“A Gem among the Rocks”—Identifying and Measuring Visual Preferences for Mountain Lakes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What are typically recognised characteristics of mountain lakes?
- What are aesthetic preferences related to water clarity and colour, the presence of algae, the composition of the lake shore and surrounding land cover and, are these influenced by the socio-cultural background of the respondents?
- How can the collected information be used for assessing the aesthetic value of mountain lakes?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Questionnaire and Data Collection
2.2. Data Analysis
2.3. Case Study Application
2.3.1. Study Lakes
2.3.2. Indicators for Aesthetic Value
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of Respondents
3.2. Characteristics of Mountain Lakes Mentioned by the Respondents
3.3. Preferences Related to Visual Characteristics
3.4. Aesthetic Value of Study Lakes
4. Discussion
4.1. Characteristics and Preferences of Mountain Lakes
4.2. Applicability and Future Perspectives
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Category | Group | Term |
---|---|---|
Water (664) | Visual water quality (237) | clear (219), crystal (8), transparent (8), turbid (2) |
Water temperature (148) | cold (108), cool (16), fresh (14), temperature (8), frozen (1), glacier water (1) | |
Water colour (129) | colour (83), blue (22), blue-green (8), turquoise (6), green (5), dark (2), opalescent (2), emerald (1) | |
Water quality (88) | clean (67), pure (14), low nutrients (4), drinking water quality (2), water quality (1) | |
Water surface (62) | reflection (34), calm (23), shine (3), surface (2) | |
Lake (357) | Lake shape (124) | small (34), size (24), shape (16), profound (14), irregular (9), round (5), formation (4), shallow (4), tributaries (4), glacial formation (2), lakebed (2), oval (2), water level changes (2), no tributaries (1), sediments (1) |
Lake shore (118) | natural (90), rocky (16), vegetation (4), shore (3), mud (1), shallow (1), slope (1), steep (1), trees (1) | |
Ecosystem quality (60) | pristine (36), nature (22), ecological balance (2) | |
Flora and fauna (55) | wildlife (18), few fish/fishless (11), fish (10), flora and fauna (6), biodiversity (4), no water plants (2), few water plants (1), flora (1), water plants (1), without reed (1) | |
Experience (236) | Sentiment (111) | beautiful (32), refreshing (13), break (4), life (4), relaxing (4), fascinating (3), freedom (3), worth protecting (3), breathing (2), few people (2), romantic (2), serenity (2), too cold for swimming (2), uniqueness (2), vulnerable (2), admiration (1), adventure (1), aesthetic element (1), breath-taking (1), calming (1), crowded (1), dramatic (1), extraordinary (1), gurgle (1), happiness (1), harmonious (1), history of earth (1), impressive (1), intensive (1), inviting (1), joy (1), lovely (1), magic (1), persistence (1), picturesque (1), positive energy (1), rough beauty (1), spectacular (1), splendid (1), sweet (1), swimming (1), too cold for bathing (1), tourism (1), water sound (1), wet (1), wonder (1) |
Atmosphere (107) | tranquillity (51), silence (14), idyllic (10), loneliness (10), peaceful (10), wilderness (5), atmosphere (2), special (2), wideness (2), pleasantness (1) | |
Accessibility (18) | accessible (5), few tourism (2), hiking (2), no fishing (2), no tourist attractions (2), bathing allowed (1), no bathing (1), no bathing establishment (1), no swimming (1), some hiking trails (1) | |
Location (178) | mountains (30), vegetation (16), big whole (15), naturalness (15), surroundings (14), location (13), alpine vegetation (11), high-elevated (10), rocks (10), remoteness (9), landscape (8), scenery (4), trees (4), contrast to landscape (3), forest (3), near glacier/snow (3), sparse vegetation (3), contrasting (1), few trees (1), gem between rocks (1), no forest (1), no high vegetation (1), no settlements (1), no traffic (1) |
Picture | Total | Gender | Age | Cultural Background | Relation to Alps | Nature Connectedness | Lake Affinity | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female | Male | <40 | 40+ | German | Italian | Residents | Tourists | Low | High | Low | High | ||
