Imen

Ho15 P

Braided riversEnvironmental education

ecotoatioing

y numel barJones

systems, with water owing not only over the top of gravel beds,

ponds and alluvial gravel bars together form a heterogeneousmosaic of dynamic and connected riparian, hyporheic andaquatic habitats, which in turn support a rich biodiversity of plant

Braiding, which characterizes numerous rivers in the inter-lps, appears to berosive conditions,89; Surian, 1999).re altering natural

sediment supplies and ooding processes, consequently reducingthe width of the active channel and concentrating streamowswithin a single-bed channel (decreasing habitat diversity and nat-ural ood control).

The present study was conducted in the Regional Natural Parkof Montemarcello-Magra (4320 ha, including 18 villages), locatedin the southernmost area of La Spezia province near the Tuscanborder, in Italy (Fig. 1). Within this protected area, a natural sec-tion of the Magra River, the side-channels of its main tributary,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 33 4 37 37; fax: 33 4 63 47.E-mail addresses: Yves-Francois.Le-Lay@ens-lyon.fr, yf_lelay@hotmail.com

(Y.-F. Le Lay), Herve.Piegay@ens-lyon.fr (H. Pigay), Anne.Honegger@ens-lyon.fr

Contents lists available at

Journal of Environm

journal homepage: www.els

Journal of Environmental Management 119 (2013) 1e12(A. Rivire-Honegger).but also horizontally and vertically through the gravels, oftenreappearing as springs or spring-fed secondary channels (Brunkeand Gonser, 1997).

Spring-fed channels, abandoned oodplain channels, isolated

mountain plains and foothills of the European Aa phenomenon in balance with climatic and ewhich are now changing (Peiry and Bravard, 19Climate change combined with human impacts apreconditions that cause river braiding: an abundant sedimentsupply; frequent and extreme variations in channel depth; andnon-cohesive, easily erodible riverbanks. In this bedload-rich rivertype, gravel deposits can be several metres deep and 10e100 kmlong (Gray and Harding, 2007). These are three-dimensional eco-

or formed elsewhere, allowing mobile species to subsist within thelarger river oodplain (Arscott et al., 2002). Floodplain instabilityalso gives rise to a range of habitats in multiple stages of succession,each occupied by distinct ecological communities (Whited et al.,2007).Environmental perceptionMediterranean mountainNatural capitalPhoto-questionnaire

1. Introduction

Braided rivers are characterized bthat split and reconnect around gravby pioneer vegetation. Church and0301-4797/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.006water, vegetation, and bed material. Respondents were asked to score each photograph in terms ofaesthetic value, benecial uses, and river management needs. Results showed that the photographsdepicting gravel bars were perceived as less aesthetically pleasing, so therefore they need an activemanagement. However, these perceptions differed amongst groups of participants, reecting their in-terests and objectives. This paper identies a distance between scientic and popular attitudes anddiscusses implications for public participation, support for braided river restoration policy, and envi-ronmental education.

2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

erous, mobile channelss and islands colonized(1992) identied three

communities, macro-invertebrates, sh, and birds (Tockner et al.,2006). Although braided river oodplains exhibit extreme insta-bility, biological communities can persist given the overall magni-tude or relative proportion of each habitat type within the system.As soon as a habitat feature is destroyed, a similar one is maintainedKeywords:perceived by different social groups in the area. In June, 2006, 127 people were surveyed using a photo-questionnaire consisting of ten photographs that depicted riverscapes with different proportions ofAvailable online 19 February 2013 habitats and processes. To support this objective, a study was conducted to assess how braided rivers arePerception of braided river landscapes:participation and sustainable managem

Yves-Franois Le Lay*, Herv Pigay, Anne Rivire-Universit de Lyon, CNRS-UMR 5600 Environnement, Ville, Socit, Site ENS de Lyon,

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 22 September 2011Received in revised form10 December 2012Accepted 8 January 2013

a b s t r a c t

Over the past century, thelost many gravel bars duesupply and channel degradand managers are beginnAll rights reserved.plications for publict

neggerarvis R. Descartes, 69362 Lyon Cedex 07, France

logically-diverse, braided Magra River in Italy has narrowed, incised, andthe riparian vegetation encroachment following the decrease in bedloadn. Motivated by the European Water Framework Directive, river scientiststo plan projects to conserve and restore these dynamic mosaics of rare

SciVerse ScienceDirect

ental Management

evier .com/locate/ jenvman

ttier

Vill

Lic

nmeZeriPontremoli

Fila

Mulazzo

Trasana

Podenzana

Y.-F. Le Lay et al. / Journal of Enviro2the Vara River, and most of the Ligurian wetlands comprise theuvial park of the MagraeVara, which provides resting andnesting areas for migratory birds and important spawning andrearing areas for sh species including Alosa fallax (twait shad),Lampetra uviatilis (river lamprey) and Petromyzon marinus (sealamprey). Even though the meandering lower Magra River (BassaVal di Magra) contains relict braided channels, it exhibits symp-toms of intense human exploitation. The river drains a catchmentof about 1700 km2, a mean annual discharge of 40 m3 s1 anda mean of maximum annual daily discharge of 683 m3 s1. Similarto numerous rivers with large sediment loads that drain the Alpsand the Apennines (Pigay et al., 2009; Surian and Rinaldi, 2003),the Magra River has experienced geomorphic and biogeographicchanges that have affected its braiding characteristics, includinga narrowing of the active channel, the encroachment of riparianvegetation, and the incision of the river bed (Simoncini, 2008). Infact, the natural reforestation of the headwaters of the basin atthe end of 19th century and early 20th century is the primarycause of the reduced sediment supply (Rinaldi et al., 2005a,b). Theconstruction of dams and weirs, as well as considerable gravelmining, has added to ongoing uvial changes since the mid-1900s.

Vara

River

Bolano

S. Stefano Ma

Vezzano L.

