Abstract
In order to establish a comparison between public perception and instream field assessments of ecosystem quality, the results from two years of bioassessment from Clear Creek Watershed, located in the Ozark Highlands Ecoregion of northwest Arkansas, United States, were compared to results from a mail-out survey conducted within the same watershed during the same time frame. The Environmental Protection Agency Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) was used to conduct a bioassessment of the watershed, and results were compared to stakeholder perceptions of the watershed's ecosystem integrity. The results indicated that respondents significantly overestimated or underestimated ecosystem integrity and tended to disagree with bioassessment results from each site sampled in the watershed. Disparity between perception and scientifically assessed ecosystem integrity was observed regardless of respondent residence location or knowledge of factual information regarding ecosystem processes. However, respondents with lifestyles that tended to connect them to watershed ecosystem processes were more likely to rank ecosystem quality similarly to the results attained through the bioassessments used for this study. Perceptions among respondents in this study suggest a disconnection between ecosystem processes and the everyday lives of residents of Clear Creek Watershed. Understanding how well public perception agrees with scientific information provides insight into environmental education and policy initiatives that strive to conserve ecosystem services. As a result, conservation initiatives should be developed in such a way as to reduce the disparity between public perception of watershed ecosystem integrity and the scientific assessments that help communities understand how to manage and conserve those systems. If perception is not taken into consideration, there is a danger in creating policy or developing programs that are not compatible with stakeholder expectations or ecosystem function.
- © 2013 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.