N = 526 | N = 320 | N = 201 | N = 253 | N = 256 | N = 294 | N = 210 | N = 199 | N = 229 | N = 187 | N = 335 | N = 255 | N = 268 | |
1a | 0.835 | 0.841 | 0.826 | 0.870 * | 0.805 * | 0.840 | 0.829 | 0.834 | 0.834 | 0.861 | 0.821 | 0.839 | 0.828 |
1b | 0.165 | 0.159 | 0.174 | 0.130 * | 0.195 * | 0.160 | 0.171 | 0.166 | 0.166 | 0.139 | 0.179 | 0.161 | 0.172 |
2a | 0.544 | 0.547 | 0.542 | 0.565 | 0.523 | 0.517 | 0.562 | 0.523 | 0.555 | 0.561 | 0.540 | 0.537 | 0.552 |
2b | 0.080 | 0.075 | 0.085 | 0.075 | 0.078 | 0.099 | 0.062 | 0.075 | 0.074 | 0.075 | 0.081 | 0.102 | 0.056 |
2c | 0.376 | 0.378 | 0.373 | 0.360 | 0.398 | 0.384 | 0.376 | 0.402 | 0.371 | 0.364 | 0.379 | 0.361 | 0.392 |
3a | 0.462 | 0.453 | 0.478 | 0.466 | 0.461 | 0.442 | 0.471 | 0.437 | 0.476 | 0.519 | 0.430 | 0.467 | 0.455 |
3b | 0.414 | 0.428 | 0.393 | 0.399 | 0.434 | 0.459 * | 0.371 * | 0.452 | 0.367 | 0.385 | 0.430 | 0.427 | 0.403 |
3c | 0.027 | 0.028 | 0.025 | 0.028 | 0.023 | 0.014 * | 0.043 * | 0.035 | 0.031 | 0.021 | 0.030 | 0.008 ** | 0.045 ** |
3d | 0.097 | 0.091 | 0.104 | 0.107 | 0.082 | 0.085 | 0.114 | 0.075 | 0.127 | 0.075 | 0.110 | 0.098 | 0.097 |
4a | 0.078 | 0.078 | 0.075 | 0.040 ** | 0.109 ** | 0.048 ** | 0.129 ** | 0.070 | 0.074 | 0.075 | 0.081 | 0.067 | 0.090 |
4b | 0.460 | 0.494 * | 0.403 * | 0.510 | 0.414 | 0.493 * | 0.395 * | 0.412 | 0.498 | 0.481 | 0.448 | 0.514 * | 0.407 * |
4c | 0.057 | 0.053 | 0.060 | 0.032 ** | 0.086 ** | 0.051 | 0.067 | 0.055 | 0.061 | 0.070 | 0.048 | 0.067 | 0.049 |
4d | 0.405 | 0.375 * | 0.463 * | 0.419 | 0.391 | 0.408 | 0.410 | 0.462 * | 0.367 * | 0.374 | 0.424 | 0.353 * | 0.455 * |
5a | 0.700 | 0.731 | 0.652 | 0.763 ** | 0.637 ** | 0.731 * | 0.648 * | 0.714 | 0.686 | 0.663 | 0.722 | 0.682 | 0.720 |
5b | 0.162 | 0.147 | 0.184 | 0.091 *** | 0.234 *** | 0.139 | 0.200 | 0.141 | 0.188 | 0.187 | 0.146 | 0.169 | 0.153 |
5c | 0.059 | 0.066 | 0.050 | 0.059 | 0.059 | 0.044 | 0.076 | 0.050 | 0.057 | 0.070 | 0.054 | 0.063 | 0.056 |
5d | 0.080 | 0.056 * | 0.114 * | 0.087 | 0.070 | 0.085 | 0.076 | 0.095 | 0.070 | 0.080 | 0.078 | 0.086 | 0.071 |
6a | 0.099 | 0.091 | 0.114 | 0.087 | 0.109 | 0.116 | 0.081 | 0.156 *** | 0.057 *** | 0.070 | 0.116 | 0.067 * | 0.131 * |
6b | 0.196 | 0.191 | 0.204 | 0.221 | 0.176 | 0.184 | 0.210 | 0.241 | 0.170 | 0.155 | 0.218 | 0.118 *** | 0.272 *** |
6c | 0.236 | 0.238 | 0.234 | 0.198 * | 0.277 * | 0.252 | 0.238 | 0.226 | 0.249 | 0.262 | 0.224 | 0.255 | 0.220 |
6d | 0.470 | 0.481 | 0.448 | 0.494 | 0.438 | 0.449 | 0.471 | 0.377 ** | 0.524 ** | 0.513 | 0.442 | 0.561 *** | 0.377 *** |
References
- Schirpke, U.; Tasser, E.; Ebner, M.; Tappeiner, U. What can geotagged photographs tell us on cultural ecosystem services of lakes? Ecosyst. Serv. 2021. under review. [Google Scholar]
- Angradi, T.R.; Ringold, P.L.; Hall, K. Water clarity measures as indicators of recreational benefits provided by U.S. lakes: Swimming and aesthetics. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 1005–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tallar, R.Y.; Suen, J.P. Measuring the aesthetic value of multifunctional lakes using an enhanced visual quality method. Water 2017, 9, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vesterinen, J.; Pouta, E.; Huhtala, A.; Neuvonen, M. Impacts of changes in water quality on recreation behavior and benefits in Finland. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 984–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, A.O.; Nolan, J.M.; Scott, J.T. Optical water quality and human perceptions of rivers: An ethnohydrology study. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2016, 2, e01230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gall, M.P.; Davies-Colley, R.J.; Merrilees, R.A. Exceptional visual clarity and optical purity in a sub-alpine lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2013, 58, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suplee, M.W.; Watson, V.; Teply, M.; McKee, H. How green is too green? Public opinion of what constitutes undesirable algae levels in streams. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2009, 45, 123–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, L.-H. Appearance’s Aesthetic Appreciation to Inform Water Quality Management of Waterscapes. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2017, 09, 1645–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Palmer, S.E.; Schloss, K.B. An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 8877–8882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cottet, M.; Piégay, H.; Bornette, G. Does human perception of wetland aesthetics and healthiness relate to ecological functioning? J. Environ. Manage. 2013, 128, 1012–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keeler, B.L.; Wood, S.A.; Polasky, S.; Kling, C.; Filstrup, C.T.; Downing, J.A. Recreational demand for clean water: Evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 13, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hunt, L.M. Recreational fishing site choice models: Insights and future opportunities. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2005, 10, 153–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, X.; Boromisza, Z. Public perceptions and aesthetic preferences of lakeshore landscape: The example of Lake Velence (Hungary). Landsc. Environ. 2020, 14, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, L.; Homma, R.; Iki, K. Preferences for a lake landscape: Effects of building height and lake width. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018, 70, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Ling, C.; Li, X. Study on the Accessibility and Recreational Development Potential of Lakeside Areas Based on Bike-Sharing Big Data Taking Wuhan City as an Example. Sustainability 2020, 12, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williamson, C.E.; Saros, J.E.; Vincent, W.F.; Smol, J.P. Lakes and reservoirs as sentinels, integrators, and regulators of climate change. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2009, 54, 2273–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmeller, D.S.; Loyau, A.; Bao, K.; Brack, W.; Chatzinotas, A.; De Vleeschouwer, F.; Friesen, J.; Gandois, L.; Hansson, S.V.; Haver, M.; et al. People, pollution and pathogens—Global change impacts in mountain freshwater ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622–623, 756–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moser, K.A.; Baron, J.S.; Brahney, J.; Oleksy, I.A.; Saros, J.E.; Hundey, E.J.; Sadro, S.A.; Kopáček, J.; Sommaruga, R.; Kainz, M.J.; et al. Mountain lakes: Eyes on global environmental change. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2019, 178, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weckström, K.; Weckström, J.; Huber, K.; Kamenik, C.; Schmidt, R.; Salvenmoser, W.; Rieradevall, M.; Weisse, T.; Psenner, R.; Kurmayer, R. Impacts of Climate Warming on Alpine Lake Biota over the Past Decade. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 2016, 48, 361–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dokulil, M.T. Environmental Impacts of Tourism on Lakes. In BT-Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences and Control; Ansari, A.A., Gill, S.S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 2, pp. 81–88. ISBN 978-94-007-7814-6. [Google Scholar]
- Senetra, A.; Dynowski, P.; Cieślak, I.; Źróbek-Sokolnik, A. An evaluation of the impact of hiking tourism on the ecological status of alpine lakes-a case study of the valley of dolina pieciu stawow polskich in the tatra mountains. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Völker, S.; Kistemann, T. The impact of blue space on human health and well-being—Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2011, 214, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buckley, R.; Gretzel, U.; Scott, D.; Weaver, D.; Becken, S. Tourism megatrends. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2015, 40, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Couper, M.P.; Tourangeau, R.; Conrad, F.G.; Crawford, S.D. What They See Is What We Get: Response Options for Web Surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2004, 22, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wartmann, F.M.; Purves, R.S. Investigating sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service in different landscapes through the lens of language. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 175, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTAT Zeitreihe zum Tourismus und Gemeindetabellen-1950–2019. Available online: https://astat.provinz.bz.it/de/aktuelles-publikationen-info.asp?news_action=300&news_image_id=1078375 (accessed on 23 February 2021).