Arcola Sar

Ameglia

Fig. 1. Localization map of the studied Magra River reach between Pontremolia

Bagnone

afrancaComano

ciana Nardi

Fivizzano

CasolaAulla

ntal Management 119 (2013) 1e12Scientic interest in the increasingly fewer examples of braidedrivers has grown in Europe and North America (Sambrook Smithet al., 2006), resulting in the implementation of many restorationstudies, most notably in Central Europe (Hohensinner et al., 2004).For river management purposes and notably for river restoration,the question of what landscape is desired is a really critical questionfor which this survey of perception can be a valuable tool to com-pleting the technical investment made in such operations. Thisstudy of environmental evaluation was therefore designed to un-derstand how local stakeholders perceive a river channel that isrich in gravels in order to better evaluate whether theywill supportproposed braided channel restoration projects or not, and to guidefuture public outreach and environmental education programs.Data were collected on perceived naturalness, benecial uses of theriver, and need for improvement. The two key objectives of thisarticle were to test the hypothesis that these values are shared byboth academic and popular cultures, and to evaluate the degree andconditions under which riverside communities can support riverconservation and restoration projects on braided rivers charac-terized by very low ows and large gravel deposits. Can we expectriver landscape appraisals of scientists and managers to be inaccordance with local stakeholders and public perception and

gra

zana

0 5 km

Tendency to degradationTendency to aggradation

Evolution during the last decade(Rinaldi et al., 2009)

and the sea. The villages where the interviews were done are underlined.

Bagnone and Filattiera); 20 people with a scientic understanding

nmeof river ecosystem function (post-graduate students and academicsfrom the University of Florence who work on the Magra River); 23local river managers working for the government basin authority;and 18 other Magra River inhabitants. We interviewed the childrenin their schools with the authorization of the headmasters andteachers; the invited scientists during a workshop about MagraRiver geomorphology; the river managers in their ofces; and theriverside inhabitants at Villafranca, a town located on the left bankopinion? Are residents aware of the natural capital coming frombraided rivers or not? Due to the present degree of environmentalalteration, the need for sustainable sediment management is ur-gent and strongly supported by the basin authority (Rinaldi andSimoncini, 2006). The questions raised above are clearly pre-sented here as innovative, sustainable solutions for preservinggravel resources and braided river habitats (Rinaldi et al., 2009).

2. Study site and survey methods

2.1. Design of the study

This survey of the visual impact of low ows and gravel depositson peoples perception and evaluation of riverscape quality is basedon theoretical perspectives of human and landscape perceptualinteraction (Zube et al., 1982). To evaluate perceptions of braidedrivers across several stakeholder groups, we elicited individualresponses using a photo-questionnaire e a well-respected techni-que that has been used in landscape perception and evaluationresearch since the 1970s. Although surrogates may provoke a per-ceptual distortion, persons responses to an actual physical settingare strongly and positively correlated to responses based ona comprehensive photograph of the same scene. A meta-analysis of11 papers yielded a combined correlation of 0.86 between pref-erences obtained in situ and preferences obtained through photo-graphs (Stamps, 1990, p. 907). Many studies based on photo-questionnaires have been applied to aquatic environments (LeLay et al., 2012; Bulut and Yilmaz, 2009; Ryan, 1998), as well as tomore specic topics such as water (Pger et al., 2010), wood inrivers (Le Lay et al., 2008) and riparian buffers (Kenwick et al.,2009). Using this method, the landscapes portrayed in the photo-graphs serve as effective substitutes for reality (Hull and Stewart,1992; Shuttleworth, 1980). Most importantly, a photo-questionnaire survey permits differences among groups of partic-ipants to be quantitatively tested (Buhyoff et al., 1983). This pro-tocol remains effective even with a small number of respondents(Schroeder, 1984). Stamps (1992) applied a bootstrap procedure ona set of 65 answers from respondents. His analysis showed split-block correlations of 0.84, 0.86 and 0.90, respectively with 15, 20and 25 subjects, for the ratings data. Therefore, large respondentsamples would probably not, in general, be a cost-effective protocolfor person/environment research (Stamps, 1992, p. 222).

Besides the environment itself, landscape preferences derivefrom a framework of values, beliefs and experiences. Many observercharacteristics may have an effect upon descriptive and evaluativeresponses (e.g., personality, socio-economic attributes, professionand experience in terms of environmental management, and fa-miliarity with a particular environment or a type of environment).In order to assess the possible inuence of river uses, environ-mental knowledge and familiarity with the river, we surveyed vedistinct groups of participants (total n 127). These groups con-sisted of 28 children, 13 years old and attending high school nearthe Magra River (in the town of Villafranca); 38 children, 13 yearsold and attending high school far-away from the river (towns of

Y.-F. Le Lay et al. / Journal of Enviroof the Magra River (Fig. 1).A lot of disagreement between actors is associated with theperception of nature. Residents may perceive naturalness verydifferently than theway experts do (Buijs, 2009;Wohl andMerritts,2007). In Switzerland, Junker and Buchecker (2008) highlightedthat aesthetic preferences relate more positively to eco-morphological quality than expected, and that the publics aes-thetic preferences are primarily inuenced by perceived natural-ness (p. 141). A participatory approach to sustainably managingrivers and streams relies on consensus to reconcile natural resourceusage with economic, ecological, recreational, and cultural objec-tives (Gardiner, 1994). However, such an approach raises importantquestions regarding implementation (Junker and Buchecker, 2008;Kenwick et al., 2009). For these reasons, ten photographs of theriver were shown to each participant depicting different pro-portions of water, vegetation, andmineral bar, and different sizes ofgravel (Fig. 2a). The respondents evaluated each of the riverscapeswith a mark on the visual analogue scale (VAS) shown in Fig. 2b (LeLay et al., 2012). It ranged from zero (the lowest level of agreement)to ten (the strongest level of agreement) for three following attri-butes: aesthetic quality (Is the river aesthetically pleasing to you?),benecial uses of the river (Do you think the river meets the peoplewho visit it?); and the need for active river management (Do youthink the river needs improvement?).

In addition, participants identied the categories of uses towhich the riverscape shownwould be most suited (1 e no activity;2 e shing; 3 e swimming; 4 e navigation, 5 e relaxation, 6 egravel mining, 7 e hydroelectric power supply, 8 e domestic/agricultural water supply, 9 e nature conservation). They alsoidentied appropriate types of management activities for eachriverscape (six categories: 1 e no management, 2 e improvedlandscaping, 3 e wildlife protection, 4 e bank stabilization, 5 echannel cleaning, 6 e engineered structures). Respondents wereallowed to select multiple uses and management actions.

