Social Perception of Riparian Forests

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.

1. Introduction

Riverside riparian forests are ecotones that differ from the surrounding landscapes, because the high-water content in the soil results in unique vegetation and soil characteristics, delineating the transition from terrestrial ecosystems into aquatic ones [1,2]. Consequently, because of the high temporal and spatial variability, riparian forest ecosystems are affected by land use, as well as bioclimatic and geo-morphological conditions [3]. Restoration of ecosystems is an advisable strategy for re-establishing biodiversity, thus riparian zones are ever transforming and dynamic systems; therefore, conservation should focus on creating an environment that is able to adjust to changing conditions [2,4]. River and associated processes interact with the forest along the fluvial system, accordingly increasing species richness on a landscape level and contributing essential ecosystem and cultural services to society [4].

Riparian forests are responsible for erosion control, as riparian vegetation has a soil-stabilizing effect and hinders nutrient and carbon dissipation into rivers [3]. Moreover, the vegetation on river banks endorse the alleviation of flooding and improve the water quality [5,6]. Because of tree canopies and vegetation, riparian forests are vital for lowering the air and water temperature, as well as the amount of light that reaches the river, which reduces the primary production in the streams [7]. Adjacent forests serve as crucial nursery areas by providing individuals of a particular species with necessary conditions for their reproduction and survival in different development stages [8]. Furthermore, the shade from woody vegetation is important for creating certain microclimatic conditions that are favorable not only for species living in riparian ecosystems, but also for the public health [9]. In addition to the vast variety of provisions and regulations for ecosystem services, riparian forests are also important in terms of cultural ecosystem services [3].

Rivers and riparian forests have always been major providers of cultural ecosystem services, functioning as areas for recreation, relaxation, destressing, ecotourism, orienteering, refreshment, and fitness [3,10,11]. Consequentially, recreationalists tend to be attracted to riparian areas for activities such as hiking, swimming, camping, boating, fishing, and aesthetic experiences; therefore, spending time in nature can have physiological, physical, and psychological benefits for wellness [12]. Previous research shows, that, from an aesthetic point of view, the general public tends to prefer heavily vegetated river landscapes as opposed to those with channelized riparian corridors or limited vegetation [13]. However, heavy recreational use can cause diversity and a density reduction of herbaceous plants, the elimination of young trees and seedlings, the degeneration of shrub and tree vigor, potential spread of disturbance-adapted and exotic species, and increased litter pollution [13,14].

To strike a balance between creating appealing recreation opportunities and ecological quality it is essential for riparian zone restoration in order to meet the environmental policy objectives, but on the contrary, it is crucial for leveraging inclination to pay for ecological improvements [14]. Thus, the practice of conserving riparian forests in the Baltic Sea forest region has long been recognized as being of high importance [1]. The significance of riparian buffer zones is associated with the positive relationship of the forest cover percentage adjacent to the fluvial system and biodiversity [15,16,17], as well as the mitigation of unwelcome changes in aquatic ecosystems that could arise from disturbances in the adjacent landscape [18]. In Latvia, river and stream buffer zones restrict the management of forests adjacent to fluvial systems [1,19]; however, buffer zone management has been recognized as a method for increasing the proportion of broadleaved trees in the riparian zone, which could promote several ecological functions, mostly related to stream enrichment with leaf litter [20]. Selective logging, for example, could mimic natural disturbances and improve habitats for lichens [21]. Even though current regulations towards riparian buffers are prospective, there is a need for enhancements that would improve the ecological functions of riparian ecosystems [1].

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. Reframing management and science, in the context of global change, could improve both human well-being and ecosystem integrity, if ecological values of riparian ecosystems, as well as their economic and sociological functions are considered, as man has always been a part of river system evolution [2,22]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the social perception of riparian forests by identifying society’s recreational habits and concerns regarding the state of these forests.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The study was conducted in boreal zone in Latvia (56° N, 24–25° E), in the Salacgrīva and Limbaži counties. The social perception of residents was rather well represented as a total of 734 respondents were surveyed, of which 61% were women and 39% were men. The majority of respondents (45%) had secondary education, 22% had basic education, and 33% of respondents had higher education. The most represented age group was respondents who were 41–51 years old (33%), but the least represented age groups were 61–70 (5%) and >70-year-old respondents (5%). The area was chosen as the study site, not only because there are several bigger rivers there, that are known to be an attraction to people, but because this area is also rich in smaller rivers and streams. The Salacgrīva and Limbaži counties have plenty of infrastructure and thus could be used to describe the interaction between recreation and the environment relatively well.