- Bieling, C.; Plieninger, T.; Pirker, H.; Vogl, C.R. Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 105, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Antrop, M.; Van Eetvelde, V. Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: Visual image interpretation and landscape metrics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 50, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orians, G.H. Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In The Evolution of Human Social Behavior; Lockard, S.J., Ed.; Elsevier: Chigago, IL, USA, 1980; pp. 49–66. [Google Scholar]
- Schirpke, U.; Timmermann, F.; Tappeiner, U.; Tasser, E. Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: Modelling the aesthetic value. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 69, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tveit, M.S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2882–2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ode, Å.; Fry, G.; Tveit, M.S.; Messager, P.; Miller, D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Union. Guidance on the Requirements for Hydropower in Relation to EU Nature Legislation; European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Lavdas, A.A.; Schirpke, U. Aesthetic preference is related to organized complexity. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fish, R.; Church, A.; Winter, M. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 21, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miró, A.; O’Brien, D.; Tomàs, J.; Buchaca, T.; Sabás, I.; Osorio, V.; Lucati, F.; Pou-Rovira, Q.; Ventura, M. Rapid amphibian community recovery following removal of non-native fish from high mountain lakes. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 251, 108783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barros, A.; Pickering, C.M. How Networks of Informal Trails Cause Landscape Level Damage to Vegetation. Environ. Manag. 2017, 60, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marion, J.L.; Leung, Y.-F.; Eagleston, H.; Burroughs, K. A Review and Synthesis of Recreation Ecology Research Findings on Visitor Impacts to Wilderness and Protected Natural Areas. J. For. 2016, 114, 352–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkes-Allemann, J.; Pütz, M.; Hirschi, C.; Fischer, C. Conflict situations and response strategies in urban forests in Switzerland. Scand. J. For. Res. 2015, 30, 204–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scolozzi, R.; Schirpke, U.; Detassis, C.; Abdullah, S.; Gretter, A. Mapping Alpine Landscape Values and Related Threats as Perceived by Tourists. Landsc. Res. 2015, 40, 451–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schirpke, U.; Scolozzi, R.; Dean, G.; Haller, A.; Jäger, H.; Kister, J.; Kovács, B.; Sarmiento, F.O.; Sattler, B.; Schleyer, C. Cultural ecosystem services in mountain regions: Conceptualising conflicts among users and limitations of use. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 46, 101210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Confer, J.J.; Thapa, B.; Mendelsohn, J.L. Exploring a typology of recreation conflict in outdoor environments. World Leis. J. 2005, 47, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatterer, P.J. Instagram the‚ Chameleon’—The Biggest Influencer of Overtourism in Rural Destinations. Master’s Thesis, Modul University Vienna, Vienna, Austria, 2020. Available online: https://www.modul.ac.at/uploads/files/Theses/Master/MBA_2020/1602010_Peter_Gatterer_thesis_no_sig.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2021).
