IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i3p2000-d1042375.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visitors’ Perception Regarding Floating Treatment Wetlands in an Urban Green Space: Functionality and Emotional Values

Author

Listed:
  • Ina Falfán

    (Red de Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Xalapa 91073, Veracruz, Mexico
    Laboratorio de Restauración Ecológica, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Coyoacán 04510, Ciudad de México, Mexico)

  • Maite Lascurain-Rangel

    (Red de Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Xalapa 91073, Veracruz, Mexico)

  • Gloria Sánchez-Galván

    (Red de Manejo Biotecnológico de Recursos, Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Xalapa 91073, Veracruz, Mexico)

  • Eugenia J. Olguín

    (Red de Manejo Biotecnológico de Recursos, Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Xalapa 91073, Veracruz, Mexico)

  • Arturo Hernández-Huerta

    (Red de Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Xalapa 91073, Veracruz, Mexico)

  • Melissa Covarrubias-Báez

    (Unidad de Servicios Profesionales Altamente Especializados (USPAE), Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Coatepec 91152, Veracruz, Mexico)

Abstract

Floating treatment wetlands (FTW) are artificial structures used for water quality improvement through the hydroponic growth of certain macrophytes and their rhizospheric bacteria, with the capacity for pollutant removal. Through the application of face-to-face questionnaires, our study aimed to analyze visitors’ perception of the structure, functionality, and benefits of FTW installed in two ponds of one green space in Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico, and the emotional experience that these FTW could incite in those same visitors. Visitors identified the plant component of FTW as the most noticeable one, perceived filtering/cleaning water as their principal function, and reported positive and negative emotions in the same proportion. The visitors’ perceptions of FTW varied according to their age, school level, and occupation. Positive and negative perceptions regarding FTW were linked to their maintenance and that of the ponds. Visitors’ awareness of FTW composition and function was associated with the presence of informative signs. The understanding of perception about the FTW can be integrated into management programs for the successful and participative improvement and cleaning of water bodies in urban settings. Along with people’s participation, the municipality of the city must improve the maintenance of these important water bodies given its positive repercussions on visitors’ perception.

Suggested Citation

  • Ina Falfán & Maite Lascurain-Rangel & Gloria Sánchez-Galván & Eugenia J. Olguín & Arturo Hernández-Huerta & Melissa Covarrubias-Báez, 2023. "Visitors’ Perception Regarding Floating Treatment Wetlands in an Urban Green Space: Functionality and Emotional Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2000-:d:1042375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2000/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2000/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kirsten M. M. Beyer & Andrea Kaltenbach & Aniko Szabo & Sandra Bogar & F. Javier Nieto & Kristen M. Malecki, 2014. "Exposure to Neighborhood Green Space and Mental Health: Evidence from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Jiang Li & Qiao Pan & You Peng & Tao Feng & Shaobo Liu & Xiaoxi Cai & Chixing Zhong & Yicheng Yin & Wenbo Lai, 2020. "Perceived Quality of Urban Wetland Parks: A Second-Order Factor Structure Equation Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Natasha Gilbert, 2016. "Green space: A natural high," Nature, Nature, vol. 531(7594), pages 56-57, March.
    4. Marcia P. Jimenez & Nicole V. DeVille & Elise G. Elliott & Jessica E. Schiff & Grete E. Wilt & Jaime E. Hart & Peter James, 2021. "Associations between Nature Exposure and Health: A Review of the Evidence," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Jonatan Arias-García & José L. Serrano-Montes & José Gómez-Zotano, 2016. "Fauna in wetland landscapes: a perception approach," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 510-523, July.
    6. Christopher Walker & Katharina Tondera & Terry Lucke, 2017. "Stormwater Treatment Evaluation of a Constructed Floating Wetland after Two Years Operation in an Urban Catchment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-10, September.
    7. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Levi N. Bonnell & Benjamin Littenberg, 2022. "Nonlinear Relationships among the Natural Environment, Health, and Sociodemographic Characteristics across US Counties," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-10, June.
    2. Luke A. Vitagliano & Kelly L. Wester & Connie T. Jones & David L. Wyrick & Amber L. Vermeesch, 2023. "Group Nature-Based Mindfulness Interventions: Nature-Based Mindfulness Training for College Students with Anxiety," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Qiang Wen & Haiqiang Liu & Jinyuan Chen & Huiyao Ye & Zeyu Pan, 2023. "Evaluation of Satisfaction with the Built Environment of University Buildings under the Epidemic and Its Impact on Student Anxiety," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Nabetse Baruc Blas-Miranda & Ana Lilia Lozada-Tequeanes & Juan Antonio Miranda-Zuñiga & Marcia P. Jimenez, 2022. "Green Space Exposure and Obesity in the Mexican Adult Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-13, November.
    5. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    6. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    7. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Zhiyuan Ma & Xuejun Duan & Lei Wang & Yazhu Wang & Jiayu Kang & Ruxian Yun, 2023. "A Scenario Simulation Study on the Impact of Urban Expansion on Terrestrial Carbon Storage in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    10. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    12. Shirelle H. Hallum & Marilyn E. Wende & Farnaz Hesam Shariati & Kelsey M. Thomas & Anna L. Chupak & Eleanor Witherspoon & Andrew T. Kaczynski, 2024. "Unearthing Inequities in the Relationship between Multiple Sociodemographic Factors and Diverse Elements of Park Availability and Quality in a Major Southern Metropolitan Region," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(2), pages 1-19, February.
    13. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    14. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    15. Chia-Tsung Yeh & Ya-Yun Cheng & Tsai-Yun Liu, 2020. "Spatial Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces and Human Health: An Exploratory Analysis of Canonical Correlation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, May.
    16. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    17. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    18. Rebecca Montrasio & Silvana Mattiello & Martina Zucaro & Dino Genovese & Luca Battaglini, 2020. "The Perception of Ecosystem Services of Mountain Farming and of a Local Cheese: An Analysis for the Touristic Valorization of an Inner Alpine Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Djesser Zechner Sergio & Alexandra Rodrigues Finotti, 2023. "Field-Scale Constructed Floating Wetland Applied for Revitalization of a Subtropical Urban Stream in Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-18, October.
    20. Jeremy Mennis & Xiaojiang Li & Mahbubur Meenar & J. Douglas Coatsworth & Thomas P. McKeon & Michael J. Mason, 2021. "Residential Greenspace and Urban Adolescent Substance Use: Exploring Interactive Effects with Peer Network Health, Sex, and Executive Function," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2000-:d:1042375. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.