2.2. Public Survey

A face to face survey was organized by the Latvian University of Life Sciences and Technologies. To describe society’s preferences in terms of reasons for visiting riparian forest, we used the cultural ecosystem services and the benefits and goods they provide to people, based on an ecosystem services’ classification from a previous study [3]. The survey was done by students attending schools in the Salacgrīva and Limaži counties. A detailed instruction of the surveying process was presented to the interviewers, which also included a brief introduction explaining what riparian forests mean to the respondents. The interviewers surveyed volunteers, including their family members. Survey questions included the following: global topics of public concern and specific possible concerns related to rivers and riparian forests; recreational habits associated with rivers, riverside forests, and other fluvial systems and forests adjacent to them; commuting habits and recreational frequency; sightings and thoughts on river ecosystem deterioration and possible management; and basic demographics including age and gender, as well as the level of education (Supplementary Materials).

2.3. Data Analysis

In order to understand respondents’ comprehension and attitude towards the ecological condition of rivers and riparian forests, the recreational habits of the public, and to gain an understanding about the factors that influence respondents’ perception, three analytical approaches were used. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done if the response variable was numerical, for example, when survey participants evaluated how strongly they agree or disagree with a statement. The residual distribution of the model was checked using the Shapiro−Wilk test for normality. If the response to a question was a “Yes” or “No”, then binary logistic regression approach was used. Ordinal regression was carried out for those questions that had three or more categories. Statistical analysis was carried out using the software R studio.

Questions regarding the costs linked to certain recreation activities were not included in the survey. The amount of resources spent to visit the location were obtained, multiplying the number of visits by the distance travelled and used as a proxy of the interest of the person to invest to visit a particular site for the intended activity.

3. Results

3.1. Recreational Habits and Frequency

When asked about which type of forests respondents usually visited for recreational activities, the majority of respondents (60%) answered that they visited river riparian forests more seldom than other types of forests (forests growing next lakes or the sea). Only 13% of the respondents visited riverine forests more often than any other type of forests next to a body of water.

Furthermore, after analyzing the answers from respondents that visited forests that grow next to rivers, lakes, or the sea, information about times of the visits per season were compiled and significant differences regarding the times of the visits for each of these forest types were observed. People visited forests next to the sea for recreation or sport activities 17 times on average per season, but visited forests that grow next to lakes 18 times on average per season (Figure 1a). However, people who visited river riparian forests tended to do so more often, going up to 25 times on average per season. There were also significant differences in distance that people tended to travel in order to visit a certain type of forest. Based on the respondents’ answers, people tended to travel the furthest distance, an average of 16 km, to visit forests that grow next to the sea (Figure 1b), but the shortest distance, an average of 10 km, was travelled by respondents to visit river riparian forests.

Conversely, no significant differences were present for the resources that people were willing to spend in order to visit different types of forests. Nevertheless, Figure 1c shows that the greatest amount of recourses were spent to visit forests that grow next to the sea (an average of 222); however, for the purpose of visiting forests growing next to the lakes and rivers, respondents spent an average of 171 and 169 resources, respectively. When looking at the preferred activities for which respondents visit riparian forests, significant differences could be seen. The majority of respondents commuted to riparian forests to have a walk (62%) or swim (54%), and 4% of respondents tended to pick berries and mushrooms in riparian forests (Figure 2). Less popular activities that respondents participate in in riparian forests and rivers were fishing and hunting (18%), boating (18%), and sports/fitness (17%).

Additionally, when analyzing the answers only from respondents who visited riverine forests, we looked at how often people visited rivers or riparian forests for these activities. Respondents’ answers showed that going for a walk in riparian forests was the most frequent activity, as respondents chose to visit riparian forests for walking approximately 14 times per season (Figure 3). The second most frequent activity was fishing and hunting, which respondents performed up to 12 times per season. Out of the mentioned activities, boating was the least frequent, as respondents visited the rivers for this reason up to five times per season.

Consequentially, there was a difference in how far respondents tended to travel for certain types of activities. Respondents’ answers revealed that people tended to travel much greater distances for activities such as fishing (17 km on average) (Figure 4). Thus, for activities such as swimming, berry and mushroom picking, and relaxation (sunbathing, picnics, etc.), people commuted an average of 9 km, but for having a walk in a river riparian forest, respondents tended to travel the shortest distances (8 km on average).

Looking at the answers regarding the resources people were willing to invest in order to actualize preferred activities in riparian forests, respondents tended to spend the greatest amount of resources in order to go fishing (an average of 200) (Figure 5). On the contrary, the least amount of resources were spent for berry, mushroom, and vulnerary plant picking, as well as for boating (an average of 57).

3.2. Public Concerns of Riverine Forests and Rivers

In order to gain an understanding of how important riverine forests are to people living in Latvia, respondents were asked to choose what everyday-life-associated topics concerned them the most. The survey results implied that only 25% of respondents picked “forests and water bodies” as a topic that concerned them. The respondents’ answers suggested that those surveyed were more concerned about health (78%), roads and traffic (57%), and education (50%) (Figure 6).

