4.6 Article

Lake Users' Perceptions of Environmental Change: Ecosystem Services and Disservices Associated with Aquatic Plants

期刊

WATER
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13111459

关键词

Lake Geneva; environmental management; water weeds; public perception; macrophytes; values

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study in Lake Leman (Lake Geneva), Switzerland, found that the abundance of aquatic plants has increased over the last decade, largely due to climate change. These plants were perceived to benefit water quality, provide important habitat and food for fauna, but also brought some cultural or economic disadvantages. User perceptions of the associated ecosystem services and disservices affected support for management decisions.
Lake Leman (Lake Geneva), Switzerland, is known to have undergone major environmental change over the last few decades, including changes in the abundance, distribution, and species composition of macrophytic plants (aquatic plants). In this study, questionnaires and key informant interviews were used to assess lake users' perceptions of broad scale environmental change in the lake paying special attention tochanges in the abundance of aquatic plants and the perceived ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (EDS) associated with them. In addition, we assessed whether users' perceptions of aquatic plants had an impact on perceived management need. Most respondents (63%) perceived aquatic plant abundance to have increased over the last 10 years, primarily because of climate change. Aquatic plants were seen to benefit water quality through improved regulation and supporting services, and to provide important habitat and food for fauna. Most EDS associated with increased aquatic plant abundance were categorized as cultural or economic. User perceptions of the ES and EDS associated with aquatic plants affected support for management (60% of respondents supported some form of management), and such information is important for informing environmental decision making.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据