2.2. Data analysis

The proportional area of water, vegetation, and mineral bar wasmanually measured within each photograph using a transparentgrid (Table 1). The grid was laid upon each photograph so that thenumber of boxes (0.5 cm on each side) occupied by each area couldbe counted and converted to the percentage of the total surfacearea covered in the photograph (Cossin and Pigay, 2001). Thesediment size was also visually assessed and categorized into fourclasses: 1 e absent, 2 e gravels, 3 e pebbles, and 4 e large bouldersfollowing the size scale of Wentworth (1922).

We performed all statistical procedures with R, a program fordata analysis and graphics (Ihaka and Gentleman, 1996). As eachphotograph was graded on a specic VAS, the scores can be aver-aged and compared in various ways. As a result, for each of thethree variables (aesthetic value, benecial uses, managementneeds), we considered the average scores for photographs, takinginto account potential differences between the four bedload sizeclasses.

We computed correlation coefcients of Bravais-Pearson fromscores of aesthetic value, benecial uses, management needs andproportions of landscape components (water, mineral bar, andvegetation) to measure the strength of the associations betweenthese six quantitative variables. These coefcients also identiedthe attributes of riverscape quality which determined the decision-making factor.

We arranged tables for the three perceived riverscape variables(aesthetic value, benecial uses, management needs) using meanVAS scores per group of participants for each photograph. Thuseach table contained 5 columns corresponding to the 5 groups of

ntal Management 119 (2013) 1e12 3respondents and 10 rows corresponding to 10 slides. To investigate

Fig. 2. (a) Photographs shown to the 127 survey respondents; and (b) example of the visual analogue scale (VAS).

Y.-F. Le Lay et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 119 (2013) 1e124

Table 1Surface area of each photograph (A through J) occupied by water, vegetation, andsediments, and the visually assessed sediment size (0 e no sediment, 1 e gravel, 2 epebbles, and 3 e large boulders).

Photograph Water (%) Vegetation (%) Sediment (%) Sedimentsize

A 42.25 45.99 0.53 0B 0.53 8.02 52.41 1C 21.93 5.35 34.22 1D 26.20 40.91 23.80 2E 1.07 37.17 61.50 3F 24.33 10.70 33.96 2G 60.16 15.51 2.14 1

Y.-F. Le Lay et al. / Journal of Environmethe variation between groups of participants, we performed a nor-malized Principal Component Analysis (nPCA) on each of the threequantitative attributes describing riverscape perception. We pro-vided the inertia ratio of each the signicant factors to statisticallyvalidate the procedure.

To evaluate the categorical variables, we created bar plots fromcontingency tables to determine relationships between benecialuses and management actions recommended by the differentgroups of respondents.

3. Results

3.1. The perception of the inuence of mineral bars on the riverinelandscape

Across participants, there were clear tendencies towards posi-tive preferences for landscapes that depicted high proportions ofwater (or conversely, low proportions of mineral bars). For exam-ple, therewere strong positive associations between the proportionof water depicted and average responses for aesthetic value(r 0.76; p < 0.015) and benecial use (r 0.87; p < 0.0015)(Table 2). Six signicant negative correlations were also identied.Management needs are negatively correlated to benecial usesatisfaction (r 0.94; p < 0.0001), aesthetic value (r 0.90;p < 0.0004), and proportion of water (r 0.70; p < 0.025).Likewise, there were negative associations between the proportionof mineral bars and benecial use (r 0.80; p < 0.005) and aes-thetic value (r 0.70; p < 0.025).

Relationships between the area occupied by mineral bars andeach survey response variable are illustrated in Fig. 3. River land-scapes dominated by mineral bars (slides B and E) were recognizedas less aesthetic, less usable and motivated respondents to require

H 15.51 24.60 39.57 3I 12.03 28.61 32.62 1J 59.36 9.89 11.76 1an improvement. Sediment size also inuenced landscape per-ception (Fig. 3). For a given proportion of mineral cover, imageswith large-sized boulders (slides E and H) were perceived as moreattractive, more usable, and requiring less active management than

Table 2Correlation matrix (calculated with average Bravais-Pearson coefcients) for thesurvey response variables (aesthetic value, benecial uses, and needs for manage-ment action) and the landscape components (area occupied by water, vegetation,and mineral bar). Signicant values with p < 0.05 are in bold type.

Aesthetics Uses Management Water Vegetation Mineralbar

Aesthetics 0.964 L0.904 0.759 0.155 L0.702Uses L0.944 0.868 0.022 L0.805Management L0.899 0.069 0.827Water 0.101 L0.916Vegetation 0.121Mineral barother riverscapes with lower sediment size fractions. Inversely, thescenes I and C (covered with gravels) but also A and partly J (withno sediment) were perceived as less attractive, less usable, andrequiring more active management than the predicted value fora given mineral area.

3.2. Types of riverine landscapes and sociocultural contrasts

The three normalized Principle Components Analyses (PCA)identied strong similarities among preferences of each group, butalso highlighted notable differences, in particular for river man-agers (Fig. 4).

The two rst axes (principal components or PCs) for aestheticquality accounted for 91% of the total variation (73.7% and 17.4%,respectively, for axes F1 and F2, Fig. 4a). The rst axis (the dominantPC) was strongly associated with the relative surface area occupiedby water and sediments (shown using pie charts for each photo-graph in Fig. 4a). Photographs D, F, J, and especially G, were per-ceived as the most aesthetically pleasing landscapes. These imageswere characterized by abundant owing, deepwater (slide G), or bya main channel shallow enough so that blue water was transparentalong the edges of gravel bars (photographs D, F, and J). The lessaesthetically pleasing scenes (B, C, E and I) depicted landscapesdominated by mineral bars. Photograph H, which showed a riverowing through a mostly mineral surface, received an intermediaterating. The responses of four groups of participants strongly con-tributed to the rst axis: high school children both near and farfrom the river, river inhabitants, and scientists (right side of Fig. 4a).In contrast, the F2 axis largely accounted for the distinct answersprovided by river managers, who appeared to respond to the pro-portion of vegetation (Table 1). The most vegetated landscapes(mainly A and I) had negative coordinates on the axis F2. They wereperceived as relatively less attractive for managers. Although theinuence of alluvial vegetation on aesthetic scores for managersappears important, water and sediment were the key landscapecomponents determining aesthetic quality across groups.