Respondents were asked if they agreed with a statement that they were concerned about the state of riverine forests, and significant differences could be noted between the answers that were given by people who had picked “forests and water bodies” as an important topic and those who had not. People who were concerned about forests and water bodies were more likely to agree with this statement than those who did not rank this topic as one of their three main concerns. The level of respondents’ education did not have an influence on the given answer. Similarly, when asked if respondents agreed with a statement that they were concerned about the state of rivers, those who previously had picked forests and water bodies as an important factor were more likely to agree with the statement. On the contrary, for this statement, the level of respondents’ education had an influence on the given answer, and interviewees who had higher or secondary education were more likely to agree with the statement, as opposed to those who had basic education.

Furthermore, respondents’ observations regarding the state of rivers and riverine forests were assessed. The issue that concerned most interviewees (84%) was river overgrowth with aquatic vegetation (Figure 7). The issues that less respondents acknowledged were, first, that water in the rivers tended to become dirtier and more turbid (59%); second, rivers were becoming shallower (60%); and third, the erosion of river banks and subsidence of soil (60%).

Additionally, in a attempt to better describe society’s understanding of problems associated with riverine ecosystems, respondents were asked to evaluate several statements regarding the deterioration of rivers and riverine forests on scale of one to five (1—it is not a problem; 5—it is a very concerning problem). From offered statements offered from the respondents, the obstructed movement of fish to spawning grounds was recognized as the most important problem. The respondents were the least concerned about the reduction of water tourism and fishing opportunities.

4. Discussion

4.1. Recreational Habits and Frequency

The results of the survey provided insight into the public tendencies related to riparian forests as contributors of cultural ecosystem services. Riverine forests tend to be a less popular option for outdoor recreation, compared with other types of forests, but people who visit riverine forests tend to do so more frequently than those who chose other types of forests for recreation and other activities (Figure 1). Additionally, as respondents tended to spend less resources for visiting riverine forests, as well as travel smaller distances, than for visiting other types of forests, it can be conjectured that riverine forests are more important for providing cultural services at a local scale. The high number of average visits per season also suggests that riverine forests could be fundamental recreational locations to local society in particular, as these nearby water bodies and nature landscapes are convenient for regular visits.

Several of the preferred recreational activities are directly connected to riparian forests. The respondents’ answers signal that the majority of surveyed people were drawn to riverine forests mainly to enjoy nature while having a walk (Figure 2), which simultaneously provided them with several benefits—aesthetic experiences, stress reduction, and physical activities [3,23]. Having walks and hikes in biodiverse riparian areas and forests alongside streams and rivers has been proven to reduce salivary cortisol levels and improve the overall well-being of hikers [12]. Furthermore, natural riparian areas and wildlife sightings have also been associated with aesthetic and travel preferences among residents [12]. Berry and mushroom picking are other activities that were rather popular among the respondents, as previous research in 2010 indicated that around 77% of the inhabitants of Latvia had gone to forests in order to gather one of these goods [24] and 55.5% of the population recognized this as an important recreational activity during the summer season [25]. People who tended to go berry, mushroom, and vulnerary plant picking in riparian forests presumably gained similar benefits for their wellness as going for a walk, in addition to the collected goods, and tended to travel slightly further distances (Figure 4), possibly in search of less populated areas. In some cases, berry and mushroom picking could also serve as a source of income [25,26]. Fitness activities (running, different sports, and orienting) are also performed in the areas and forests adjusted to fluvial systems, suggesting that, even though a smaller proportion of respondents visited riverine forests for these activities (16%) (Figure 2), those who did, did it relatively often (an average of nine times per season), making riparian forests important for people in the context of health maintenance and improvement. Previous research indicates that forests are seen as a pleasant environment for sports activities, because of the fresh air, landscape, and contact with nature [27].

However, river landscapes provide various cultural ecosystem services [28], and our survey results also indicated that several of the preferred recreational activities were strongly linked to the river or stream itself rather than the adjusted forest. Water activities such as swimming and boating are more seasonal and are dependent on the suitability of the river; thus, these activities offer people opportunities to relax, unwind, and gain refreshment [28,29]. Swimming is the second most popular activity that people visit riverine areas for (Figure 2) and for this activity, respondents presumably chose river fragments with easy access to river banks and water—possibly managed coastal areas. Furthermore, another activity directly connected with fluvial systems is fishing, which, although rather under-represented among respondents (18%), was the second most frequent activity (Figure 3). Additionally, people who visited rivers and stream for fishing tended to travel further distances on average (Figure 4), indicating that rivers and this ecosystem service were important to this specific group of people. This group of people also spent the most resources (visit riparian ecosystems rather frequently and travel furthest distances (Figure 4 and Figure 5)); therefore, their interests should be considered and the provision of areas in riparian ecosystems that would be suitable for this activity should be encouraged. In this case, a partial and dynamic river basin and river bank management could be looked at as a possible solution for restoring eligible locations for fishing, as well as other recreational activities, at least along some parts of the rivers, while simultaneously improving state of riparian ecosystems.

