Study project MA Environmental Planning – Summer term 2016
Rivers as hotspots for recreation?
Assessing the recreational use and the attractiveness of riverine landscapes: An empirical
case-study in the Lower Havel region
Supervisors
Dr. Alexandra Dehnhardt, Andreas Horbat
Environmental and Land Economics
[email protected], [email protected]
Background
Aquatic landscapes – rivers and their adjacent floodplains – are highly valuable ecosystems, which
provide a wide range of ecosystem services (ESS) to society. These include provisioning services (such
as agricultural production and raw materials), regulating services (such as nutrient retention and
floodwater storage), cultural services (such as recreation and scenery) as well as supporting services
(such as nutrient cycling and primary production). Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits that
people obtain from ecosystems (MA, 2005), specifically, the direct and indirect contributions of
ecosystems to human well-being (TEEB, 2010). For an effective integration of ESS and environmental
concerns into policy-making, the concept has to be operationalised and the benefits and values of
ecosystems have to be assessed, either in qualitative, quantitative or monetary terms.
An empirical survey among the German population recently shows that riverine landscapes are highly
valued for recreational purposes: 86% of the German population enjoys spending time on rivers
(TNS-EMNID 2008). Near-natural rivers and streams are also perceived to be more beautiful than
straightened rivers by 93% of the population (BMUB & BfN, 2014). An essential prerequisite to fulfill
the recreational function is an attractive landscape – built on cultural as well as natural landscape
elements – and the diverse possible uses, such as hiking, biking, angling or swimming.
Existing valuation studies indicate that the recreational value of natural and near-natural rivers and
lakes is considerably high (Ghermandi et al. 2010, Loomis et al. 2000, Meyerhoff et al. 2010, 2014,
Dubgaard et al. 2005). Many valuation studies are based on the assumption that a restoration of
rivers is associated with a higher attractiveness and aesthetic value of the riverine landscape.
Positive effects for recreation are supposed to rely on the landscape beauty as well as the nature
experience. Hence, recent studies aim to empirically elicit the effects of river restorations on the
perception of the landscape (e.g. Aberg & Tapsell 2013; Junker & Buchecker 2008; Pflüger et al.
2010). A long-term survey in UK has shown that the number of visits has increased after a restoration
of a river due to the perceived higher attractiveness and the improved recreational opportunities
(Aberg & Tapsell 2013). An empirical study from Switzerland confirmed that the aesthetic
preferences of the respondents positively correlate with the eco-morphological quality of the river;
the preferences are mainly determined by the perceived naturalness of the river corridor (Junker &
Buchecker 2008).
However, economic valuation studies in the area of recreation and nature experience, which aim to
give recreational benefits and the societal value of restoration efforts a higher weight in policymaking, are still rarely available, particularly in Germany.
Study project MA Environmental Planning – Summer term 2016
General Objective, Approaches and Scope of Analysis
The study project sheds light on the recreational use and the recreational preferences of riverine
landscapes. Particularly, we want to analyse which landscape attributes contribute to the landscape
attractiveness and the perception of naturalness. Using the Lower Havel region in Brandenburg as
the example, we will start from the following research questions:





How do people use riverine landscapes for nature experience and recreation?
Which sites do people visit for recreation purposes (=> actual choices made by individuals)? And
for which activities?
Which factors might influence these choices (spatial heterogeneity, site attributes, landscape
character)? Which landscape qualities are important for attractiveness?
How attractive are these areas perceived as? And how natural?
How might recreation behaviour change in the case of quality improvements due to restoration
measures?
The Master’s project encompasses the following approaches and methods:






Understanding the economic concept of value and the concept of ecosystem services,
particularly the recreational value provided by ecosystems, from an economic perspective
Analysing the recreational value of landscapes and the determinants, i.e. factors and attributes,
influencing the recreational use and experience based on literature analysis
Understanding and applying principles and methods of social science research
Development of an standardised questionnaire (face-to-face survey or online-survey)
Empirical survey of recreational use, attractiveness and quality of recreation sites: site choice of
visitors, perceptions, site attributes in the Lower Havel area
Statistical analysis of the empirical data
Teaching methods and learning objective





Smaller teams and plenary meetings
Exploration: Analysis of specific topics in the field of interest to create a common understanding
and knowledge base (individual work by each student, presenting and discussing results in the
class)
Devise a research strategy: Identification of research needs and research questions by students
(smaller group work and discussions in the class)
Conduct research: Smaller group work
The results will be compiled into a final report or a journal article in compliance with the criteria
on scientific working
The learning objective of the master’s projects is that students are able to apply economic
approaches and methods to a research problem (restoration management in river basins), to identify
and assess research needs, develop a research topic and create a working plan, and to critically
discuss approaches and results.
Field trip
Presumably between June 13-17, 2016
First meeting
Thursday, April 21, 14:00 in EB 416
Study project MA Environmental Planning – Summer term 2016
References
MA (2005): Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - Ecosystems and human well-being. Synthesis.
Washington, DC.: Island Press (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series).
TEEB (2010): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Mainstreaming the Economics of
Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
Aberg, E.U., Tapsell, S., 2013. Revisiting the River Skerne: The long-term social benefits of river
rehabilitation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 113: 94-103.
BMUB / BfN – Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit und
Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Hrsg.), 2014. Naturbewusstsein 2013 – Bevölkerungsumfrage zu
Natur und biologischer Vielfalt, Berlin.
Dubgaard, A., Kallensoe, M. F, Ladenburg, J., Petersen, M.L., 2005. Cost-benefit analysis of river
restoration in Denmark. In: R. Brouwer and D. Pearce (Hrsg.), Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water
Resources Management: 124-150. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Ghermandi, A., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Brander, Luke M., de Groot, H.L.F., Nunes, P.A.L.D., 2010.
Values of natural and human-made wetlands. A meta-analysis. Water Resources Research 46
(12).
Junker, B., Buchecker, M., 2008. Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river
restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning 85 (3-4): 141-154.
Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., Covich, A., 2000. Measuring the total economic value of
restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation
survey. Ecological Economics 33 (1): 103-117.
Meyerhoff, J., Dehnhardt, A., Hartje, V., 2010. Take your swimsuit along: the value of improving
urban bathing sites in the metropolitan area of Berlin. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 53 (1): 107-124.
Meyerhoff, J., Boeri, M., Hartje, V., 2014. The value of water quality improvements in the region
Berlin-Brandenburg as a function of distance and state residency. Water Resources and
Economics 5: 49–66.
Pflüger, Y., Rackham, A., Larned, S., 2010. The aesthetic value of river flows: An assessment of flow
preferences for large and small rivers. Landscape and Urban Planning 95 (1-2): 68-78.
TNS-EMNID, 2008. Flüsse und Flussgebiete – Ergebnisse einer Repräsentativbefragung unter der
Bevölkerung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministerium für
Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS), Berlin.