Similar results were found for the PCA of benecial use re-sponses. The rst two PCs for river usability explained 84.2% (axisF1) and 11.8% (axis F2) of the total variation (Fig. 4b, inset). On thefactorial maps, the responses for river use corresponded well withthose provided for scenic beauty. Landscapes that elicited a highdegree of benecial usability were also recognized as being aes-thetically pleasing. But the landscape components (e.g., water,vegetation or mineral features) contributed more to these results.Landscapes of water (G, D, J and F) had positive coordinates on axisF1, unlike landscapes with more sedimentary deposits. Again, theF2 axis appeared to account for differences in benecial use re-sponses among groups that were associated with riparian vegeta-tion (Fig. 4b). In comparison to aesthetic value, the responses givenbymanagers still differed from those of other groups of participantsand thus appear to be again related to the proportion of vegetation.The distant high school children have also an opinionwhich slightlydiffers from the other groups notably on photo E.

The rst two axes of a PCA performed on data from the need foractive river management explained 91% of the total variance(respectively, 69.7% and 21.5% for axes F1 and F2; Fig. 4c, inset).According to the correlation circle, the axis F1 was associated withrelative proportions of water and sediment, while the F2 axis wasstructured by the area occupied by vegetation in the photographs.The highest scores were associated with the photographs showingmany alluvia (scenes B, I, E, and H). If the attitudes of scientists, localresidents, and high school children living near the Magrawere verysimilar, responses provided by the more distant high school chil-dren were again far more inuenced by the presence of sediment

ntal Management 119 (2013) 1e12 5accumulations, whereas the responses of managers were driven by

3efic

a co

sho

nmethe proportion of vegetation. The scenes that were considered asless aesthetically pleasing and less likely to provide benecial riveruses (B, E and I) were also recognized as requiring more manage-ment interventions to improve the current situation.

The ve participant groups had varying distributions of re-sponses in the landscape evaluation (Fig. 5). There was a cleardifference between the two groups of high school children. Thoseliving near the Magra were quite homogenous in opinion, partic-ularly with regard to aesthetic value and benecial uses, whiledistant high school children expressed contrasting responses withno emergent consensus. Local residents and managers had similaraesthetic and benecial use perceptions, providing very few lowscores. In this context, scientists were distinguished by providingvery few high scores. In terms ofmanagement needs, themanagers,scientists, and high school children near Magra shared bimodaldistributions, with many low scores and intermediate scores. Localresidents also provided responses showing a bimodal distribution,but bimodality was less clear, with more frequent low scores and

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

34

56

78

Aesthetic value

Area covered by sediment (%)

Aver

age

scor

e

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

0 10 20

34

56

78

Ben

Aver

age

scor

e

A

D

G

J

Are

Undetermined grain size

Large bouldersPebblesGravels

x

x

x

Fig. 3. The inuence of the proportion and size class of bedload

Y.-F. Le Lay et al. / Journal of Enviro6high scores. It should also be noted that river managers believedthat they should limit intervention, and that they attributed lowerscores to the need for river management than the scientists.

3.3. Characterization of benecial uses and management needs

The characterization of benecial river uses by the differentrespondents groups for each of the ten river landscapes wasassociated with the presence of water and alluvial deposits (Fig. 6).When photographs depicted landscapes with abundant sediment(B, C, E, H and I), observers were less likely to recognize benecialriver uses. Those images were associated with higher scores for noactivity. However, photographs B, C, E, H, and I were scored asbeing conducive to relaxation and gravel mining. In addition, thescenes in which water was abundant and aggregated into a singlechannel (including A and G) were scored higher for swimming andeven more for shing activities.

Groups of participants had different characterizations of the usesfor which the riverscapes were the best suited. Managers and scien-tists shared similar attitudes. More often than others, they selectedcategories such as nature conservation, shing, and relaxation. Thelatter appeared to be the activity of choice amongMagra River users,who identied this as a use for six photographs containing a well-extended mineral area (B, C, F, H, I, and J). The responses providedby high school children differed in that those living near the Magraconsidered it favourable to shing, relaxation, and nature conserva-tion, while distant high school children selected those uses less often.

No action as a river management need was most often selec-ted (Fig. 7). However most respondents chose measures to improvelandscape and protect wildlife for photographs B and I, whichdepicted more alluvial deposits. In addition, channel cleaning wasmore often proposed for scenes C, E, and H, which contained highproportions of sediment (34%, 61%, and 39%, respectively).

There were also clear differences between groups of re-spondents. Managers were less eager to recommend managementactions and suggested relatively fewmeasures. However, they weremore motivated to act in favour of landscaping and wildlife pro-tection when assessing photographs showing a single-bed lenticchannel (scenes A, G, and I). Faced with scene E, which showedcoarser sediments, managers were more inclined to clean thechannel or take more drastic engineeringmeasures. Scientists weremore concerned with channel sections with concave streambanks,

0 40 50 60

ial uses

BC

E

F

H

I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

34

56

78

Management needs

Aver

age

scor

e

A

B

CD

E

F

G

HI

J

vered by sediment (%) Area covered by sediment (%)

x

wn in the photographs on the three survey response variables.

ntal Management 119 (2013) 1e12which are sensitive to erosion andmay requirework to stabilize thebanks (photograph A). While the managers and scientists hadcommon concerns about sh habitat and landscaping, their re-sponses differed in terms of risk: the latter were sensitive to theproblem of undercutting banks while the former were rather waryof oods and the roughness of the channel. In addition, childrenfrom high schools far-away from the Magra River were the mostmotivated to intervene to manage the river.

Concerning the photo I managers scored differently than theother groups: they did not consider this riverscape to be signicantlydifferent in terms of benecial uses (useful for shing and natureconservation). In terms of management actions, they recommendedspecic operations on vegetation to improve the landscape similarlywith photo A but they did not refer to any risk management actions.Concerning the photo E distant high school children scored differ-ently than the other groups: they did not consider such riverscapeuseful for nature conservation, which differs from local high schoolchildren opinion, and their choice in terms ofmanagement actions isvery variable, compared to the other scenes.

