IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9302-d875204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Perception of Riparian Forests

Author

Listed:
  • Mārcis Saklaurs

    (Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, Rigas Street 111, LV-2169 Salaspils, Latvia)

  • Agnese Anta Liepiņa

    (Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, Rigas Street 111, LV-2169 Salaspils, Latvia)

  • Didzis Elferts

    (Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, Rigas Street 111, LV-2169 Salaspils, Latvia
    Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia, Jelgavas Street 1, LV-1004 Riga, Latvia)

  • Āris Jansons

    (Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, Rigas Street 111, LV-2169 Salaspils, Latvia)

Abstract

Riparian forests are ecotones that differ from the surrounding landscapes, delineating the transition from terrestrial ecosystems into aquatic ones. Riparian forest management has been recognized as a possible method for promoting several ecological functions. In order to develop a sustainable and resilient relationship between river riparian forests and society, it is necessary to analyze the sociocultural dimension of riparian zones. The aim of this study was to assess the social perceptions of riparian forests. A total of 734 respondents (61% woman), inhabitants from the region of Latvia, where there is a rather dense network of streams, were surveyed. Respondents represented various education levels, ages, and economic backgrounds. Riverine forests tend to be a less popular option for recreation compared with other types of forests. The most popular activities were walking and swimming. “Forest and water bodies” was not among the main topics that respondents were concerned about. Regarding rivers and riparian forests, the obstructed movement of fish to spawning grounds was recognized as the most important problem, but the least concerning was the reduction of water tourism and fishing opportunities. Dynamic river basin and river bank management could be a possible solution to restoring eligible locations for recreational activities, at least along some parts of rivers, and for improving the state of riparian ecosystems simultaneously.

Suggested Citation

  • Mārcis Saklaurs & Agnese Anta Liepiņa & Didzis Elferts & Āris Jansons, 2022. "Social Perception of Riparian Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9302-:d:875204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9302/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9302/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thiele, Julia & Albert, Christian & Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina, 2020. "Assessing and quantifying offered cultural ecosystem services of German river landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    2. Kurt Beil & Douglas Hanes, 2013. "The Influence of Urban Natural and Built Environments on Physiological and Psychological Measures of Stress— A Pilot Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Mikko Tolkkinen & Saku Vaarala & Jukka Aroviita, 2021. "The Importance of Riparian Forest Cover to the Ecological Status of Agricultural Streams in a Nationwide Assessment," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(12), pages 4009-4020, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hyunju Jo & Chorong Song & Yoshifumi Miyazaki, 2019. "Physiological Benefits of Viewing Nature: A Systematic Review of Indoor Experiments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Ziliang Jin & Jiangping Wang & Xu Liu & Xu Han & Jiaojiao Qi & Jingyong Wang, 2022. "Stress Recovery Effects of Viewing Simulated Urban Parks: Landscape Types, Depressive Symptoms, and Gender Differences," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Liwen Li & Klaus W. Lange, 2023. "Assessing the Relationship between Urban Blue-Green Infrastructure and Stress Resilience in Real Settings: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-28, June.
    4. Reo Jones & Robin Tarter & Amy Miner Ross, 2021. "Greenspace Interventions, Stress and Cortisol: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Jason Corburn, 2017. "Urban Place and Health Equity: Critical Issues and Practices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-10, January.
    6. Arne Arnberger & Renate Eder & Brigitte Allex & Martin Ebenberger & Hans-Peter Hutter & Peter Wallner & Nicole Bauer & Johann G. Zaller & Thomas Frank, 2018. "Health-Related Effects of Short Stays at Mountain Meadows, a River and an Urban Site—Results from a Field Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Izhak Schnell & Basem Hijazi & Diana Saadi & Emanuel Tirosh, 2022. "Women Emotional, Cognitive and Physiological Modes of Coping with Daily Urban Environments: A Pilot Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-14, July.
    8. Xun Zhu & Yaqian Zhang & Wei Zhao, 2020. "Differences in Environmental Information Acquisition from Urban Green—A Case Study of Qunli National Wetland Park in Harbin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-13, October.
    9. Melissa R. Marselle & Katherine N. Irvine & Altea Lorenzo-Arribas & Sara L. Warber, 2014. "Moving beyond Green: Exploring the Relationship of Environment Type and Indicators of Perceived Environmental Quality on Emotional Well-Being following Group Walks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, December.
    10. Yun Shu & Chengzhao Wu & Yujia Zhai, 2022. "Impacts of Landscape Type, Viewing Distance, and Permeability on Anxiety, Depression, and Stress," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-22, August.
    11. Leyla Deniz Kiraz & Catharine Ward Thompson, 2023. "How Much Did Urban Park Use Change under the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Comparative Study of Summertime Park Use in 2019 and 2020 in Edinburgh, Scotland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(21), pages 1-29, October.
    12. Hannes Kettner & Sam Gandy & Eline C. H. M. Haijen & Robin L. Carhart-Harris, 2019. "From Egoism to Ecoism: Psychedelics Increase Nature Relatedness in a State-Mediated and Context-Dependent Manner," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-23, December.
    13. Xuanyi Wang & Shulin Chen, 2023. "The Moderating Effects of Gender and Dispositional Mindful Observation on the Relationship between Nature Contact and Psychological Distress: A Cross-Sectional Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-13, November.
    14. Hiromitsu Kobayashi & Chorong Song & Harumi Ikei & Bum-Jin Park & Takahide Kagawa & Yoshifumi Miyazaki, 2017. "Diurnal Changes in Distribution Characteristics of Salivary Cortisol and Immunoglobulin A Concentrations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-9, August.
    15. Richter, Franziska & Jan, Pierrick & El Benni, Nadja & Lüscher, Andreas & Buchmann, Nina & Klaus, Valentin H., 2021. "A guide to assess and value ecosystem services of grasslands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    16. Liqing Zhang & Puay Yok Tan, 2019. "Associations between Urban Green Spaces and Health are Dependent on the Analytical Scale and How Urban Green Spaces are Measured," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-18, February.
    17. Masahiro Horiuchi & Junko Endo & Norimasa Takayama & Kazutaka Murase & Norio Nishiyama & Haruo Saito & Akio Fujiwara, 2014. "Impact of Viewing vs . Not Viewing a Real Forest on Physiological and Psychological Responses in the Same Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-19, October.
    18. Gianluca Grilli & Sandro Sacchelli, 2020. "Health Benefits Derived from Forest: A Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-11, August.
    19. Jiake Shen & Yuncai Wang & Xiaolu Guo, 2021. "Identifying and Setting Linear Water Space Priorities in Co-Urbanized Area Based on Multiple Levels and Multiple Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-27, July.
    20. Tian Gao & Tian Zhang & Ling Zhu & Yanan Gao & Ling Qiu, 2019. "Exploring Psychophysiological Restoration and Individual Preference in the Different Environments Based on Virtual Reality," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-14, August.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9302-:d:875204. 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.