- Cagnina, M.R.; Cicero, L.; Osti, L.; Pizzuto, L. Uncontrolled positive promotion and tourists’ satisfaction. In Proceedings of the XVI Conference Società Italiana Marketing, Piacenza, Italy, 24–25 October 2019; Volume 4, pp. 24–25. [Google Scholar]
- Unterkofler, F. Nachhaltige Tourismusmobilität in Südtirol–Implementierung von Mobility as a Service für Touristen. Diploma Thesis, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria, 2019. Available online: https://repositum.tuwien.at/handle/20.500.12708/1459 (accessed on 20 April 2021).
- Tieskens, K.F.; Van Zanten, B.T.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Verburg, P.H. Aesthetic appreciation of the cultural landscape through social media: An analysis of revealed preference in the Dutch river landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 177, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinclair, M.; Ghermandi, A.; Moses, S.A.; Joseph, S. Recreation and environmental quality of tropical wetlands: A social media based spatial analysis. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lake Characteristics | Antholzer See (Lago di Anterselva) | Pragser Wildsee (Lago di Braies) | Langsee (Lago Lungo) | Fischersee (Lago di Saldura ovest) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Area (ha) | 43.24 | 35.82 | 19.59 | 0.54 |
Elevation (m a.s.l.) | 1642 | 1493 | 2381 | 2758 |
Volume (106 m3) | 11.04 | 5.30 | 2.58 | 0.03 |
Area watershed (ha) | 1887.15 | 2930.55 | 199.45 | 3.08 |
Main land cover types | Forest | Forest | Grassland, rocks | Rocks |
Walking time from nearest parking or cable car station (h) | 0.05 | 0.05 | 3.50 | 2.50 |
Indicator | Valuation | Method |
---|---|---|
Water colour | Positive | Preference score from survey (picture set 1) estimated from photographs and field survey |
Water clarity | Positive | Secchi depth (m) obtained from CLAIMES (unpublished data) |
Presence of algae | Negative | Chlorophyll-a (μg L−1) obtained from CLAIMES (unpublished data) |
Littoral preference | Positive | Preference score from survey weighted by the length of each littoral habitat type (picture set 5) |
Land cover preference | Positive | Preference score from survey weighted by the length of each land cover type (picture set 6) |
Socio-Cultural Variables | Classification | Sample Proportion (%) |
---|---|---|
Gender | female | 61.5 |
male | 38.5 | |
Age | 16–39 years | 49.7 |
40+ years | 50.3 | |
Cultural background | German-speaking | 55.9 |
Italian-speaking | 39.9 | |
English * | 4.2 | |
Relation to Alps | Low (visits the Alps primarily as a tourist) | 43.7 |
Strong (lives and grew up in the Alps) | 38.0 | |
Other * | 18.3 | |
Nature connectedness | Low (spending time in nature less than several times a month) | 35.8 |
High (spending time in nature at least several times a week) | 64.2 | |
Lake affinity | Low (<3 visits to lakes a year) | 51.2 |
High (>4 visits to lakes a year) | 53.8 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Schirpke, U.; Scolozzi, R.; Tappeiner, U. “A Gem among the Rocks”—Identifying and Measuring Visual Preferences for Mountain Lakes. Water 2021, 13, 1151. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091151
Schirpke U, Scolozzi R, Tappeiner U. “A Gem among the Rocks”—Identifying and Measuring Visual Preferences for Mountain Lakes. Water. 2021; 13(9):1151. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091151
Chicago/Turabian StyleSchirpke, Uta, Rocco Scolozzi, and Ulrike Tappeiner. 2021. "“A Gem among the Rocks”—Identifying and Measuring Visual Preferences for Mountain Lakes" Water 13, no. 9: 1151. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091151