4. Discussion

The public opinion on the aesthetics, benecial uses and man-agement needs of river landscapes is based both on personal

Fig. 4. Results of the three normalized Principal Component Analyses (nPCA) conducted on (a) aesthetic value, (b) benecial uses, and (c) management needs. On factorial mapsF1 F2 (on the left side), the circular pie charts indicate the positions of the ten photographs submitted to the 127 survey participants and depict the proportion of water (white), ofvegetation (gray), and of sediment (black), for each scene. The shaded labels (A through J) also identify the bedload size classes in each photograph. The inset bar chart in the upperleft of each factorial map shows the principal component eigenvalues. On the right-hand side, the positions of the ve groups of respondents with respect to the rst two principalcomponent axes, F1 and F2, are shown on the circles of correlations.

fici

ribu

nmepreferences of the observer and on the characteristics of the envi-ronment (Dakin, 2003; Lothian, 1999). The results described hererene and extend the conclusions described in the scientic liter-ature by landscapers, behavioural geographers, and environmentalpsychologists.

4.1. Natural capital and ecosystem services: conrming theperceived beauty of water

The area occupied by water in a photograph was positivelycorrelated with perceived beauty and benecial uses of the river-scape, and negatively correlated with management needs. Thedesirability of water is indeed one of the most prominent arche-types. It asserts itself in a Mediterranean context, where mostparticipants know river discharges undergoing large uctuationsduring the year and from one year to another. We have however toput his nding into perspective. Aesthetic quality decreases duringboth low and high water periods (Brown and Daniel, 1991). Thenegative impact of intense ows can be explained by a reduction inthe complexity of the landscape: a high level of water tends toreduce the frequency of wet/dry thresholds, causing an apparentuniformity of supercial velocity and removing islands and bars. Incontrast, the negative effect of low water is likely due to a loss ofvitality and vibrancy, with stagnant waters replacing rough waters.The ow of water varies also with the aesthetic, recreational, ornancial value of a river landscape.

02

46

810

02

46

810

Aesthetic value Bene

Nea

rby

high

scho

ol c

hild

ren

Dis

tant

hig

hsc

hool

chi

ldre

n

Man

ager

s

Scie

ntist

s

Riv

er u

sers

Nea

rby

high

scho

ol c

hild

ren

Dis

tant

hig

hsc

hool

chi

ldre

n

Fig. 5. Intra-group variability of the scores att

Y.-F. Le Lay et al. / Journal of Enviro8Consequently, there is an optimum of discharge for the visualquality of riverscapes (Pger et al., 2010). The attractiveness of riv-erscapes depends on both their features and recognized social bene-ts. Surface freshwater (rivers, wetlands, or lakes) can provide manygoods and services to human society, including both market goods,like water supply for municipal, industrial and agricultural users aswell as non-market goods such as habitat for plant and animal life,biodiversity, aesthetic beauty, and recreation (Loomis et al., 2000;Petrosillo et al., 2013; Raymond et al., 2009; Wilson and Carpenter,1999). Even though the Magra River drains a large intensely culti-vated and exploited plain, its ecological value was recognized byprotected areas: the Parco Fluviale della Magra, established in 1982,and then the Parco della Magra e di Montemarcello in 1995. Braidedrivers playa signicant role in the functions of natural capital, both inrunning the key processes that support the owof goods and servicesand in maintaining functions of natural capital resilient to change(Ekins et al., 2003, p. 170). In addition to regulation and habitatfunctions, and related ecosystem services, the Magra River provideslife-fullling services through the provision of aesthetic beauty, cul-tural, intellectual and spiritual inspiration. This aesthetic benet elicitsand enhances not only near-water recreational activities (hiking,picnicking, and relaxation) but also boating, shing, and swimming.

Our results also highlight the inuence of sediment size on thepublic preference for different visual riverscapes. Large boulderswere more visually appealing than small pebbles and gravels.Beyond the mere presence of water and sediment, the organizationof landscape components must be considered. Large bouldersincrease the number of items independently perceived in a photo-graph and provide more precise organization. They make the riverlandscape more legible and more coherent. They permit a quickunderstanding of the scene and offer enough information to gen-erate visual interest (Porteous, 1996).

4.2. A gap between experts and residents?

This survey conrms some of the contradictions between theperceptions of river experts and others when valuing braidedrivers. The results show that riverscapes with greater percentagesof mineral bars were perceived as less attractive and did not meetthe river use expectations of residents, motivating them to rec-ommend management actions. Braided river landscapes with largealluvial deposits were associated with lower perceptions of riverusability and greater desire among participants to improve thelandscape and protect wildlife, including some suggestions to cleanchannels and install engineering structures.

Similarly, in a study on the Roubion River, a left bank tributary of

02

46

810

al uses Management needs

Man

ager

s

Scie

ntist

s

Riv

er u

sers

Nea

rby

high

scho

ol c

hild

ren

Dis

tant

hig

hsc

hool

chi

ldre

n

Man

ager

s

Scie

ntist

s

Riv

er u

sers

ted to each of the survey response variables.

ntal Management 119 (2013) 1e12the Rhne River, in France, the identication of the least appre-ciated landscape was highly consensual among non-expert re-spondents (Le Lay et al., 2012). For the least pleasing photograph,participants denounced the lack of water, the appearance of a riverbed that had been bulldozed, and the presence of gravel. TheRoubion River was considered as a poorly maintained and dis-orderly desert. Although representative of braided rivers in theRhne corridor, that landscape did not t the public preference.

Surprisingly, the participant responses showed that Italian sci-entists and local residents shared some similar opinions. Despitetheir knowledge of quality habitats, scientists did not score braidedrivers any more positively. The responses of river managers wereunique in that their aesthetic evaluations were less inuenced bythe proportions of water and sediment in the photographs. Theirmotivation to recommend management action was more closelylinked to the aesthetic value of the riverscape. However, the atti-tudes of managers and scientists were similar when characterizingpossible human and environmental uses of the river. More thanother groups, their concerns focused on nature conservation andlandscape enhancement.

nme0.0

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.2

0.4

4

Photograph A

Photograph C

Photograph E

Freq

uenc

ycy

Freq

uenc

y

Y.-F. Le Lay et al. / Journal of EnviroTo reverse the progressive disappearance of braided reaches inthe Magra River and its tributaries, current restoration projects aimto: 1) maintain the supply, storage, and transport of uvial sedi-ments; 2) limit channel dredging; and, 3) increase sedimentrecharge via increased lateral erosion and/or tributary sedimentinputs (Rinaldi et al., 2009). Specically, to restore oodplain spaceto which the river is adapted, the processes of erosion and depo-sition would be reactivated via articial sediment recharge and thedestruction of engineered in-stream structures.

