is important for the perception of the aesthetic value of landscapes, especially for the riverbed and vegetation; however, the aesthetic value of built elements is more positive than the perception of their naturalness. Perceived naturalness corresponded well to ecological naturalness for most of the explored aspects (e.g. proportion and naturalness of riverside woody vegetation, the presence of built elements). As the presence of deadwood in the riverbed was perceived aesthetically decidedly negative, its beneficial effects for nature conservation needs to be presented through environmental education and awareness raising projects.
References
Adorjan, A., Pecze A., Szilágyi, K. (2019): ‘Brown’ is the New ‘Green’: Post-industrial sites as potential in the development of the green infrastructure on the riverfront of Budapest, Hungary. Proceedings of the Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning 6: 9.
Báldi, A., Engloner, A., Vörös, L. (2017): A vízi ökoszisztémák jelentősége a társadalom számára. Magyar Tudomány 178(10): 1206–1215. https://doi.org/10.1556/2065.178.2017.10.4
Boromisza, Zs., Kollányi, L., Jákli, E., Földi, Zs. (2020): Education through landscape – challenges in science communication and ecotourism / Oktatás tájjal – Kihívások a tudománykommunikáció és az ökoturizmus területén. 4D Tájépítészeti és Kertművészeti Folyóirat 55–56: 66–75. https://doi.org/10.36249/55.56.5
Burdon, F. J., Ramberg, E., Sargac, J., Forio M. A. E., de Saeyer, N., Mutinova, P. T., Moe, T. F., Pavelescu, M. O., Dinu, V., Cazacu, C., Witing, F., Kupilas, B., Grandin, U., Volk, M., Rîsnoveanu, G., Goethals, P., Friberg, N., Richard, K. J., McKie, G. B. (2020): Assessing the benefits of forested riparian zones: A qualitative index of riparian integrity is positively associated with ecological status in European streams. Water 12: 1178. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041178
Cai, X., Boromisza, Zs. (2020): Public perceptions and aesthetic preferences of lakeshore landscape: the example of Lake Velence (Hungary). Landscape & Environment 14(2): 31–42. https://doi.org/10.21120/LE/14/2/3
Chou, R. (2016): Achieving successful river restoration in dense urban areas: Lessons from Taiwan. Sustainability, 8: 1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111159
Darby, S,. Sear, D. (eds.) (2008): River Restoration: Managing the Uncertainty in Restoring Physical Habitat. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester. 328 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470867082
Doll, B., Grabow, G., Hall, K., Halley, J., Harman, W., Jennings, G., Wise, D. (2003): Stream restoration: a natural channel design handbook. North Carolina State University. 128 p.
Ellsworth, J. C. (1982): Visual assessment of rivers and marshes: An examination of the relationship of visual units, perceptual variables, and preference. In: Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S.: The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. pp. 220–222.
Erős T., Czeglédi I. (2019): Barrierek elbontásának priorizálása és halátjárók építésének szükségessége Magyarországon. Szakmai jelentés. MTA Ökológiai Kutatóközpont Tihany, 50 p.
González del Tánago, M., Gurnell, A.M., Belletti, B., García de Jalón, D. (2015): Indicators of river system hydromorphological character and dynamics: understanding current conditions and guiding sustainable river management. Aquatic Sciences 78(1): 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-015-0429-0
Hammitt, W. E. (1978): Visual and user preference for a bog environment. In: Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S.: The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. pp. 227–230.
Hu, S., Yue, H., Zhou, Z. (2019): Preferences for urban stream landscapes: Opportunities to promote unmanaged riparian vegetation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 38: 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.001
Hudspeth, T. R. (1982): Visual preference as a tool for citizen participation: A case study of urban waterfront revitalization in Burlington, Vermont. In: Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S.: The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. pp. 246–248.
Hughes, R., Dunham, S., Maas-Hebner, K., Yeakley, A., Schreck, C., Harte, M., Molina, N., Shock, C., Kaczynski, V., Schaeffer, J. (2014): A review of urban water body challenges and approaches: (1) Rehabilitation and remediation. Fisheries 39: 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2013.836500
Jähnig, S. C., Lorenz, A. W., Hering, D., Antons, C., Sundermann, A., Jedicke, E., Haase P. (2011): River restoration success: a question of perception. Ecological Applications 21(6): 2007–2015. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0618.1
Junker, B., Buchecker, M. (2008): Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning 85: 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.11.002
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. (1989): The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge 360 p.
Közép-Tisza-Vidéki Vízügyi Igazgatóság – KÖTIVIZIG (2016): 2-10 Vízgyűjtő-gazdálkodási Terv – 2015. Zagyva alegység. Szolnok. 135 p.
Laslier, M., Hubert-Moy, L., Dufour, S. (2019): Mapping riparian vegetation functions using 3D bispectral LiDAR data. Water 11: 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030483
Mander, Ü., Hayakawa, Y., Kuusemets, V. (2005): Purification processes, ecological functions, planning and design of riparian buffer zones in agricultural watersheds. Ecological Engineering 24: 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.015
May, R. (2006): ‘‘Connectivity’’ in urban rivers: Conflict and convergence between ecology and design. Technology in Society 28: 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2006.09.004
McCormick, A., Fisher, K., Brierley, G. (2015): Quantitative assessment of the relationships among ecological, morphological and aesthetic values in a river rehabilitation initiative. Journal of Environmental Management 153: 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.025
Országos Vízügyi Főigazgatóság (2022): Magyarország Vízgyűjtő-gazdálkodási Tervének második felülvizsgálata. Magyarország Vízgyűjtő-gazdálkodási Terve – 2021. (VGT3) 686 p.
Palmer, J. F. (2004): Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.010
Pedersen M. L., Kristensen K. K., Friberg N. (2014): Re-meandering of lowland streams: Will disobeying the laws of geomorphology have ecological consequences? PLoS ONE 9(9): e108558. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108558
Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J. (1998): Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 42: 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00073-5
Smardon, R., Palmer, J. F., Felleman, J. P. (1986): Foundations for visual project analysis. Wiley, New York, 374 p.
Stout, J., Rutherfurd, I., Grove, J., J Webb, A. (2014): How long will it take desnagged rivers to recover a natural load of wood? In: Vietz, G., Rutherfurd, I., Hughes, R. (eds.): Proceedings of the 7th Australian Stream Management Conference. pp. 240–246. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4499.6483
Swaffield, S. R, McWilliam, W. J. (2013): Landscape aesthetic experience and ecosystem services. In: Dymond J. R (eds.): Ecosystem services in New Zealand – conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand. pp. 349–362.
Tribot A. S, Deter J, Mouquet N. (2018): Integrating the aesthetic value of landscapes and biological diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 285: 20180971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0971
Tveit, M., Ode, A., Fry, G. (2006): Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31: 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269
UN Environment Programme (2022): Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. 15/4. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Agenda item 9A. CBD/COP/DEC/15/4.
Walsh, C., Roy, A., Feminella, J., Cottingham, P., Groffman, P., Morgan, P. (2005): The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(3): 706–723 https://doi.org/10.1899/04-028.1
Yeakley, J. A., Ervin, D., Chang, H., Granek, E. F., Dujon, V., Shandas, V., Brown, D. (2016): Ecosystem services of streams and rivers. In: Gilvear, D. J., Greenwood, M. T., Thoms, M. C., Wood, P. J. (eds.): River Science: Research and management for the 21st century. First Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. pp. 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118643525.ch17
