River metrics by the public, for the public

Managing rivers in society's best interest requires data on river condition. However, the complexity of river ecosystems, combined with finite budgets for river monitoring and modeling, mean difficult choices are necessary regarding what information will be available. Typically, decisions of &q...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2019-05, Vol.14 (5), p.e0214986
Hauptverfasser: Weber, Matthew A, Ringold, Paul L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 5
container_start_page e0214986
container_title PloS one
container_volume 14
creator Weber, Matthew A
Ringold, Paul L
description Managing rivers in society's best interest requires data on river condition. However, the complexity of river ecosystems, combined with finite budgets for river monitoring and modeling, mean difficult choices are necessary regarding what information will be available. Typically, decisions of "what to measure" are left to natural scientists. However, knowledge of public appetite for different types of information helps ensure river data is useful to society. We investigated public interest in rivers directly, engaging nearly one hundred urban and rural participants in a combination of focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Drawing on concepts of "final" ecosystem services developed in environmental economics, we moved discussions past commonly mentioned stressors, such as pollution, to actual river features important in and of themselves. Participant feedback reflected extensive thought on river issues, in contrast to a stereotype that the public is ambivalent about environmental conditions. Interests were also broad, encompassing water quality and quantity, fish and wildlife, vegetation, and human features. Results show consolidation around relatively few themes despite diverse sociodemographics. Themes were interpreted into distilled, specific metrics to make public feedback as useful as possible for water resources monitoring, modeling, and management. Our research provides detailed, methodically generated hypotheses regarding river themes and metrics of public interest that should be considered as part of the tradeoffs inherent in river monitoring design. Results compared reasonably well to river attributes emphasized in river restoration environmental valuation reviews, with some differences. Future research could test our hypotheses with large-sample surveys.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0214986
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2221840414</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A584800347</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_3728451297eb49348d650257b513baa6</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A584800347</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8242e2837d4b8fa6085ae71fa7d85eba463e3f9f473bca4113d59c0eeb4434f13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1r2zAUhs3YWLts_2BshsHY2JLpW_LNoJR9BAqF7uNWyPJxomBbqWSX9t9XadwSj14MXUg6es57dKQ3y15jtMBU4i8bP4TONIut72CBCGaFEk-yY1xQMhcE0acH66PsRYwbhDhVQjzPjihGQhIujrNPF-4KQt5CH5yNeXmT92vIt0PZOPs5r3042L_MntWmifBqnGfZn-_ffp_-nJ-d_1ienpzNrShIP1eEESCKyoqVqjYCKW5A4trISnEoDRMUaF3UTNLSGoYxrXhhEUDJGGU1prPs7V532_ioxz6jJoRgxRDDLBHLPVF5s9Hb4FoTbrQ3Tt8FfFhpE3pnG9BUEsU4JoVM-gVlqhIcES5LjmlpjEhaX8dqQ9lCZaHrg2kmotOTzq31yl_ppMNlamKWfRgFgr8cIPa6ddFC05gO_LC7N8WqEFKphL77B328u5FamdSA62qf6tqdqD7hiimE6F3ZxSNUGhW0ziZT1C7FJwkfJwmJ6eG6X5khRr38dfH_7PnfKfv-gF2Dafp19M3QO9_FKcj2oA0-xgD1wyNjpHeevn8NvfO0Hj2d0t4cftBD0r2J6S23ae20</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2221840414</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>River metrics by the public, for the public</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Weber, Matthew A ; Ringold, Paul L</creator><contributor>Cañedo-Argüelles Iglesias, Miguel</contributor><creatorcontrib>Weber, Matthew A ; Ringold, Paul L ; Cañedo-Argüelles Iglesias, Miguel</creatorcontrib><description>Managing rivers in society's best interest requires data on river condition. However, the complexity of river ecosystems, combined with finite budgets for river monitoring and modeling, mean difficult choices are necessary regarding what information will be available. Typically, decisions of "what to measure" are left to natural scientists. However, knowledge of public appetite for different types of information helps ensure river data is useful to society. We investigated public interest in rivers directly, engaging nearly one hundred urban and rural participants in a combination of focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Drawing on concepts of "final" ecosystem services developed in environmental economics, we moved discussions past commonly mentioned stressors, such as pollution, to actual river features important in and of themselves. Participant feedback reflected extensive thought on river issues, in contrast to a stereotype that the public is ambivalent about environmental conditions. Interests were also broad, encompassing water quality and quantity, fish and wildlife, vegetation, and human features. Results show consolidation around relatively few themes despite diverse sociodemographics. Themes were interpreted into distilled, specific metrics to make public feedback as useful as possible for water resources monitoring, modeling, and management. Our research provides detailed, methodically generated hypotheses regarding river themes and metrics of public interest that should be considered as part of the tradeoffs inherent in river monitoring design. Results compared reasonably well to river attributes emphasized in river restoration environmental valuation reviews, with some differences. Future research could test our hypotheses with large-sample surveys.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214986</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31067256</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Analysis ; Animals ; Aquatic ecosystems ; Biodiversity ; Biota ; Budgets ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; Creeks &amp; streams ; Ecological monitoring ; Ecosystem ; Ecosystem services ; Ecosystems ; Environmental aspects ; Environmental conditions ; Environmental economics ; Environmental monitoring ; Environmental Monitoring - methods ; Environmental protection ; Environmental quality ; Environmental restoration ; Environmental valuation ; Experiments ; Feedback ; Female ; Fishes ; Flood damage ; Focus Groups ; Humans ; Hypotheses ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pollution ; Public concern ; Public interest ; R&amp;D ; Research &amp; development ; Resource management ; Restoration ; River ecology ; Rivers ; Rivers - chemistry ; Scientists ; Social sciences ; Studies ; Valuation ; Water ; Water pollution ; Water Quality ; Water resource management ; Water resources ; Water resources management ; Wildlife ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-05, Vol.14 (5), p.e0214986</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8242e2837d4b8fa6085ae71fa7d85eba463e3f9f473bca4113d59c0eeb4434f13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8242e2837d4b8fa6085ae71fa7d85eba463e3f9f473bca4113d59c0eeb4434f13</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1856-0546</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6505747/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6505747/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,2103,2929,23870,27928,27929,53795,53797</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31067256$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Cañedo-Argüelles Iglesias, Miguel</contributor><creatorcontrib>Weber, Matthew A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ringold, Paul L</creatorcontrib><title>River metrics by the public, for the public</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Managing rivers in society's best interest requires data on river condition. However, the complexity of river ecosystems, combined with finite budgets for river monitoring and modeling, mean difficult choices are necessary regarding what information will be available. Typically, decisions of "what to measure" are left to natural scientists. However, knowledge of public appetite for different types of information helps ensure river data is useful to society. We investigated public interest in rivers directly, engaging nearly one hundred urban and rural participants in a combination of focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Drawing on concepts of "final" ecosystem services developed in environmental economics, we moved discussions past commonly mentioned stressors, such as pollution, to actual river features important in and of themselves. Participant feedback reflected extensive thought on river issues, in contrast to a stereotype that the public is ambivalent about environmental conditions. Interests were also broad, encompassing water quality and quantity, fish and wildlife, vegetation, and human features. Results show consolidation around relatively few themes despite diverse sociodemographics. Themes were interpreted into distilled, specific metrics to make public feedback as useful as possible for water resources monitoring, modeling, and management. Our research provides detailed, methodically generated hypotheses regarding river themes and metrics of public interest that should be considered as part of the tradeoffs inherent in river monitoring design. Results compared reasonably well to river attributes emphasized in river restoration environmental valuation reviews, with some differences. Future research could test our hypotheses with large-sample surveys.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Aquatic ecosystems</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biota</subject><subject>Budgets</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources</subject><subject>Creeks &amp; streams</subject><subject>Ecological monitoring</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Ecosystem services</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>Environmental conditions</subject><subject>Environmental economics</subject><subject>Environmental monitoring</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring - methods</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>Environmental quality</subject><subject>Environmental restoration</subject><subject>Environmental valuation</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fishes</subject><subject>Flood damage</subject><subject>Focus Groups</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Public concern</subject><subject>Public interest</subject><subject>R&amp;D</subject><subject>Research &amp; development</subject><subject>Resource management</subject><subject>Restoration</subject><subject>River ecology</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Rivers - chemistry</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Valuation</subject><subject>Water</subject><subject>Water pollution</subject><subject>Water Quality</subject><subject>Water resource management</subject><subject>Water resources</subject><subject>Water resources management</subject><subject>Wildlife</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1r2zAUhs3YWLts_2BshsHY2JLpW_LNoJR9BAqF7uNWyPJxomBbqWSX9t9XadwSj14MXUg6es57dKQ3y15jtMBU4i8bP4TONIut72CBCGaFEk-yY1xQMhcE0acH66PsRYwbhDhVQjzPjihGQhIujrNPF-4KQt5CH5yNeXmT92vIt0PZOPs5r3042L_MntWmifBqnGfZn-_ffp_-nJ-d_1ienpzNrShIP1eEESCKyoqVqjYCKW5A4trISnEoDRMUaF3UTNLSGoYxrXhhEUDJGGU1prPs7V532_ioxz6jJoRgxRDDLBHLPVF5s9Hb4FoTbrQ3Tt8FfFhpE3pnG9BUEsU4JoVM-gVlqhIcES5LjmlpjEhaX8dqQ9lCZaHrg2kmotOTzq31yl_ppMNlamKWfRgFgr8cIPa6ddFC05gO_LC7N8WqEFKphL77B328u5FamdSA62qf6tqdqD7hiimE6F3ZxSNUGhW0ziZT1C7FJwkfJwmJ6eG6X5khRr38dfH_7PnfKfv-gF2Dafp19M3QO9_FKcj2oA0-xgD1wyNjpHeevn8NvfO0Hj2d0t4cftBD0r2J6S23ae20</recordid><startdate>20190508</startdate><enddate>20190508</enddate><creator>Weber, Matthew A</creator><creator>Ringold, Paul L</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1856-0546</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190508</creationdate><title>River