According to our results, such actions are likely to impact riverusers and residents who are generally more sensitive to changes intheir local lifestyle than to regional and national conservationstrategies.

Should we attempt to meet public demands? Because weappreciate what we have been taught to appreciate, a focus oncollective culture inhibits the new and reinforces the elements that

No activityFishingSwimmingNavigationRelaxationGravel miningHydroelectric generationWater withdrawalNature conservation

0.0

0.2

0.0.

00.

20.

40.

00.

20.

4

Photograph I

Photograph G

Nearb

y high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Distan

t high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Mana

gers

Scien

tists

River

users

Freq

uenc

yFr

eque

ncy

Freq

uen

Fig. 6. Categorization of benecial uses recommended by0.0

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.2

0.4

4

Photograph D

Photograph B

Photograph F

ntal Management 119 (2013) 1e12 9contribute to forming the ideal river landscape. Previous ndingsreected the publics ideal river setting to be one with open de-ciduous forest, with amixture of grass and plants, or, grass and treesoverhanging the bank of amature river, of natural form andwithoutan overabundance of vegetation in the water (House and Sangster,1991, p. 315). Therefore a strategy of management or restorationpromoting a bedload-rich river type, with abundant gravel deposits,unstable banks, many secondary and abandoned channels in a largeoodplain appear to be far from the public expectation.

4.3. Isnt there a way of reconciling the different points of view?

The gap between the perceptions and attitudes of professionalsand civil servants and those of the public can be harmful whenignored (Dearden, 1981; Junker and Buchecker, 2008). Howeversimply recognizing this gap does not resolve all issues. How canwe

0.0

0.2

0.0.

00.

20.

40.

00.

20.

4

Photograph H

Photograph J

Total

Nearb

y high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Distan

t high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Mana

gers

Scien

tists

River

users

Nearb

y high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Distan

t high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Mana

gers

Scien

tists

River

users

0.00

0.15

survey respondents for each riverscape photograph.

nme0.0

0.4

0.8

0.8

Photograph A

Photograph C

quen

cyFr

eque

ncy

Y.-F. Le Lay et al. / Journal of Enviro10reduce the gap between expert and generalist local knowledgeabout braided reaches of river? The challenges for sustainable rivermanagement include a social learning based on the polycentricgovernance of natural resources, the involvement of all stake-holders in the policy process, and the development of newattitudesto deal with differences constructively (Mostert et al., 2007).

First, the results of this survey showed that visiting the riverchanges the landscape assessment of observers. Survey participantsfamiliar with the Magra River (local residents and nearby highschool children) provided more consistent opinions regardingaesthetic value, benecial uses, and management needs than the

No actionImproved landscapingWildlife protectionBank stabilizationChannel cleaningEngineered structuresOther actions

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

0.0

0.4

0.8

0.0

0.4

0.8

Photograph E

Photograph I

Photograph G

Nearb

y high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Distan

t high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Mana

gers

Scien

tists

River

users

Freq

uenc

yFr

eque

ncy

Freq

uenc

yFr

e

Fig. 7. Categorization of management actions rec0.0

0.4

0.8

0.8

Photograph D

Photograph B

ntal Management 119 (2013) 1e12distant high school children. Groups familiar with the river chosethe modality no action in terms of need for management morefrequently, and were less tempted to suggest cleaning or engi-neering measures. This is why any strategy for conserving orrestoring braided segments should be accompanied by the provi-sion of guided tours on-site to explain project objectives. Consult-ing with the public during the planning stages will be important instrengthening community support and mitigate potential conicts(House and Fordham,1997), certainly, but stakeholder involvementshould be complemented by an environmental educational pro-gram on the ow of benecial services coming from braided river

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

0.0

0.4

0.8

0.0

0.4

0.8

Photograph F

Photograph H

Photograph J

Nearb

y high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Distan

t high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Mana

gers

Scien

tists

River

users

Total

Nearb

y high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Distan

t high

scho

ol ch

ildren

Mana

gers

Scien

tists

River

users

0.0

0.2

0.4

ommended for each riverscape photograph.

nmehabitats. Its success will depend on its duration, teaching practisesemployed, and people targeted (Vaughan et al., 2003). The mainobjectives for environmental education should be to increasepeoples understanding of how braided rivers function and tostrengthen their emotional afnity with gravel bars.

Furthermore, river manager attitude is also unexpected in thesense that it differs from those of scientists and other respondentsabout vegetation (both in terms of aesthetics and need forimprovement). Additional research is needed to understand theperception of Italian scientists who do not appreciate braided riverlandscape aesthetics (similarly to local residents) but promote theirconservation and restoration. We can hypothesize here that pro-fessional training or management policy can inuence their atti-tude and motivation for improvement. Similarly to what isobserved in other cultural contexts, vegetation and wood in riverscan thus be interpreted as either a risk factor during oods whichmust be controlled or a signicant component of freshwater eco-systems (Wy _zga et al., 2009).

In contrast to approaches based solely on expert judgement ordeveloped by small groups of professionals, more and more studiesare collecting perceptions and evaluations of so-called secularculture. For example, recent studies in public decision-makingconsidered not only the ecological diversity of a landscape, butalso the aesthetic perceptions of local residents (Cottet, 2010). Ac-cording to Penning-Rowsell (1981), we need to identify whatpeople believe are the facets of landscape value, rather than whatthe researcher, the historian, the architect and planner think theybelieve. This question is particularly challenging in the context ofthe implementation of the European Water Framework Directive,adopted on October 23, 2000, which commits member nations torestore water and aquatic habitat quality by 2015. With anemphasis on the benets of public involvement, the Directive re-quires that river management decisions be made at a social level asclose as possible to the places of use or degradation of the waterand aquatic environments. Accordingly, local communities, waterand river users, non-prot organizations, and government agenciesmust all be consulted as part of this stakeholder-based approach.

