IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i6p1137-d1157494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Participatory Approach to Assess Social Demand and Value of Urban Waterscapes: A Case Study in San Marcos, Texas, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Madeline T. Wade

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73112, USA)

  • Jason P. Julian

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA)

  • Kevin S. Jeffery

    (Blue Index, Reimagining Waterscapes for Healthy Communities, San Diego, CA 92116, USA)

  • Sarah M. Davidson

    (Blue Index, Reimagining Waterscapes for Healthy Communities, San Diego, CA 92116, USA)

Abstract

Waterscapes can have meaningful benefits for people’s wellbeing and mental health by helping them feel calmer and more connected to nature, especially in times of stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The waterscapes along the San Marcos River (Texas, USA) provide economic, social, environmental, and emotional benefits to the surrounding community. To assess the social demand for and emotional experiences in these blue spaces, we used a new framework called Blue Index that collects noncontact data from photo stations. From 10 photo stations across different waterscapes, we collected and analyzed 565 volunteer assessments from May 2021 to March 2022—during the COVID-19 pandemic and following the reopening of riverside parks. Most respondents (57%) indicated they spend more time at the river than they did before the onset of the pandemic. Moreover, 93% of respondents agreed that the waterscape they were visiting represented a refuge from stress and isolation caused by COVID-19. Overall, people valued waterscapes for ecological benefits and relationships with the place, rather than for recreation and tourism. Emotions experienced at all 10 waterscapes were overwhelmingly positive. Statistical tests revealed that higher positive emotions were significantly associated with biophysical perceptions of flow, cleanliness, and naturalness. Our results demonstrate that the benefits of blue spaces derive from an interrelated combination of ecosystem and mental health. The new Blue Index approach presented here promotes participatory land management through noncontact community engagement and knowledge coproduction.

Suggested Citation

  • Madeline T. Wade & Jason P. Julian & Kevin S. Jeffery & Sarah M. Davidson, 2023. "A Participatory Approach to Assess Social Demand and Value of Urban Waterscapes: A Case Study in San Marcos, Texas, USA," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-39, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:6:p:1137-:d:1157494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1137/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1137/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xindi Zhang & Yixin Zhang & Jun Zhai & Yongfa Wu & Anyuan Mao, 2021. "Waterscapes for Promoting Mental Health in the General Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Natalie Fox & Jamie Marshall & Dorothy Jane Dankel, 2021. "Ocean Literacy and Surfing: Understanding How Interactions in Coastal Ecosystems Inform Blue Space User’s Awareness of the Ocean," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Christina W. Lopez & Madeline T. Wade & Jason P. Julian, 2023. "Nature–Human Relational Models in a Riverine Social–Ecological System: San Marcos River, TX, USA," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-49, March.
    4. S. Brent Jackson & Kathryn T. Stevenson & Lincoln R. Larson & M. Nils Peterson & Erin Seekamp, 2021. "Outdoor Activity Participation Improves Adolescents’ Mental Health and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Keeler, Bonnie L. & Wood, Spencer A. & Polasky, Stephen & Kling, Catherine L. & Filstrup, Christopher T. & Downing, John A., 2015. "Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes," ISU General Staff Papers 201501290800001557, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Sarah C Klain & Paige Olmsted & Kai M A Chan & Terre Satterfield, 2017. "Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Jason P. Julian & Graham S. Daly & Russell C. Weaver, 2018. "University Students’ Social Demand of a Blue Space and the Influence of Life Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-30, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lan Wang & Changwei Zhou, 2024. "Evaluation of Perceptions Using Facial Expression Scores on Ecological Service Value of Blue and Green Spaces in 61 Parks in Guizhou," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-20, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christina W. Lopez & Madeline T. Wade & Jason P. Julian, 2023. "Nature–Human Relational Models in a Riverine Social–Ecological System: San Marcos River, TX, USA," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-49, March.
    2. John E. Quinn & Karen E. Allen, 2021. "Governance, Values, and Conservation Processes in Multifunctional Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-6, May.
    3. Matthias Winfried Kleespies & Paul Wilhelm Dierkes, 2020. "Impact of biological education and gender on students’ connection to nature and relational values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    5. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Martí, Pablo & García-Mayor, Clara & Nolasco-Cirugeda, Almudena & Serrano-Estrada, Leticia, 2020. "Green infrastructure planning: Unveiling meaningful spaces through Foursquare users’ preferences," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Guglielmo Pristeri & Viviana di Martino & Silvia Ronchi & Stefano Salata & Francesca Mazza & Andrea Benedini & Andrea Arcidiacono, 2023. "An Operational Model to Downscale Regional Green Infrastructures in Supra-Local Plans: A Case Study in an Italian Alpine Sub-Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-25, July.
    8. Megan Heckert & Amanda Bristowe, 2021. "Parks and the Pandemic: A Scoping Review of Research on Green Infrastructure Use and Health Outcomes during COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Li-Pei Peng, 2020. "Understanding Human–Nature Connections Through Landscape Socialization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Liz O’Brien, 2018. "Engaging with and Shaping Nature: A Nature-Based Intervention for Those with Mental Health and Behavioural Problems at the Westonbirt Arboretum in England," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, October.
    11. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Wittman, Hannah & Chan, Kai M.A., 2020. "A payment by any other name: Is Costa Rica’s PES a payment for services or a support for stewards?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Sarkki, Simo & Ficko, Andrej & Miller, David & Barlagne, Carla & Melnykovych, Mariana & Jokinen, Mikko & Soloviy, Ihor & Nijnik, Maria, 2019. "Human values as catalysts and consequences of social innovations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 33-44.
    14. Iwona Kantor-Pietraga & Robert Krzysztofik & Maksymilian Solarski, 2023. "Planning Recreation around Water Bodies in Two Hard Coal Post-Mining Areas in Southern Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-25, July.
    15. Kaiwen Su & Jie Ren & Chuyun Cui & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2022. "Do Value Orientations and Beliefs Play a Positive Role in Shaping Personal Norms for Urban Green Space Conservation?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    16. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Alexandra Sandu & Chris Taylor & Jennifer May Hampton, 2024. "Children’s Subjective Well-Being During the Coronavirus Pandemic," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 17(1), pages 309-347, February.
    17. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    18. Bliss, Sam & Egler, Megan, 2020. "Ecological Economics Beyond Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    19. Tindale, Sophie & Vicario-Modroño, Victoria & Gallardo-Cobos, Rosa & Hunter, Erik & Miškolci, Simona & Price, Paul Newell & Sánchez-Zamora, Pedro & Sonnevelt, Martijn & Ojo, Mercy & McInnes, Kirsty & , 2023. "Citizen perceptions and values associated with ecosystem services from European grassland landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    20. Nicole V. DeVille & Linda Powers Tomasso & Olivia P. Stoddard & Grete E. Wilt & Teresa H. Horton & Kathleen L. Wolf & Eric Brymer & Peter H. Kahn & Peter James, 2021. "Time Spent in Nature Is Associated with Increased Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-18, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:6:p:1137-:d:1157494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.