4.2. Public Concerns of Riverine Forests and Rivers

After asking several questions about general topics that might concern respondents, it could seemingly be concluded that overall, even though “forests and water” was the least popular of the answers (Figure 6), people were still concerned about the subject matter. The main benefits that people gained from visiting rivers and riparian forests, as discussed in Section 4.1, were associated with improvements to as well as the maintenance of physical and mental health. Based on these presumptions, it can be assumed that some of the importance of riparian areas should include the most concerning topic—health—as riverine forests are clearly an area people visit in order to enhance their wellness by exercising, relaxing, and unwinding in nature [30,31].

Assessing the problems observed by respondents in relation to the condition of riparian forests and rivers, the results show that respondents were aware of the different issues connected with these ecosystems. However, three of the most often noticed problems were comparatively more linked to fluvial systems and water quality, than riparian forests (Figure 7), suggesting that respondents may have paid more attention to or were more concerned about the state of rivers and streams. This could be explained by the activities that were preferred by respondents, in this case—negative changes in rivers are probably more perceptible when people go swimming, boating, or fishing, as they directly encounter water and might have to face not only the changes on a landscape level, but also a reduction in the quality of these activities. River overgrowth with aquatic plants could have a negative impact on fishing opportunities, as well as swimming, forcing people to look for alternative locations. Similarly, the increasing number of fallen trees in rivers can seriously impact the opportunities for boating, as well as increase flooding and the accumulation of tree litter and municipal waste, which can negatively impact riparian ecosystems and people’s health, as well as their recreational experiences [32,33]. This possibly explains why “waste increase in rivers (plastic bottles, etc.)” was another relatively concerning problem among respondents. Similarly, the increase in dead wood and fallen trees in riparian forests was found to be concerning to people. Previous research confirms that people tend to have a negative perception of fallen trees and dead wood in forests [34,35,36,37]. By increasing the possibilities for people to educate themselves about the ecologically beneficial aspects of these structures, as well as other natural processes related to riparian ecosystems, sustainable solutions for balancing recreation and nature protection activities could be contemplated [2,22,35,38].

Of the proposed issues related to riparian ecosystem deterioration, those related to rivers and streams were considered to be the more significant to respondents. The majority of surveyed people considered the obstructed movement of fish to spawning grounds to be a problem of high importance, which suggests they were worried about riverine wildlife. Likewise, river enrichment with leachates (soil and clay) and the disappearance of currents and rapids were seen as other concerning issues, underlining the importance of river habitats to respondents. The surveyed people also recognized the decline of the riparian forest economic value caused by lack of management as an issue. This presumably means that people noticed possible opportunities for improvement in the riverine forest condition, or this perception could be feasibly connected with the result that suggest that riverine forests becoming overgrown with many broken and fallen trees was a concerning issue to the respondents (Figure 7). However, regardless of respondents’ fondness for recreational activities such as fishing and boating, the decline in water tourism and fishing opportunities was the least concerning of the issues, implying that the problems associated with the overall state of riparian ecosystems and the ecological services they provide were more concerning to people than some of the recreational opportunities. Another possibility could be that people had less problems finding other alternative access points or options for recreation.

To better understand the public’s attitude towards riparian forests and to gain knowledge about the important aspects in terms of social perception, further research is needed. The study methodology can be enhanced; for example, the method we used for describing the resources that people are willing to spend in order to visit a certain type of forest or to perform a specific activity can be improved. Our goal was to distinguish which groups of people (based on the activities they perform) are the most willing to visit riparian forests—evaluating this eagerness by describing the resources they are willing to spend. We are aware that there are other expenses related to recreational activities, for example, suitable clothing for walking in forests and fishing gear for fishermen; therefore, a more complex evaluation method with a more detailed distribution of expenses is preferable for further studies.

5. Conclusions

The results of the survey provided insight into the society’s tendencies regarding riparian forests as places for various recreational activities, as well as acknowledged issues that are important to those people in terms of the state of the riparian forests in Latvia. Based both on the recreational habits and public concerns, a duality of riverine landscape usage and its meaning in people’s lives can be noticed. People are more worried about the state of the rivers rather than the forests near them; similarly, many of the preferred recreational activities target streams or rivers. This needs to be considered when managing riparian forests in order for increased social benefits.