metrics by the public, for the public</title><author>Weber, Matthew A ; Ringold, Paul L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8242e2837d4b8fa6085ae71fa7d85eba463e3f9f473bca4113d59c0eeb4434f13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Aquatic ecosystems</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biota</topic><topic>Budgets</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources</topic><topic>Creeks &amp; streams</topic><topic>Ecological monitoring</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Ecosystem services</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>Environmental conditions</topic><topic>Environmental economics</topic><topic>Environmental monitoring</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring - methods</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>Environmental quality</topic><topic>Environmental restoration</topic><topic>Environmental valuation</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fishes</topic><topic>Flood damage</topic><topic>Focus Groups</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Public concern</topic><topic>Public interest</topic><topic>R&amp;D</topic><topic>Research &amp; development</topic><topic>Resource management</topic><topic>Restoration</topic><topic>River ecology</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Rivers - chemistry</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Valuation</topic><topic>Water</topic><topic>Water pollution</topic><topic>Water Quality</topic><topic>Water resource management</topic><topic>Water resources</topic><topic>Water resources management</topic><topic>Wildlife</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Weber, Matthew A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ringold, Paul L</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Weber, Matthew A</au><au>Ringold, Paul L</au><au>Cañedo-Argüelles Iglesias, Miguel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>River metrics by the public, for the public</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-05-08</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e0214986</spage><pages>e0214986-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Managing rivers in society's best interest requires data on river condition. However, the complexity of river ecosystems, combined with finite budgets for river monitoring and modeling, mean difficult choices are necessary regarding what information will be available. Typically, decisions of "what to measure" are left to natural scientists. However, knowledge of public appetite for different types of information helps ensure river data is useful to society. We investigated public interest in rivers directly, engaging nearly one hundred urban and rural participants in a combination of focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Drawing on concepts of "final" ecosystem services developed in environmental economics, we moved discussions past commonly mentioned stressors, such as pollution, to actual river features important in and of themselves. Participant feedback reflected extensive thought on river issues, in contrast to a stereotype that the public is ambivalent about environmental conditions. Interests were also broad, encompassing water quality and quantity, fish and wildlife, vegetation, and human features. Results show consolidation around relatively few themes despite diverse sociodemographics. Themes were interpreted into distilled, specific metrics to make public feedback as useful as possible for water resources monitoring, modeling, and management. Our research provides detailed, methodically generated hypotheses regarding river themes and metrics of public interest that should be considered as part of the tradeoffs inherent in river monitoring design. Results compared reasonably well to river attributes emphasized in river restoration environmental valuation reviews, with some differences. Future research could test our hypotheses with large-sample surveys.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>31067256</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0214986</doi><tpages>e0214986</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1856-0546</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2019-05, Vol.14 (5), p.e0214986
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2221840414
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Analysis
Animals
Aquatic ecosystems
Biodiversity
Biota
Budgets
Conservation of Natural Resources
Creeks & streams
Ecological monitoring
Ecosystem
Ecosystem services
Ecosystems
Environmental aspects
Environmental conditions
Environmental economics
Environmental monitoring
Environmental Monitoring - methods
Environmental protection
Environmental quality
Environmental restoration
Environmental valuation
Experiments
Feedback
Female
Fishes
Flood damage
Focus Groups
Humans
Hypotheses
Male
Middle Aged
Pollution
Public concern
Public interest
R&D
Research & development
Resource management
Restoration
River ecology
Rivers
Rivers - chemistry
Scientists
Social sciences
Studies
Valuation
Water
Water pollution
Water Quality
Water resource management
Water resources
Water resources management
Wildlife
Young Adult
title River metrics by the public, for the public
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T23%3A12%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=River%20metrics%20by%20the%20public,%20for%20the%20public&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Weber,%20Matthew%20A&rft.date=2019-05-08&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0214986&rft.pages=e0214986-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0214986&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA584800347%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2221840414&rft_id=info:pmid/31067256&rft_galeid=A584800347&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_3728451297eb49348d650257b513baa6&rfr_iscdi=true