Search

Human perception of in-channel wood can influence decision-making about wood reintroduction in watercourses for restoration purposes. A questionnaire survey was conducted among first-year and advanced Polish students and professionals involved in the management and protection of watercourses in Poland. The purpose was to assess their perception of river scenes with and without wood in terms of naturalness, aesthetics, danger and need for improvement. Generally, students perceived riverscapes with wood to be less aesthetic, more dangerous and needing more improvement than riverscapes without wood. However, many aspects of the riverscape perception are subject to changes as the student progresses in studying. The culturally conditioned, negative perception of in-channel wood is reduced during the education of geography and biology students but enhanced in the course of water engineering studies. The improved perception of watercourses containing wood was most pronounced for the advanced geography students from a university in which some tutors conducted research on in-channel wood and could have transferred knowledge about and positive attitudes toward wood to their students. A comparison of the riverscape evaluation by biology students and national park managers indicates that education in the discipline facilitates understanding of the environmental significance of in-channel wood although its effects are highly insufficient to form the positive attitude toward wood-containing watercourses typical of the managers. In turn, the education of water engineering students about in-channel wood apparently dominantly emphasizes threats caused by its presence in watercourses, so that the students' highly negative attitude toward wood needs to be significantly moderated when the graduates begin working as water authority managers.

Reintroduction of wood in rivers for restoration purposes is now recognized in a positive way by scientists. Nevertheless, the perception of wood in riverscapes is strongly affected by the socio-cultural environment. This cultural influence might explain why wood reintroduction is accepted and promoted in some regions of the world but not in others, despite the demonstrated ecological benefits. From an extensive student perception survey, we show that most of the groups from nine countries in the world considered riverscapes with wood to be less aesthetic, more dangerous, and needing more improvement than riverscapes without wood. By contrast, this way of thinking was not observed in Germany, Sweden, and Oregon (USA), where the first instances of wood reintroduction occurred.