5. Conclusions

This participatory approach based on a photo-questionnaire canbe used to recognize variations in riverscape perceptions of differentrespondents groups and thus to contribute to sustainably managingrivers and streams. Braided rivers represent high-energy uvial en-vironments where functional processes are positively valued by sci-entists. The general public however shows a different understandingof what an ideal river ought to look like. Scientists and managers areexpected to have a deeper technical knowledge of rivers and river-scape. Public support or reaction to restoration projects dependsmainly on the distance between the expert and public perceptions.Like the in-channel wood, gravel bars are negatively perceived andoften regardedasanalien element in the river. Changing the attitudestowardsbedload seems tobeaprerequisite for anyplan to reverse thedisappearance of braided reaches in the Magra River. Knowledge isa really critical factor to consider when reconciling perceptive dis-sonance and promoting effective preservation and restoration ofunaesthetic riverscapes. Achieving campaigns of environmental ed-ucation could enhance the recognition of ecological and social ben-ets related to sediment deposits and braided riverhabitats, and thusbridge the gap between expert and generalist local knowledge.

Acknowledgements

This study was completed in June 2006, at a summer school

Y.-F. Le Lay et al. / Journal of Envirobringing together researchers and doctoral students of theUniversity of Florence (Italy) and the University of Lyon (France).Data analysis was funded by the ANR GESTRANS (gs1) projectgranted to Alain Recking. The authors are particularly grateful toDufour S., Rinaldi M., and Simoncini C. who organized thesummer school, the associate eld campaign and additionalexchanges and surveys done thereafter. They also thank AttardoS., Bellacci L., Comiti F., Coppi L., Doretti G., Gaertner V.,Grosprtre L., Lamagna S., Lejot J., Luppi L., Mao L., Pecorari E.,Rollet A.-J., and Vergaro A., who helped distribute the question-naires and collect the data. R. Jenkinson translated this manuscriptfrom French to English and A. Stomp edited the translation. Theauthors wish to thank the reviewers and Emeline Comby for theirconstructive comments and suggestions.

References

Arscott, D., Tockner, K., Nat van der, D., Ward, J.V., 2002. Aquatic habitat dynamicsalong a braided alpine river ecosystem (Tagliamento River, Northeast Italy).Ecosystems 5, 802e814.

Brown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., 1991. Landscape aesthetics of riparian environments: re-lationships of ow quantity to scenic quality along a wild and scenic river.Water Resources Research 27, 1787e1795.

Buijs, A.E., 2009. Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study intolocal residents support for and framing of river management and ecologicalrestoration in the Dutch oodplains. Journal of Environmental Management 90,2680e2689.

Brunke, M., Gonser, T., 1997. The ecological signicance of exchange processes be-tween rivers and groundwater. Freshwater Biology 37, 1e33.

Buhyoff, G.J., Wellman, J.D., Koch, N.E., Gauthier, L., Hultman, S., 1983. Landscapepreference metrics: an international comparison. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 16, 181e190.

Bulut, Z., Yilmaz, H., 2009. Determination of waterscape beauties through visualquality assessment method. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 154,459e468.

Church, M., Jones, D., 1992. Channel bars in gravel-bed streams. In: Hey, R.D. (Ed.),Gravel Bed Streams. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 291e338.

Cossin, M., Pigay, H., 2001. Les photographies prises au sol, une source dinfor-mation pour la gestion des paysages riverains des cours deau. Cahiers deGographie du Qubec 45, 37e62.

Cottet, M., 2010. La perception des bras morts uviaux. Le paysage, un mdiateurpour laction dans le cadre de lingnierie de la restauration. Approche con-ceptuelle et mthodologique applique aux cas de lAin et du Rhne. PhD thesis,University of Lyon 3.

Dakin, S., 2003. Theres more to landscape than meets the eye: towards inclusivelandscape assessment in resource and environmental management. The Ca-nadian Geographer 47 (2), 185e200.

Dearden, P., 1981. Public participation and scenic quality analysis. Landscape Plan-ning 8, 3e19.

Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., De Groot, R., 2003. A framework for thepractical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sus-tainability. Ecological Economics 44, 165e185.

Gardiner, J.L., 1994. Sustainable development for river catchments. Journal of theInstitution of Water and Environmental Management 8 (3), 308e319.

Gray, D., Harding, J.S., 2007. Braided River Ecology: a Literature Review of PhysicalHabitats and Aquatic Invertebrate Communities. New Zealand Department ofConservation, Science for Conservation 279, Wellington.

Hohensinner, S., Habersack, H., Jungwirth, M., Zauner, G., 2004. Reconstruction ofthe characteristics of a natural alluvial river-oodplain system and hydro-morphological changes following human modications: the Danube River(1812e1991). River Research and Applications 20 (1), 25e41.

House, M., Fordham, M., 1997. Public perceptions of river corridors and attitudestowards river works. Landscape Research 22, 25e44.

House, M.A., Sangster, E.K., 1991. Public perception of river-corridor management.Journal of the Institution of Water and Environmental Management 5, 312e316.

Hull, R.B., Stewart, W.P., 1992. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments.Journal of Environmental Psychology 12, 101e114.

Ihaka, R., Gentleman, R., 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Journalof Computational and Graphical Statistics 5 (3), 299e314.

Junker, B., Buchecker, M., 2008. Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives inriver restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning 85, 141e154.

Kenwick, R.A., Shammin, M.R., Sullivan, W.C., 2009. Preferences for riparian buffers.Landscape and Urban Planning 91, 88e96.

Le Lay, Y.-F., Cottet, M., Pigay, H., Rivire-Honegger, A., 2012. Ground imagery andenvironmental perception: using photo-questionnaires to evaluate river man-agement strategies. In: Carbonneau, P., Pigay, H. (Eds.), Fluvial Remote Sensingfor Science and Management. WileyeBlackwell, Chichester, pp. 405e429.

