River metrics by the public, for the public.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
21
03
2018
accepted:
25
03
2019
entrez:
9
5
2019
pubmed:
9
5
2019
medline:
10
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Managing rivers in society's best interest requires data on river condition. However, the complexity of river ecosystems, combined with finite budgets for river monitoring and modeling, mean difficult choices are necessary regarding what information will be available. Typically, decisions of "what to measure" are left to natural scientists. However, knowledge of public appetite for different types of information helps ensure river data is useful to society. We investigated public interest in rivers directly, engaging nearly one hundred urban and rural participants in a combination of focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Drawing on concepts of "final" ecosystem services developed in environmental economics, we moved discussions past commonly mentioned stressors, such as pollution, to actual river features important in and of themselves. Participant feedback reflected extensive thought on river issues, in contrast to a stereotype that the public is ambivalent about environmental conditions. Interests were also broad, encompassing water quality and quantity, fish and wildlife, vegetation, and human features. Results show consolidation around relatively few themes despite diverse sociodemographics. Themes were interpreted into distilled, specific metrics to make public feedback as useful as possible for water resources monitoring, modeling, and management. Our research provides detailed, methodically generated hypotheses regarding river themes and metrics of public interest that should be considered as part of the tradeoffs inherent in river monitoring design. Results compared reasonably well to river attributes emphasized in river restoration environmental valuation reviews, with some differences. Future research could test our hypotheses with large-sample surveys.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31067256
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214986
pii: PONE-D-18-08685
pmc: PMC6505747
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0214986Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Environ Manage. 2008 Jun;41(6):893-903
pubmed: 18305987
Environ Manage. 2005 Nov;36(5):665-74
pubmed: 16215648
Ecol Soc. 2017;22(3):15
pubmed: 30416527
Ecol Appl. 2006 Aug;16(4):1267-76
pubmed: 16937796
J Health Econ. 2007 Jan;26(1):171-89
pubmed: 16707175
Conserv Biol. 2012 Oct;26(5):830-9
pubmed: 22827248
Science. 2014 Jan 10;343(6167):1241484
pubmed: 24408439
J Benefit Cost Anal. 2018 Spring;9(1):1-26
pubmed: 31080702