Le Lay, Y.-F., Pigay, H., Gregory, K., Chin, A., Doldec, S., Elosegi, A., Mutz, M.,Wy _zga, B., Zawiejska, J., 2008. Variations in cross-cultural perception of river-

ntal Management 119 (2013) 1e12 11scapes in relation to in-channel wood. Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 33, 268e287.

Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., Covich, A., 2000. Measuring the totaleconomic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin:results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 33, 103e117.

Lothian, A., 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape qualityinherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and UrbanPlanning 44, 177e198.

Mostert, E., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rees, Y., Searle, B., Tbara, D., Tippett, J., 2007. Sociallearning in European river-basin management: barriers and fostering mecha-nisms from 10 river basins. Ecology and Society 12 (online) URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art19/.

Peiry, J.-L., Bravard, J.-P., 1989. Evolution naturelle dun remplissage sdimentaireintramontagnard et impacts des amnagements contemporains. Houille Blan-che 3e4, 221e225.

Penning-Rowsell, E.C., 1981. Fluctuating fortunes in gauging landscape value.Progress in Human Geography 5, 25e41.

Petrosillo, I., Costanza, R., Aretano, R., Zaccarelli, N., Zurlini, G., 2013. The use ofsubjective indicators to assess how natural and social capital support residentsquality of life in a small volcanic island. Ecological Indicators 24, 609e620.

Pger, Y., Rackham, A., Larned, S., 2010. The aesthetic value of river ows: anassessment of ow preferences for large and small rivers. Landscape and UrbanPlanning 95, 68e78.

Pigay, H., Alber, A., Slater, L., Bourdin, L., 2009. Census and typology of the braidedrivers in the French Alps. Aquatic Sciences 71 (3), 371e388.

Porteous, J.D., 1996. Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning. Rout-ledge, London.

Raymond, M.C., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A.,Kalivas, T., 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystemservices. Ecological Economics 68, 1301e1315.

Rinaldi, M., Simoncini, C., 2006. Studio geomorfologico del F. Magra e del F. Varanalizzato alla gestione dei sedimenti e della fascia di mobilit. In: Autorit diBacino Interregionale del umeMagra (Ed.), Nuovi approcci per la comprensionedei processi uviali e la gestione dei sedimenti e Applicazioni nel Bacino del F.Magra. Autorit di Bacino Interregionale del ume Magra, Sarzana, pp. 93e110.

Rinaldi, M., Simoncini, C., Pigay, H., 2009. Scientic design strategy for promotingsustainable sediment management: the case of the Magra River (Central-Northern Italy). River Research and Applications 25, 607e625.

Rinaldi, M., Simoncini, C., Sogni, D., 2005a. Variazioni morfologiche recenti di duealvei ghiaiosi appenninici: il Fiume Trebbia ed il Fiume Vara. Supplementi diGeograa Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria VII, 313e319.

Rinaldi, M., Wyzga, B., Surian, N., 2005b. Sediment mining in alluvial channels:physical effects and management perspectives. River Research and Applications

Ryan, R.L., 1998. Local perceptions and values for Midwestern river corridor.Landscape and Urban Planning 42, 225e237.

Sambrook Smith, G.H. (Ed.), 2006. Braided Rivers: Process, Deposits, Ecology andManagement. IAS Special Publication 36, Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Schroeder, H.W., 1984. Environmental perception rating scales. A case for simplemethods of analysis. Environment and Behavior 16, 573e598.

Shuttleworth, S., 1980. The use of photographs as an environment presentationmedium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management 23, 285e305.

Simoncini, C., 2008. Studio delle problematiche legate ai sedimenti uviali edapplicazione di una metodologia nalizzata alla gestione a scala di bacinoidrograco. PhD thesis, University of Florence.

Stamps III, A.E., 1992. Bootstrap investigation of respondent sample size for envi-ronmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills 75, 220e222.

Stamps III, A.E., 1990. Use of photographs to simulate environments. A meta-anal-ysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills 71, 907e913.

Surian, N., 1999. Channel changes due to river regulation: the case of the PiaveRiver, Italy. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 24, 1125e1151.

Surian, N., Rinaldi, M., 2003. Morphological response to river engineering andmanagement in alluvial channels in Italy. Geomorphology 50, 307e326.

Tockner, K., Paetzold, A., Karaus, U., Claret, C., Zettel, J., 2006. Ecology of braidedrivers. In: Sambrook Smith, G.H. (Ed.), Braided Rivers: Process, Deposits, Ecol-ogy and Management. Wiley and Blackwell, Publication n 36 of the Interna-tional Association of Sedimentologists (IAS), Oxford, pp. 339e359.

Vaughan, C., Gack, J., Solorazano, H., Ray, R., 2003. The effect of environmentaleducation on schoolchildren, their parents, and community members: a studyof intergenerational and intercommunity learning. Journal of EnvironmentalEducation 34, 12e21.

Wentworth, C.K., 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments.Journal of Geology 30, 377e392.

Whited, D.C., Lorang, M.S., Harner, M.J., Hauer, F.R., Kimball, J.S., Stanford, J.A., 2007.Climate, hydrologic disturbance, and succession: drivers of oodplain pattern.Ecology 88, 940e953.

Wilson, M.A., Carpenter, S.R., 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystemservices in the United States: 1971e1997. Ecological Applications 9, 772e783.

Wohl, E., Merritts, D.J., 2007. What is a natural river? Geography Compass 1, 871e900.

Wy _zga, B., Zawiejska, J., Le Lay, Y.-F., 2009. Inuence of academic education on theperception of wood in watercourses. Journal of Environmental Management 90,587e603.

Zube, E.H., Sell, J., Taylor, J., 1982. Landscape perception: research, application and

Y.-F. Le Lay et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 119 (2013) 1e121221, 805e828. theory. Landscape Planning 9, 1e32.

Perception of braided river landscapes: Implications for public participation and sustainable management1. Introduction2. Study site and survey methods2.1. Design of the study2.2. Data analysis

3. Results3.1. The perception of the influence of mineral bars on the riverine landscape3.2. Types of riverine landscapes and sociocultural contrasts3.3. Characterization of beneficial uses and management needs

4. Discussion4.1. Natural capital and ecosystem services: confirming the perceived beauty of water4.2. A gap between experts and residents?4.3. Isn't there a way of reconciling the different points of view?

5. ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences