FRESHWATER RESOURCES:
AN EVALUATION OF MICHIGAN RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTION
OF WETLAND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
By
Toni Anne Walkowiak

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Geography - Master of Science
2017

ABSTRACT
FRESHWATER RESOURCES:
AN EVALUATION OF MICHIGAN RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTION
OF WETLAND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
By
Toni Anne Walkowiak
Freshwater is an essential natural resource, and the Great Lakes’ ecosystem is a natural resource
for millions of people. Any ecosystems’ health and integrity are dependent upon both water quality and
quantity. Pollution, among other anthropogenic activities, continues to threaten these vital water
supplies. The unrelenting drainage of wetlands has also exacerbated the problem. Current scientific
research has established the crucial role that wetlands play in the overall welfare of the entire Great Lakes
region. Environmental concerns regarding wetland abatement have prompted the creation of several
national and international protocols to protect wetlands. Even though laws are mandating such
safeguards, wetland degradation remains part of a global problem.
Thus, this research serves two purposes: (1), to gather information about Michigan residents’
overall knowledge of wetlands ecosystems; (2), to establish whether residents can accurately distinguish
between wetland functions and values. Two activities: semi-structured focus group interviews and online
digital card sorts were conducted within Chippewa, Huron, and Macomb Counties of Michigan, to evaluate
individuals’ environmental perceptions of wetland ecosystems.
In the end, these activities revealed that residents do have some knowledge of wetland
ecosystems, but the accuracy of participants in differentiating between functions and values was less than
optimal, averaging only around 60% accuracy. In closing, this research provides empirical evidence to
support, and recommend additional wetland research within the state to address misunderstandings, and
educate residents about wetland ecosystems in the Great Lakes region.

Copyright by
TONI ANNE WALKOWIAK
2017

This thesis is dedicated to my family, friends, and Michigan residents, who graciously accepted the tasks
and challenges throughout the gathering and collating of this research. I am eternally grateful for all
your support and kindness throughout this long, and at times, arduous process.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Though a thesis bears the name of a single student, the overall process that leads to its defense
is accomplished in conjunction with the dedicated work of many other people. I wish to extend my
deepest appreciation to these people. Starting with my committee chair, Professor Raechel White, for her
unwavering support throughout this remarkable experience. She has the patience of a saint and an
intellect far beyond my wildest expectations.
In addition, I must recognize my other committee members and offer my heartfelt thanks to them.
Professor Nathan Moore and Professor Gail Vander Stoep, both of whom provided continued guidance
and encouragement during this incredible journey. I would also like to offer my sincerest gratitude toward
Michigan State University, the College of Social Science, and the Graduate College. To the Department of
Geography, Environment, and Spatial Sciences for the freedom to pursue my dreams of becoming a
Human and Environmental Geographer, who focuses primarily on water resources, sustainability, and
biomimicry. With a special salute to Professor Ashton Shortridge for allowing me the opportunity to prove
my worthiness, even after missing the application deadline; and to Sharon Ruggles for being kind and
patient with my naïveté of graduate school procedures.
I graciously thank the Rose Graduate Fellowship Fund in Water Research for the opportunity to
represent their excellence. This Fellowship afforded me the chance to spend additional time in the field
gathering vital research data. For this, I will be eternally grateful and always cherish this opportunity to
delve into the minds of Michigan residents regarding freshwater resources.
An expression of thanks must be shared with Professor Michael T. Vollbach, who has been my confidante
since the beginning of my college career. He has always offered the hard-nosed advice that kept me from
surrendering to my insecurities, and for that, I will be indebted to him forever.

v

I would also like to take a moment to posthumously acknowledge my mentor and greatest ally in
my pursuit of education: Professor Chris Mayda, who gave me the confidence to remain bold and push
the envelope whenever possible. She showed me that giving up is not an option and that becoming an
educator is, and always has been, my destiny. She is sorely missed but will be forever present throughout
my educational and professional endeavors.
I owe a major debt of gratitude to every Michigander, who took the time to listen and participate
in this thesis research. What a great group of people to have shared this experience with!
Lastly, but, certainly, not least, I must recognize my family, friends, and proofreaders for always
supporting me and putting up with my craziness during this tough, but fulfilling journey.
I know there are many others to show my appreciation to, but this would go on and on;
nevertheless, thank you all very much! This experience forever changes me.

vi

PREFACE

This thesis is being submitted for a Master of Science in Geography degree at Michigan State
University. The research described herein was authorized by the Institution Review Board (IRB) as of July
2016 and was composed under the supervision of Professor Raechel White from the Department of
Geography, Environment, and Spatial Sciences at Michigan State University, between July 2016 and July
2017.
This work is to the best of my knowledge, intellectually original and independently completed by
the author, Toni Anne Walkowiak, except for where acknowledgements and references are provided for
previous work cited. Neither this nor any markedly similar work has been or will be submitted for any
other degree or qualification at any other university. This thesis contains less than 30,000 words.
Part of this work is presented for publication online and in print upon its defense.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………… x
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xii
KEY OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………… xiii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 7
ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION, VALUES, AND KNOWLEDGE ................................................................... 7
FRAMEWORKS FOR EVALUATING WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES ...................................................... 9
Ramsar Convention ............................................................................................................................. 10
The National Water Summary on Wetland Resources........................................................................ 11
Counterarguments .............................................................................................................................. 13
ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION OF WETLANDS RESEARCH CASE STUDIES ............................................. 15
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ............................................................................................................................. 18
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 20
WETLAND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 20
WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 22
WETLAND FUNCTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 23
WETLAND VALUES ................................................................................................................................... 26
METHODS .......................................................................................................................................... 29
STUDY SITES ............................................................................................................................................ 31
Chippewa County ................................................................................................................................ 33
Huron County ...................................................................................................................................... 35
Macomb County .................................................................................................................................. 37
PARTICIPANTS ......................................................................................................................................... 39
ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................... 40
Focus Group Study .............................................................................................................................. 41
Closed Card-Sort Study ........................................................................................................................ 44
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................. 45
Qualitative Coding .............................................................................................................................. 46
Sort Accuracy ...................................................................................................................................... 47
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 48
FOCUS GROUPS ....................................................................................................................................... 48
Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 49
Thematic Codes ................................................................................................................................... 49
Cross Tabulations of Wetland Ecosystem Services ............................................................................. 50
Word Occurrence ................................................................................................................................ 55
CARD SORTING ........................................................................................................................................ 59
viii

Demography for the Online Card Sort ................................................................................................. 60
Accuracy .............................................................................................................................................. 65
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................... 69
FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS SUMMARIZATION ....................................................................................... 70
Description of Wetlands ...................................................................................................................... 71
Wetland Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................................... 71
Importance .......................................................................................................................................... 72
Values .................................................................................................................................................. 73
Benefits ............................................................................................................................................... 73
Everyday Life ....................................................................................................................................... 74
Additional Sentiments ......................................................................................................................... 75
FOCUS GROUP MISUNDERSTANDING .................................................................................................... 75
CARD SORT MISPERCEPTIONS ................................................................................................................ 76
LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 78
DELIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 79
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 81
APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX A. Demographic Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 84
APPENDIX B. Initial Qualitative Codes Applied to The Focus Group Text .............................................. 86
APPENDIX C. MEA Categorical Codes Used in the Coding of Focus Group Text ……………………………………87
APPENDIX D. Card Sorting Accuracy Table of Each Card by the Entire Participant Pool ........................ 89
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................... 90

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Wetland Types Adopted by Ramsar Committee applicable to Michigan ....................................... 9
Table 2. Economic Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem Services as identified by The Ramsar Convention
.......................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3. Social Value Types used by the USGS in the SolVES tool .............................................................. 13
Table 4. Ecosystem Services Associated with Wetlands ............................................................................. 15
Table 5. Operational Definitions for this Current Research from the Ramsar Convention ........................ 28
Table 6. Number of Participants per County for each Research Activity ................................................... 40
Table 7. Correct Classification of the Cards for The Card Sorting Activity .................................................. 45
Table 8. Number of Participants for the Focus Group Activity Identified by Age and Gender ................... 49
Table 9. Cross-Tabulation of Participants' Educational Attainment with the Number of Times the MEA
Categories were Mentioned ............................................................................................. 51
Table 10. Cross-Tabulation of Participant’s Age Group with the Number of Time the MEA Category
was Mentioned ................................................................................................................. 52
Table 11. Cross-Tabulation of Participant Occupation with the Number of Times the MEA Categories
were Mentioned ............................................................................................................... 54
Table 12. Cross-Tabulation of Participant Gender with the Number of Times the MEA Categories were
Mentioned ........................................................................................................................ 55
Table 13. Ecosystem Services Rate of Occurrence ..................................................................................... 56
Table 14. Top Five Most Mentioned Wetland Ecosystem Services across the Entire Participant Pool ..... 57
Table 15. Top Five Most Common Adjectives used to Describe Wetlands ................................................ 57
Table 16. Top Five Most Common Adjectives used to Reference a Wetland Ecosystem Services............. 58
Table 17. Top Five Most Common Adjectives used to Emphasis Importance ............................................ 58
Table 18. Top Five Most Common Adjectives used to Express Values ....................................................... 59
Table 19. Top Five Most Common Adjectives used to explain Everyday Life ............................................. 59

x

Table 20. Cross-Tabulation of the Results Matrix by Age ........................................................................... 61
Table 21. Average, Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation of Accuracy Results for the Entire
Participant Pool ...………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 66
Table 22. Least Accurate Card Sort for Each Card by the Entire Group ...................................................... 67
Table 23. Most Confused Card Sort for Each Card by the Entire Group ..................................................... 67
Table 24. Most Accurate Card Sort for Each Card by the Entire Group ...................................................... 68
Table D1. Card Sorting Accuracy Table of Each Card by the Entire Participant Pool ....…………….…….….…. 89

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. ENVISAT image of Lake Erie ........................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Diagram by The USGS Identifying Wetland Functions and Values as a Relationship to
Wetland Ecosystems ......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3. An Illustration of the Connection between Wetland Ecosystem Services ................................... 21
Figure 4. Diagram Explaining the Sequence of Research Methodology ..................................................... 30
Figure 5. Focus Areas for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP 2014) ................. 32
Figure 6. Map of Study Site Locations......................................................................................................... 33
Figure 7. Map of Chippewa County Including Terrain, Wetlands, and Study Sites .................................... 34
Figure 8. Munuscong Potholes; Constructed Wetlands by the DNR, NAWCC, Bay Mill Indian
Community, Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, and Ducks Unlimited,
Inc. within Chippewa County, Michigan ........................................................................... 35
Figure 9. Map of Huron County, Michigan Including Terrain, Wetlands, and Study Sites ......................... 36
Figure 10. Images of a Freshwater Palustrine Marsh (left) and a Lacustrine Wetland adjacent to Lake
Huron (right) ..................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 11. Map of Macomb County, Michigan including Terrain, Wetlands, and Study Sites. .................. 38
Figure 12. Images of a Freshwater Lacustrine Marsh (left) from Lake St. Clair Metro Park (right). ........... 38
Figure 13. Overview of Time Taken by Participants to Complete the Closed Card Sorting Activity ........... 60
Figure 14. Histogram of the Accuracy Distribution of each Card Sorted by the Group of Participants ..... 66

xii

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

CE – Common (Current) Era
CWA - Clean Water Act
DEQ – Department of Environmental Quality
DNR – Department of Natural Resources
EGS – Ecosystem Goods and Services
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
ES – Ecosystem Services
ESF – Ecosystem Services Framework
ESV - Ecosystem Services Valuation
GNP – Gross National Product
GIS – Geographic Information Sciences (or systems)
HRPP – Human Research Protection Program
LUCC – Land-Use and Land-Cover Change
NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NAWMP – North American Waterfowl Management Plan
NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard
NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
MEA – The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
PA – Public Act
Ramsar or Ramsar Convention – The Convention on Wetlands
UN – The United Nations
xiii

UNESCO – The United Nations Education, Science, and Cultural Organization
US – United States
USDA – United States Department of Agriculture
USDIO – United States Department of the Interior
USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS – United States Geological Survey
WES – Wetland Ecosystem Services
WTP – Willingness To Pay
WWAP – The World Water Assessment Programme of UNESCO
QDA – Qualitative Data Analysis

xiv

INTRODUCTION
Anthropogenic forces have begun to alter the North American Great Lakes and the surrounding
waterscapes. Seemingly, uncontrollable pollution in tandem with relentless drainage of wetlands has left
these vital freshwater resources at a tremendous risk. Human welfare and ecosystem integrity are
dependent upon freshwater availability, in combination with reliable water quality. This makes
understanding individual’s environmental perceptions regarding freshwater resources of the utmost
importance (Chapman 1996; Vörösmarty et al. 2010).
Michigan is home to a vast network of amazing waterscapes, unseen anywhere else within the
contiguous 48 states (“Surface Water Projects - USGS, MI-WSC” 2017). The present, unique shape of
Michigan and the Great Lakes, is a direct result of thousands of years of glacial advances and retreats.
These natural phenomena have allowed for meltwater to leave behind a plethora of natural water
features (Clayton and Moran 1982; Albert 2003). Michigan is home to more than 21% of the world’s, and
84% of North America’s, surface freshwater supply (De Pinto, Young, and McIlroy 1986; Brown et al. 2000;
Tiner, Lang, and Klemas 2015; “DEQ - Water” 2017; US EPA 2015). Bays, kettles, lakes, streams, and
wetlands are among the more predominate freshwater landscape features found within the state. Not to
mention the vast network of underlying groundwater, as well as more than 3,200 miles of coastal
shoreline (Tiner, Lang, and Klemas 2015; “DEQ - Water” 2017; US EPA 2015). Michigan’s relatively low,
transitional elevation, together with the Great Lakes, high annual precipitation rates, and climate makes
the state suitable for wetland ecosystems to thrive.
The sheer volume of water associated with the Great Lakes region has made these natural
resources an essential component of the region’s cultural and economic history. For example, commercial
and sports fishing are known to harvest around 65 million pounds of fish annually, which equates to more
than $4 billion in revenue, directly linked to local wetlands (Graff and Middleton 2001; US EPA 2015).
Shipping of raw materials and other staple resources throughout the region have supported countless
1

employment opportunities as well as over 200 million tons of cargo each year (Graff and Middleton 2001;
US EPA 2015). Recreation and tourism rely heavily upon the beauty, tranquility, and versatility of the Great
Lakes and other state waterways, with annual profits boasting about $20 billion (Mayda 2013). The Great
Lakes and underlying groundwater provide some 40 million people with drinking water (Graff and
Middleton 2001; “DEQ - Water” 2017). An essential and supportive role provided by local wetlands.
Native Americans have also lived near and utilized this region’s freshwater resources for millennia
(Jenks 1901; Prince 1997; Mayda 2013; Tiner 2003). Early American history references numerous types of
products that the natives gathered, such as beans, squash, and wild rice (Jenks 1901; Clifton, McClurken,
and Cornell 1986; Tanner 1987). Wild rice was considered an essential commodity to native peoples and
was harvested each autumn from wetland areas all around the Upper Great Lakes (Jenks 1901; Clifton,
McClurken, and Cornell 1986; Tanner 1987). Even earlier than recorded history, natives painted pictures
of the almost constant struggle between the Ojibwa (Chippewa) and Dakota (Sioux) Indians for the
conquest and retention of the territory (Jenks 1901). In part because of the abundance of wild rice fields
associated with the Great Lakes’ lacustrine and palustrine wetlands (Jenks 1901). According to
Menominee oral traditions, wild rice was a gift to humans from one of the “Underneath Spirits.” When
the rice was ready for gathering, the Menominee offered tobacco to this spirit to ensure a good harvest
(Jenks 1901). The name Menominee was derived from the Ojibwe language, and means "Wild Rice
People." In addition to wild rice harvesting, wetlands offered sanctuary for fish and wildlife, which the
local tribes became reliant upon for clothes and nourishment (Tanner 1987). Those same wetlands were
essential in supplying edible and medicinal plants to native peoples as well (Tanner 1987).
Many of the regional ecosystem services afforded by wetlands are in direct correlation with the
health and integrity of the Great Lakes. Even though these unique natural features have provided
necessary services for many centuries, they remain in a state of decline.

2

Plastic debris (e.g., water bottles and resin plastics, et cetera) stand as an increasing
environmental concern for the Great Lakes region, as does excessive and dangerous levels of
eutrophication induced algal bloom in Lake Erie and elsewhere. With the consensus resting on the belief
that agricultural runoff and meteorological events, such as climate change, remain the biggest culprits
(Michalak et al. 2013; Kane et al. 2014). Imagine flying over the Great Lakes and peering out the window
to see algal blooms that cover more than half of Lake Erie. Figure 1 may well evoke fear or concern for
those unaware of what is, and caused, these swirling green masses.

Figure 1. ENVISAT image of Lake Erie

Recent scientific investigations have established that wetlands’ natural ability to filter excess
nutrients, which, most likely, came from agricultural runoff, would have stopped this from happening
(Coveney et al. 2002; Hernández-Crespo et al. 2016; Grasset et al. 2016). Some researchers even suggest
that eutrophication can help primary plant production in wetland ecosystems, due to the accumulation
of nutrients and sediment (Coveney et al. 2002; Hernández-Crespo et al. 2016; Grasset et al. 2016).

3

Given mounting ecological concerns regarding natural resources, conservation of wetlands has
become of vital interest. This attention was in response to many countries seeking to reverse their historic
wetland losses and, in consideration of current encroachment from agricultural enterprises, climate
change, and urban sprawl (Dale and Connelly 2012; William J. Mitsch and Gosselink 2015). These
viewpoints derive from the growing body of research documenting the essential role wetlands play in
sustaining human and ecosystem health and well-being (Dahl, Johnson, and Frayer 1991; Prince 1997;
Butchart et al. 2005; Dale and Connelly 2012). Current research also establishes a framework of
knowledge that wetlands serve as conduits for several ecosystem services, which directly and indirectly
affect the surrounding landscape and waterscape. For instance, wetlands have the unique ability to purify
surface water before percolating into the groundwater, which, in turn, directly impacts many lives
because it allows for clean drinking water (Chee 2004; Tiner 2003).
Michigan’s geography encompasses about 9 degrees of longitude and 9 degrees of latitude, which
allows for a diverse mix of wetlands ecosystem types (Fizzell 2014; William J. Mitsch and Gosselink 2015;
Tiner, Lang, and Klemas 2015). The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), estimate that at initial European contact, Michigan
boasted roughly 11 million acres (~4.45 million ha) of wetlands (Tiner 1984; Dahl, Johnson, and Frayer
1991; Fizzell 2014). According to some research, Michigan has lost an estimated 50% (~6 million acres or
~2.43 million ha) of the state’s original wetlands (Dahl 1990; Mayda 2013). However, Tiner (1984) along
with Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) estimates that, after European settlement,
roughly 71% of the original wetlands were drained or destroyed. Wetlands once covered approximately
16% of Michigan’s land area (Albert 2003; Mayda 2013).
Over the last 30 years, Michigan residents have changed the wetland waterscape mainly because
of the growing agribusiness and urbanization within the state. The Saginaw Bay and Thumb regions have
seen hundreds of thousands of wetlands acreage losses (Brooks, Ffolliott, and Magner 2013). Similarly,

4

the Lake St. Clair corridor saw the destruction of wetlands because of urban sprawl (Fizzell 2014). Since
the passage of Michigan’s wetland protection law in 1979, the rate of wetland losses has diminished. The
total decline of wetlands since 1978 is around 41,000 acres. With the speed of drainage slowing between
1978 to 1998 (losses of approximately 1,642 acres per year) and 1998 to 2005 (losses of about 1,157 acres
per year) (Dahl 2011; Fizzell 2014). Regardless of the rate of destruction, the remaining original wetlands
face continued threats, which, in turn, poses a hazard to the natural environment, especially the Great
Lakes and major inland waterways.
The continued deterioration of these essential natural resources may link to generations of
people’s environmental perception of wetland ecosystems. The idea that wetlands were inhospitable
eyesores and environmental annoyance. Also, perceived as smelly wastelands that jeopardized human
well-being because they supplied refuge for disease-spreading arthropods, such as mosquitos and flies,
can be seen throughout historical records (Tiner 1984; Fretwell et al. 1996; Dahl 2011). Namely, early
scientific literature within personal diaries, as well as official reports (e.g., U.S. Census) (Kennedy 1862;
Palmer 1915; Prince 1997). The belief that wetlands served no immediate purpose was visible throughout
the world as well. The damming of rivers to harness hydroelectric power (Kennedy 1862; Palmer 1915;
Dahl 1990; Prince 1997; Dale and Connelly 2012; Newlon 2014). Even over-fishing to feed society,
infrastructure projects, such as the highway and railway systems, and drainage for agri-business and urban
expansion (Kennedy 1862; Palmer 1915; Dahl 1990; Prince 1997; Dale and Connelly 2012; Newlon 2014).
These misunderstandings gave people cause to drain, dredge, and divert wetland for centuries (Dahl 2011;
Barbier, Acreman, and Knowler 1997; William J. Mitsch and Gosselink 2015).
To better engage with members of the public regarding the protection of wetlands, it is imperative
to understand what the current public knows about wetland management. Thus, the goal of this research
is to explore residents’ environmental perception of wetland ecosystem services (WES), namely functions
and values. Three research questions are being analyzed to meet this objective.

5

1. How do residents describe wetlands?
2. What types of wetland ecosystem services do residents identify most often?
3. Can residents accurately classify ecosystem functions and values related to wetlands?
Two research activities were conducted to answer these research questions.
•

Semi-structured focus group interviews were employed to address question one and two.

•

Online closed card sorts were utilized to address the third question.

6

LITERATURE REVIEW
This section examines the frameworks and vocabulary operationalized for this research, along with
some possible alternatives. In addition, research from previous studies of environmental perceptions of
wetland ecosystems was utilized.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION, VALUES, AND KNOWLEDGE
By understanding an individual’s point-of-view, researchers can conceptualize about how people
learn and place themselves in the world around them or theorize their worldview. People’s experiences
shape who they become, and in what way they interact with their surroundings. Ergo, qualitative studies
offer the opportunity to delve into a person’s environmental perception in practical and unique ways. To
accomplish these goals, one must first properly explain the terms and clarify their usage throughout these
investigations.
There is no straightforward way to define environmental perception, as the two words,
environmental and perception, have depth in their meaning. The Oxford Dictionary explains
environmental as relating to the natural world; while perception is becoming aware of something through
the senses (“Perception - Definition of Perception in English | Oxford Dictionaries” 2017). Thus, individuals
perceive the environment through their senses: the hepatic (touch), olfactory (smell), auditory (hearing),
and visual (sight) (Tuan 1974). Moreover, each person observes the environment through a personal lens
that incorporates individual history and experiences, which may also vary due to beliefs, culture, and
customs (cultural relativism) (Lemberg et al. 2010). For example, Native American communities saw
wetlands as essential freshwater resources, hunting grounds, and providers of many other daily
provisions; early European settlers were less inclined to share those same sentiments (Prince 1997).
Regardless, environmental perception is a term used to explain and explore a person’s awareness of the
environment as a dimension of culture or worldview (Tuan 1974; Ittelson 1978).

7

Similarly, the multidisciplinary community who investigates environmental values has a difficult time
coming to a consensus when asked to define environmental values. However, from a geographic
viewpoint, the emphasis is placed on the intrinsic (fundamental) worth of nature, thus arising from an
egocentricity point-of-view (Stratford 2006). In contrast, environmental knowledge is defined as a
cognitive action, or in what way people conceptualize the environment (Arcury 1990; Bögeholz 2010;
Cottet, Piégay, and Bornette 2013).
As a result, the purpose of these investigations is to evaluate residents’ environment perception of
wetland ecosystems, focusing on their perception and knowledge of wetland functions (natural processes)
and values (use benefits). Below are some additional definitions:
•

Perception is the view of understanding something through the senses or having an idea
(knowledge) and awareness of a particular subject matter (Tuan 1974; “Perception - Definition
of Perception in English | Oxford Dictionaries” 2017). For this research, perception is merged
into the expression environmental perception to emphasize the breadth of individual’s
observation of ecological phenomena.

•

Knowledge describes information and facts learned through education or a practical
understanding of a topic (Suvedi et al. 2000; “Knowledge - Definition of Knowledge in English |
Oxford Dictionaries” 2017). The word highlights a person’s real-world experiences and
familiarity of wetlands and their environmental impact.

•

Values are the belief that all things have worth or usefulness (Costanza et al. 1997; “Value Definition of Value in English | Oxford Dictionaries” 2017; Sharma, Rasul, and Chettri 2015;
Sumarga et al. 2015). They are one of the primary focuses of these investigations and will be
analyzed quite thoroughly regarding cultural perceptions and use-benefits rather than from an
economic or worth position.

•

Functions are also a central component of this research and indicate natural processes that
occur without human interaction (Sather and Smith 1984; “Function - Definition of Function in
English | Oxford Dictionaries” 2017).

•

Processes demonstrate a natural succession of actions or events that take place in nature or
elsewhere (Costanza et al. 1997; “Process - Definition of Process in English | Oxford
Dictionaries” 2017).

•

Ecosystem Services are the benefits people obtain from an ecosystem, according to the MEA
(Alcamo et al. 2003).

8

In addition to the terms above, the legal definition of a wetland is necessary to articulate the subject
matter thoroughly.
Wetlands are diverse ecosystems that established by several factors, including soil type,
hydrology, topography, climate, and vegetation. Per Cowardin et al. 1979, wetlands are defined as
“Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is
usually at or near the surface, or shallow water covers the land. Further, wetlands must
have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land
supports hygrophytes predominantly; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric
soil; and, (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow
water at some time during the growing season of each year” (Cowardin et al. 1979).
While, the Ramsar Convention accepts a more broadly defined concept of wetlands as,
“wetlands include a wide variety of habitats such as marshes, peatlands, floodplains,
rivers and lakes, and coastal areas such as saltmarshes, mangroves, and seagrass beds,
but also coral reefs and other marine areas no deeper than six metres at low tide, as well
as human-made wetlands such as waste-water treatment ponds and reservoirs” (Ramsar
Convention Secretariat 2013, ii).
Regardless of the breadth of this definition, there are five (5) major types of wetlands recognized by the
Convention (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2013). Table 1 explains the major wetland types found in
Michigan:
Table 1. Wetland Types Adopted by Ramsar Committee applicable to Michigan
Wetland Type
Lacustrine
Palustrine
Riverine

Description
areas of permanent water and associated with lakes
an area with either little flow and are permanent or
intermittent waters
land periodically inundated by river overtopping

Example
Pond
Bog
Floodplain

FRAMEWORKS FOR EVALUATING WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES
The frameworks available to evaluate and collect data regarding the environmental perception of
wetlands are rather new. Perhaps, the reason for this is that wetland protections began to take shape
during the environmental movement of the 1960s, with the advent of 1970s programs, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Ramsar Convention, and the United Nations Environment

9

Programme. Even though earlier international conservation organizations existed, the programs of the
1970s laid the foundation for some major legislation to combat human-made environmental
catastrophes. Nevertheless, the commonly accepted and utilized frameworks to assess wetland
ecosystem services are from UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), the Ramsar Convention, and
the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The MEA is an assessment of exactly how humanity benefits
from all types of ecosystems. The Ramsar Convention is an international treaty for the conservation,
education, and sustainable use of wetlands. The USGS is a governmental agency of scientists who study
landscapes, natural resources, and the natural phenomena that threaten them. The latter two have
produced the operational diagrams being utilized throughout this research to highlight WES, namely
functions and values.

Ramsar Convention
Once more, the Ramsar Convention is an international treaty (alliance) of 169 countries, with the
sole purpose of conservation and education of wetlands since 1971. Their procedural frameworks are
policy-laden and are meant to encourage national and international cooperation for the sustainable use
of these vital resources. Ramsar’s economic values of wetland ecosystem services diagram play a
fundamental role in this research. Albeit, the Ramsar Convention categorizes WES regarding economic
values (use and non-use), this study applies these values to the resources utilized rather than
economically, or for cultural assets versus monetary. In addition, even though the Ramsar Convention
classifies wetland functions as indirect use values, this research classifies them as functions or natural
processes. Table 2 is an illustration of the Ramsar Convention approach for categorizing WES and is
employed throughout this project. This chart offers a holistic perspective of wetland ecosystems and the
many services afforded by them.

10

Table 2. Economic Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem Services as identified by The Ramsar Convention
USE VALUES
Direct Use Values
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Fish
Agriculture
Fuel Wood
Fodder
Recreation
(Boating,
Fauna,
Walking)
Transport
Wildlife
Harvesting
Peat/Energy
Education

Indirect Use Values
(functional)
• Nutrient
Retention
• Flood Control
• Storm
Protection
• Ground Water
Recharge
• External
Ecosystem
Support
• Filtration
• Microclimate
• Shoreline
Stabilization

NON- USE VALUES
Option Value & Benefits
•

•

Potential Future Use
(as per direct and
indirect use)
Future Value of
Information (e.g.,
medicine and
education)

Existence Value
•
•
•
•

Biodiversity
Culture
Heritage
Bequest

The economic valuation table is widely accepted and used as a cornerstone of wetland ecosystem
research. Thus, the chosen procedural guidelines based on those considerations and validations because
the Ramsar Convention is largest international coalition meant for protecting wetland ecosystems.

The National Water Summary on Wetland Resources
The USGS is a governmental agency of scientists who study landscapes, natural resources, and the
natural as well as human-made phenomena that threaten them. The USGS, in conjunction with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), founded the National Wetlands Research Center (NWRC) in 1975, with
the intention to establish and publish scientific data necessary for people to understand the ecological
and beneficial aspects of U.S. wetlands (Fretwell et al. 1996). The Wetland and Aquatic Research Center
(WARC) formerly the NWRC as of 2015, is also intended to conserve, manage, and restore wetland
habitats. The USGS created a well-organized diagram for the National Water Summary on Wetland
Resources in 1996/7, which represents wetland ecosystem services, and is meant to illustrate the
hierarchical structure of resources for wetland functions and their internal and external values (Fretwell
11

et al. 1996). Figure 2 is the USGS’ operational diagram employed for this research as a visual aid (Fretwell
et al. 1996).
Wetland Functions and Values

Figure 2. Diagram by The USGS Identifying Wetland Functions and Values as a Relationship to
Wetland Ecosystems

In addition to the USGS wetland function and values instructional diagrams, they have created a
GIS Social Values of Ecosystem Services (SolVES) application. SolVES is designed to assess, map, and
quantify public perceptions of the social values for ecosystem services. Social values are the perceived,
nonmarket worth that people ascribe to ecosystem services, namely cultural services, such as aesthetics
and recreation (Sherrouse and Semmens 2010). This outline offers an initial coding scheme for the
qualitative analysis of residents’ environmental perception of WES. Table 3 is on loan from the USGS and
published with the 2010 Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES).

12

Table 3. Social Value Types used by the USGS in the SolVES tool
SOCIAL VALUE
Aesthetic
Biodiversity
Cultural

Economic

Future
Historical

Intrinsic
Learning
Life-sustaining
Recreation
Spiritual

Subsistence
Therapeutic

EXAMPLE
I value these ecosystems because I enjoy the scenery, sights,
sounds, smells, et cetera.
I value these ecosystems because they provide a variety of fish,
wildlife, plant life, et cetera.
I value these ecosystems because they are a place for me to
continue to pass down the wisdom and knowledge, traditions,
and way of life of my ancestors.
I value these ecosystems because they provide timber, fisheries,
minerals, and/or tourism opportunities such as outfitting and
guiding.
I value these ecosystems because they allow future generations
to know and experience the forests as they are now.
I value these ecosystems because they have places and things of
natural and human history that matter to others, the nation, or
me.
I value these ecosystems in and of themselves, whether people
are present or not.
I value these ecosystems because we can learn about the
environment through scientific observation or experimentation.
I value these ecosystems because they help produce, preserve,
clean, and renew air, soil, and water.
I value these ecosystems because they provide a place for my
favorite outdoor recreation activities.
I value these ecosystems because they are a sacred, religious, or
spiritually special place to me or because I feel reverence and
respect for nature there.
I value these ecosystems because they provide necessary food
and supplies to sustain my life.
I value these ecosystems because they make me feel better
physically and/or mentally.

Counterarguments
There has also been an alternative framework created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
for measuring wetland ecosystem services. However, these ecosystem services are organized uniquely
and explained regarding the status of knowledge by scholars (e.g., hydrology, water quality, nutrient cycle,
habitat, and socioeconomic) (Sather and Smith 1984). Their research focuses on WES from a scientific
perspective. Therefore, a layperson with limited to no previous wetland education could be confused by

13

the scientific jargon and lost in the explanations. Thus, too verbose and technical for this research’s
objective.
Additionally, the MEA is an appraisal of human’s impact on the environment, called for by the
United Nation (UN) Secretary-General Kofi Annan (Alcamo et al. 2003). The MEA also incorporated a
report on Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Wetlands and Water into the overall assessment. This
report was added to provide Contracting Parties (intergovernmental partners) of the Ramsar Convention;
and all parties concerned for and involved in, the implementation of the Convention (Alcamo et al. 2003;
Butchart et al. 2005). As well as, who is responsible for the future sustainability of wetlands and water
resources (Alcamo et al. 2003a; Butchart et al. 2005). The MEA offers another framework for evaluating
environmental perceptions of wetlands. Though the MEA measures ecosystem services regarding four (4),
broad categories (concepts): cultural, provisioning; regulating; and supporting services. This framework
was more intricate with less real-world examples to offer participants. Thus, the Ramsar Convention and
USGS organizational diagrams were chosen as a reliable and relatable application instead of the MEA on
Wetlands and Water. Nevertheless, the MEA services classifications were selected as part of the final
arrangement of codes being used in the semi-structured focus group interview analysis. The initial codes
will be consolidated into these broad categories to produce emergent themes and generalized patterns.
Table 4 explains the MEA in terms of its four broad ecosystem services categories for wetlands (Butchart
et al. 2005).

14

Table 4. Ecosystem Services Associated with Wetlands
SERVICES
PROVISIONING
Food
Fresh Water
Fiber and Fuel
Biochemical
Genetic Material
REGULATING
Climate
Water Regulation
Water Purification &
Treatment
Erosion Regulation
Natural Hazard
Regulation
Pollination
CULTURAL
Spiritual &
Inspirational
Recreational
Aesthetic
Educational
SUPPORTING
Soil Formation
Nutrient Cycling

EXAMPLES
Production of fish, wild game, fruits, and grains
Storage and retention of water for varied uses
Production of logs, fuelwood, peat, fodder
Extraction of medicines and other materials from biota
Genes for resistance to plant pathogens, ornamental species, etc.

Regulation of greenhouse gases; influence local and regional weather
Groundwater recharge/discharge
Retention, recovery, and removal of excess nutrients and pollutants
Retention of soils and sediments
Flood control, storm protection
Habitat for pollinators

Source of inspiration, religious significance
Fishing, hunting, swimming, etc.
Beauty and aesthetic value
Training and information educational opportunities

Sediment retention and accumulation of organic matter
Storage, recycling, processing, and acquiring of nutrients

ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION OF WETLANDS RESEARCH CASE STUDIES
Wetlands are unique ecological habitat and in virtually every part of the world. They are
designated as the “kidneys of the landscape” and “nature’s supermarket” or, even sometimes, “the
nursery of life” (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2013; Mitsch and Gosselink 2015). As a result, civilizations
have settled along river valleys and coastal plains for millennia, to reap the benefits of the many services
those wet-lands offer humanity. Wetlands are amongst the most productive habitats in the world. They
offer an array of economic, environmental, cultural, and social benefits or ecosystem services that
humanity, as well as the entire ecosystem, rely upon (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997; Brooks, Ffolliott,
15

and Magner 2013; Mitsch and Gosselink 2015). During the 1970s, scientists, ecologists, and
conservationists began to articulate the values of wetlands by evaluating their functions (Fretwell et al.
1996). After the Ramsar Convention (1971), wetlands were finally acknowledged as a vital aspect of the
hydrologic cycle (Dugan 1990; Finlayson et al. 1999; Dale and Connelly 2012; Dias and Belcher 2015). The
following summarizes some of the most relevant research concerning human perception of wetlands.
The current research about individual’s perception of wetlands has been widely administered and
assessed outside of the United States with few exceptions. Michael D. Kaplowitz, a professor of
environmental law and policy at Michigan State University has conducted many investigations on water
resources and wetlands ecosystems within the State of Michigan, as well as Latin America (e.g., Costa Rica
and Mexico). Kaplowitz, along with other MSU professors, has individually explored people’s perception
and knowledge of wetlands. Also, many international scholars have participated in environmental
perception research. However, their study focused on the various aspect of environmental knowledge,
outside of wetland ecosystems.
Kaplowitz (2001), reported on the use of both focus groups and individual interviews. The
research measured local Mexican residents’ knowledge and understanding of products as well as services
associated with mangrove ecosystems (i.e., estuary wetlands). In total, n=97 year-round seaside residents
took part in one of 12 focus groups and 19 in-depth interviews (Kaplowitz 2001). The goal of this research
was to aid in future mangrove (wetland) resource management efforts and to explore the relative
importance of wood products as a benefit (value) of those ecosystems (Kaplowitz 2001). The findings
demonstrated that people discussed provisionary services, such as snail (“chivita” to the natives) and
other seafood, during each focus group and interview (Kaplowitz 2001). Additionally, residents mentioned
recreation and storm protection as essential services provided by the mangrove colonies (Kaplowitz
2001). However, the collection of wood was rarely stated or offered as a provisioning service, even though
wood could be fuel and fiber sources (Kaplowitz 2001).

16

Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn (2007), also used focus groups as a tool to offer researchers a
“baseline” understanding of Michigan residents’ perception, knowledge, and appreciation of wetlands
within the state. Altogether, three focus group sessions with 5, 6, and 8 (n=19) participants, respectively
were held (Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007). These interviews illustrated how this information regarding
public opinion concerning wetland knowledge, would help policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders
make informed decisions about future wetland ecosystem protections (Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007).
Thirteen of 19 participants (68%) cited and discussed how wetlands function as providers of flood control,
as people repeatedly acknowledged an appreciation for wetlands' ability to control flooding (Kaplowitz,
Lupi, and Hoehn 2007). However, only 32% (6 participants) understood wetlands' relationship to
groundwater, with many participants saying nothing about groundwater recharge even when prompted
(Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007).
In contrast, Gollin, McMillen, and Wilcox (2004) conducted a pile sorting (card sorting) study
focusing on the environmental perception of Hawaiian residents concerning flora, not wetlands.
Nonetheless, this experiment investigated local lay people’s awareness and valuations of native and nonnative vegetation, in the hope of obtaining a complete understanding of individual’s willingness to
participate in revegetation or eradication efforts on Oahu, Hawaii (Gollin, McMillen, and Wilcox 2004). In
all, n=25 people took part in the pile sorting exercise (Gollin, McMillen, and Wilcox 2004).
Additionally, Nsengimana, Weihler, and Kaplin (2017) presented a case study on perceptions of
local peoples in relation to the use of the Nyabarongo river wetland and its conservation efforts, in
Rwanda. This paper examined the likely implications of a shift in wetland utilization and management
practices and offered preliminary information from a household survey as well as group discussions
(Nsengimana, Weihler, and Kaplin 2017). All told, nine participants from eight villages took part in two
focus group discussions, where each village had one member, except the village with the largest
population had two (Nsengimana, Weihler, and Kaplin 2017). The results showed that any changes to the

17

use and management of Nyabarongo river wetland pose significant loss for local people in terms of
provision of resources, income, and access to the wetland (Nsengimana, Weihler, and Kaplin 2017).
Additionally, residents stated how providing food for sustenance was a more appropriate use of the land
rather than protecting wetlands for the entire ecosystem’s health and well-being (Nsengimana, Weihler,
and Kaplin 2017).
These investigations have attempted to fill some of the literature gaps regarding environmental
perception and knowledge of wetland ecosystems. They each used a mixture of qualitative
methodological tools, namely card sorting, focus groups, and individual interviews, which provides
evidence of their reliability, replicability, and reproducibility. These inquiries found that people seem to
misunderstand many ecosystem services afforded by wetlands, such as timber harvest, sediment
trapping, and shoreline stabilization (Kaplowitz 2001; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007; Nsengimana,
Weihler, and Kaplin 2017). However, people were acutely aware of the comestible provisions that
wetlands make available (e.g., beans, rice, and snails) (Kaplowitz 2001; Nsengimana, Weihler, and Kaplin
2017). Moreover, livestock foraging and watering were exceedingly important to the Rwandan
communities, as those animals also offered comestibles, such as meat and milk (Nsengimana, Weihler,
and Kaplin 2017). Each study found that when asked about natural processes, whether related to wetlands
or other environmental phenomena, individual perceptions were limited in knowledge. People seemed
to focus on their immediate circumstance rather than their knowledge of the overall subject matter and
seemed more receptive when they saw cultural value in the ecosystem service. Similarly, when peoples’
livelihood and well-being were in direct link to wetland ecosystem services, their willingness to discuss
environmental perceptions grew exceptionally.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
An ecosystem is a community of biological organisms working in conjunction with the three other
earthly spheres (i.e., atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere), to exist as one unit; or the organic and
18

inorganic components operating in tandem to procure and maintain the whole system (Tansley 1935).
These holistic systems nurture infinite resources.
The literature shows that the word resources is applied to describe a source of which assets are
available for use, regardless of context (“Resource - Definition of Resource in English | Oxford
Dictionaries” 2017). That is, whether discussing academic resources (knowledge), biological resources
(production), economic resources (properties), or natural resources. William J. Mitsch, a renowned
ecosystem ecologist, who focuses on wetland research, writes that ecosystem services consist of many
provisions, such as generic resources (e.g., food, water, or fibers) (Mitsch and Gosselink 2015). Conversely,
The National Water Summary on Wetland Resources, a paper for the United States Department of the
Interior and the USGS, gives a broad overview of wetland resources, which includes discussions for
understanding wetland functions and values in a scientific realm (Fretwell et al. 1996). Interestingly, the
report was written several years before the term “ecosystem services” took hold in the academic
community. Nevertheless, Turner and Daily (2008), discusses the resource space in terms of human
welfare benefiting from the ecosystem goods and services, both private and public, generated across a
range of temporal and spatial scales. While, Zedler and Kercher (2005), denote wetlands as resources
themselves, as they supply beneficial goods, e.g. peat, and complete necessary functions, e.g. sequester
carbons, which, in turn, make the peat that becomes useful. In this study, the word resource is an umbrella
term applied to describe any environmental provision or process, such as an ecosystem service.
Ecosystem Services are the conditions and processes by which the natural environment produces
resources that benefit nearby inhabitants, namely humans (Daily 1997; Chee 2004; Alcamo et al. 2003).
Other scholars assert that ecosystem services are “natural capital” offered to preserve human welfare,
by supplying various cultural assets (e.g., biodiversity, clean water, and sustenance) (Costanza, Farber,
and Maxwell 1989; Daily et al. 1997; Turner and Daily 2008; Roebeling et al. 2016). Colloquially, ecosystem

19

services are “the advantages of nature to households, communities, and economies” (Boyd and Banzhaf
2007).
The concept of ecosystem services encompasses a broad range of goods (useful resources). For
instance: dietary needs, timber, biomass fuels, pharmaceuticals, and industrial products (e.g., natural
fiber) (Chee 2004; Turner and Daily 2008; Costanza et al. 2014). Also, many services (useful resources)
that support the maintenance of biodiversities, such as air, soil, and water purification (Daily et al. 1997;
Fisher, Turner, and Morling 2009). Not to mention recycling and renewal, intangible aesthetic, and cultural
prosperity (Chee 2004; Barbier et al. 2008; Sumarga et al. 2015).

ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS
An ecosystem function is the internal processes and natural interactions, between components
throughout or across ecosystems (De Groot, Wilson, and Boumans 2002). While services are the outputs
of ecosystems which are beneficial to humans (Costanza, Farber, and Maxwell 1989; Chee 2004; GómezBaggethun et al. 2010; Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2013). As a result, people assign economic,
ecological, and social values to these ecosystem services based on the usefulness of these services
(Richardson 1994).

WETLAND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
In the past, wetland research has mainly included ecological-economic valuation of goods and
services, concerning wetland management practices (Costanza, Farber, and Maxwell 1989; Barbier,
Acreman, and Knowler 1997; Wilson and Carpenter 1999; Turner et al. 2000). Furthermore, studies have
focused on the cultural value of wetland ecosystems regarding provisions and benefits (Dixon 2005;
Cottet, Piégay, and Bornette 2013; Nabahungu and Visser 2013; Greenland-Smith, Brazner, and Sherren
2016; Roebeling et al. 2016). However, much of the cultural research has concentrated on international
analysis, such as in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe, except a few North American studies that focused
on Canada and Mexico. Examinations relating to environmental perception of wetland ecosystem services
20

have had little emphasis on the United States. More specifically Michigan, the state with more surface
freshwater resources than any other, and the state with the second longest coastline of the United States
after Alaska (“Surface Water Projects - USGS, MI-WSC” 2017).
Many researchers evaluate wetlands ecosystem services in terms of direct (extrinsic and
external), or indirect (intrinsic and internal) functional use and non-use values (e.g., shellfish harvesting
and sediment trapping, respectively) (Costanza, Farber, and Maxwell 1989; Acharya 2000). In addition,
existing research demonstrates that humanity is extremely dependent upon the services provided by
wetland ecosystems (Finlayson et al. 1999; Costanza et al. 2014). Some research states that wetland
functions provide resources that humans not only value, but rely upon, such as water quality and seafood
harvesting (Brooks, Ffolliott, and Magner 2013; William J. Mitsch and Gosselink 2015; Sandifer, SuttonGrier, and Ward 2015). Figure 3 displays the association between Wetland Ecosystem Services (“Online
Diagram Software to Draw Flowcharts, UML & More | Creately” 2017).
Wetland Ecosystem Services

Figure 3. An Illustration of the Connection between Wetland Ecosystem Services

21

WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES RESEARCH
Research about wetland ecosystem services examines them regarding cultural, economic,
environmental, and social benefits. Many environmental scientists often asserted that nature has an
intrinsic value far beyond an economic value (Turner et al. 2000; Lambert 2003; Chee 2004; GómezBaggethun et al. 2010; Farley and Costanza 2010). Nevertheless, much of the literature referencing WES
regarding their economic value. Although, some does emphasize societal inequalities and poor
distribution of these services; while others examine the cultural relevance.
Costanza, Farber, and Maxwell (1989) ask what if people were to accept the belief that all species
have a vital role in the natural ecosystems? Then it would be possible to change individual perceptions to
value all ecosystem services as if they were fully informed about the functions of the environment as
expressed through their ecological relationships. Even if there is no direct usefulness or appeal to those
species, such as mosquitoes and flies (Costanza, Farber, and Maxwell 1989).
Similarly, Kaplowitz (2000), firmly expressed that if Yucatan communities continue to account for
the total value of natural resources inadequately, overexploitation and degradation of complex
ecosystems, such as mangrove wetlands will remain an ongoing problem.
There are many examples of how WES have measured environmental perceptions. Although the
vast majority highlight inequalities, whether from a destruction of indigenous people’s ancestral and tribal
land, in turn, their cultural identity, or from an unequal distribution of provisions to a complete omission
of local peoples from decision-making processes.
Clarkson, Aussei, and Gerbeaux (2013) discussed how the Māori people of New Zealand had
suffered greatly from the loss of more than 90% of the original wetlands that once covered the island
nation. They appreciated wetlands for their spiritual and cultural significance, as well as vital sources of
food and other materials (e.g., timber) closely linked to their identity. The Māori people treasured

22

wetlands for their ability to offer a safe-haven during wartime, in addition to hiding valuable artifacts,
such as canoes (Clarkson, Aussei, and Gerbeaux 2013).
Moreover, Sharma, Rasul, and Chettri (2015) assessed the economic value of WES provided by the
Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, the first Ramsar site in Nepal. Their results show that the local people
depend heavily on the ecosystem services offered by the reserve for their subsistence and overall wellbeing.
Adekola et al. (2015), found that local peoples of the Niger River Delta wetlands are rarely
considered in the decision-making processes when sustainable development management practices are
concerned. Even though they derive nearly 80% of their income (as goods, services, and cash income)
directly from the wetlands, and are significantly more dependent upon the delta than other wetland
communities in Africa (Adekola, Mitchell, and Grainger 2015).

WETLAND FUNCTIONS
Wetland functions are vital to the health and welfare of any adjacent water body as well as the
adjoining landscape (Daily et al. 1997; Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2013; Sandifer, Sutton-Grier, and
Ward 2015). Some examples of these functions are flood-peak reduction; groundwater recharge and
discharge; retention of nutrients; sediment trapping; shoreline stabilization; and, water storage.
Wetlands, also modify local climate conditions. Namely, by way of evaporation, interception, rainfall,
temperature; and, transpiration (Richardson 1994; Reddy and DeLaune 2008; Turner et al. 2000; Turner,
Georgiou, and Fisher 2008; Keddy et al. 2009; Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2013; Meng et al. 2016).
Wetland functions have protected billions of people from experiencing catastrophic natural
disasters for millennia. However, continued wetland destruction places billions more in harm’s way. In
the end, the literature demonstrates that because people are unaccustomed to recognizing what
constitutes a wetland function, they are unable to safeguard them from future losses. (Kaplowitz and Kerr
2003; Dixon 2005; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007; Cottet, Piégay, and Bornette 2013).
23

Patricia M. Manuel and her associates performed on-site case studies within three neighborhoods
of Halifax, Nova Scotia during the late spring and summer of 1996-97. These communities were each home
to urban wetlands, and this research focused on investigating cultural perceptions or people’s awareness
of the relationship between themselves and wetlands. Random sampling from civic-directories found 55
households who were willing to participate in the door-to-door questionnaire interviews. A four-section
survey was administered, with the third part concentrating on individual perceptions of wetlands (Manuel
2003). The results showed that area residents rarely visited their local wetlands, whether intentionally or
on the way to someplace else (Manuel 2003). When asked to describe their local wetlands, locals
answered ineptly with regards to structure or size, vegetation and wildlife, wetland condition and water
quality (Manuel 2003). Nearly 70% of those polled were unaware if the wetlands had changed in site and
situation. However, they were more observant when asked about seasonal variations (Manuel 2003).
Aesthetics and naturalness were some of the advantages people mentioned for having wetlands in their
neighborhoods (Manuel 2003).
Mitsch and Gosselink (2000), wrote “perceived values arise out of the functional ecological
processes… But are also determined by human perceptions, the location of a wetland, the human
population pressures on it, and the extent of the resource.” Moreover, they claimed that wetland
functions and, thus, their use benefits (values) have the potential to last for a very long time (Mitsch and
Gosselink 2000). Whereas modern agriculture or industrial activities are largely unsustainable and
resource-depleting (e.g., soil, water, and fossil fuels), so the lifetime of these human-based alternatives
are rather short-lived. Because once wetlands succumb to development, the loss of their functions and
values is often reversible (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000).
In contrast, Lupi, Kaplowitz, and Hoehn (2002) performed a pilot survey of 58 Mid-Michigan
residents willingness to accept wetland mitigation as a form of compensation for the destruction or
drainage of an existing wetland. The pilot study further explained how Michiganders with higher levels of

24

educational attainment believe when original wetlands are damaged, more land than the original wetland
should be set aside for migration projects, as residents express caring about WES (Lupi, Kaplowitz, and
Hoehn 2002).
Kaplowitz and Kerr (2003), found after interviewing more than 1000 Michigan residents from the
major geographic regions of the state, most people seem very familiar with wetlands and think protecting
them is important. The majority of participants (more than 70%) acknowledged that wetland functions
(flora and fauna habitat, flood control, and water filtration) are very or extremely important ecosystem
services offered by wetlands. Meanwhile, 66% expressed that the existence of wetlands is very to
extremely important to them (Kaplowitz and Kerr 2003).
Similarly, Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn (2007) established that 19 people from Mid-Michigan who
took part in focus group interviews seem to perceive that wetlands function as wildlife habitats and
floodwater retention ponds; yet misunderstand the many other ecosystem services provided by wetlands.
When asked, “what they think of when they hear the word ‘wetland,’” residents gave answers in the form
of wetland types (e.g., palustrine or swamps and marshes), or discussed DEQ and DNR regulations
(Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007). Additionally, when asked about wetlands regarding water and other
geophysical aspects, participants described stagnant water as well as muddy places (Kaplowitz, Lupi, and
Hoehn 2007). Most participants associated wetlands as a refuge for wildlife and wildflowers (Kaplowitz,
Lupi, and Hoehn 2007). Nevertheless, there was some skepticism regarding wetlands’ ability to stabilize
shorelines, and there was an overall lack of knowledge or uncertainty about wetlands’ relationship with
groundwater recharge (Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007).
Even though wetlands offer use and non-use benefits all year, people seemed more concerned with
the “big-picture” of nature rather than “small” localized ecosystems, such as wetlands (Manuel 2003).
Furthermore, most people appear to see wetlands as environmental assets but lack the knowledge to
communicate why effectively (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000; Lupi, Kaplowitz, and Hoehn 2002; Manuel 2003;

25

Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007). Individuals recognize some wetland functions, such as wildlife habitat
and water filtration; however, neglect to mention essential functions like shoreline stabilization and
nutrient retention (Kaplowitz and Kerr 2003; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007).

WETLAND VALUES
The literature discusses wetland values in several contexts, such as ecological, economic, and
social use and non-use values. Wetland valuation is the process of assigning a monetary price to goods
and services provided by environmental resources, whether or not market prices are available for
comparison (Costanza et al. 1997; Chee 2004; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Arreola 2012). For example, market
prices are not available for services such as flood control, disaster mitigation, and erosion avoidance, et
cetera. The value is established by the willingness-to-pay (WTP), for the good or service, regardless if a
physical payment is made (Chee 2004; De Groot, Wilson, and Boumans 2002; Costanza et al. 2014).
Conversely, cultural analyses assert that societies utilize wetland ecosystem services as a form of
expressing their identity, traditions, and holistic connection to nature (Tuan 1974; Clarkson, Aussei, and
Gerbeaux 2013; Greenland-Smith, Brazner, and Sherren 2016). The research points to people’s perception
of wetland values, in the context of aesthetics, both tangible and intangible (Wilson and Carpenter 1999;
Turner et al. 2000; Manuel 2003; Turner, Georgiou, and Fisher 2008; Cottet, Piégay, and Bornette 2013).
The USGS’ SolVES further adds social values regarding biological diversity, historical, and learning values,
as well as life-sustaining, spiritual, and therapeutic values. Humanity has become reliant upon these
values, yet some cultures ignore these values, as wetlands impede plans for land uses and land cover
changes (Dahl 2011; Brinson and Malvárez 2002; Nsengimana, Weihler, and Kaplin 2017). Once more, this
research analyzes the cultural values offered by WES.
Although wetland functions are essential for the health and well-being of the entire ecosystem,
wetland values are equally vital to the welfare of the ecosystem because it is necessary to monitor human
use. Values are the anticipated resources that humanity will utilize because of the functional processes
26

fulfilled by the wetlands’ infrastructure. Examples of some wetland values are archeological and historical
protection; educational purposes; hay, peat, shellfish, and timber harvesting; livestock foraging and
watering; medicinal purposes; recreation; commercial and sports fishing. Also, water quality as well as
quantity (Costanza et al. 1997; Wilson and Carpenter 1999; Reddy and De Laune 2008; Turner et al. 2000;
Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2013; Sharma, Rasul, and Chettri 2015; Roebeling et al. 2016).
Ndaruga and Irwin (2003) surveyed 54 primary school teachers from seven provinces within
Kenya, who attended a professional training workshop with respect to wetland conservation in January
1999. The teachers were from both rural and urban settings. A combination of questionnaires and
interviews techniques were utilized to gather data about how these educators perceived their local
wetlands after attending said training workshop (Ndaruga and Irwin 2003). As well as, to reflect on how
the in-service training could be applied to promote environmental education teaching about wetlands’
and their sustainable use (Ndaruga and Irwin 2003). The results showed that domestic water, water for
animals, farming water, and grazing areas were the most fundamental values of wetlands (Ndaruga and
Irwin 2003). On the contrary, teachers rated transport, local crafts, the attraction of tourists, recreation,
and purification of water as the least relevant services afforded by wetland ecosystems (Ndaruga and
Irwin 2003).
Additionally, Greenland-Smith, Brazner, and Sherren (2016) employed unstructured interviews to
evaluate 18 males (females declined to participate) Nova Scotian farmers’ perceptions of local wetlands
and other water bodies, to conserve and protect these natural resources. During the spring and autumn
of 2013, a series of questions were asked to identify the farmers’ awareness of their wetlands, if they
impact their farming or if their farming impacts the wetlands, and if they have altered the wetlands in any
way? By using the EGS (Ecosystem Goods and Services framework by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment), the investigators found that the farmers recognized the provisional services of fresh water
utilization and wildlife habitat more often than any other provision, such as food or fuel (Greenland-Smith,

27

Brazner, and Sherren 2016). Meanwhile, the cultural services mentioned were recreation, tourism, and
cultural heritage values, without any reference to the educational services (Greenland-Smith, Brazner,
and Sherren 2016). The regulating services ranged from water purification to erosion control, but the
farmers neglected to recognize flood control as a vital service because they believed the wetlands caused
the flooding of their land (Greenland-Smith, Brazner, and Sherren 2016). Furthermore, only a few farmers
noted the supportive services of nutrient retention and primary production with no mention of any others
(Greenland-Smith, Brazner, and Sherren 2016).
Nevertheless, as seen earlier, Kaplowitz and his colleagues, Hoehn, Kerr, and Lupi have added to
the wetland research within Michigan. Although, they focus on wetland values regarding appreciation
versus cultural asset, or how society benefits from the WES regarding use values. Proving the necessity
for this Research's exploration of residents, to help close the gap in the literature about the use and nonuse ecosystem services provided by wetlands.
Overall, research has shown that residents placed the highest values on services that provide
them with immediate use value, such as aesthetics and recreation. However, people see the importance
of freshwater but do not recognize the harvesting abilities (food and fuel). Individuals have some
knowledge of wetlands’ unique habitat, yet they rarely, if at all, mention fishing (sustenance). Once more,
this current research evaluates people’s knowledge and environmental perceptions of the unique
attributes (nonuse functions and use values) afforded by WES. Table 5 offers a slight variation in the
working definitions for wetland functions, values, and ecosystem services published by the Ramsar
Convention (De Groot et al. 2006; Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2013).
Table 5. Operational Definitions for this Current Research from the Ramsar Convention
TERM
Function
Value
Ecosystem Service

DEFINITION
Activities or actions which occur naturally in wetlands as a product of interactions
between the internal processes and ecosystem structure.
The importance of useful goods and services provided by a wetland ecosystem.
The benefits people obtain from wetland ecosystems.

28

METHODS
The methods chosen for a research project should reflect the types of questions being asked.
Qualitative research is often applied to recognize further an individual’s or groups’ underlying reasons for
formulating certain opinions, motivations, and actions (Gollin, McMillen, and Wilcox 2004; Reed et al.
2009). In addition, qualitative analysis concerns itself with evaluating how individuals perceive their
surroundings, in an attempt to gather evidence about people’s worldview (Brannen 2005; Baxter and Jack
2008). In contrast, quantitative inquiries focus on collecting numeric data to support physical and social
phenomena (Morse 1991; Brannen 2005). This research is primarily qualitative because the collection of
data, the subsequent analyses, and synthesis of broad patterns and themes are inductive, as there is an
end-point; thus, qualitative in approach (Morse 1991; Brannen 2005; Creswell 2013). With the use of
exploratory case studies, via participant observations and focus group interviews, this research allows for
a different assessment of the research topic. By offering participants the freedom to interact in groups,
this allows them to create additional constructs amongst their peers (Tellis 1997; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and
Hoehn 2004; Mir and Watson 2000; Creswell 2013). These tools afford the researcher the opportunity to
identify themes and investigative patterns within the dialogue.
The methodology behind these investigations are based on conceptualization theory and follow the
constructivist point-of-view. Therefore, the truth is relative, subjective, and dependent upon individual
experiences and perspectives (Tellis 1997; Mir and Watson 2000; Baxter and Jack 2008; Creswell 2013).
These investigations make available empirical evidence of the environmental perceptions of people
concerning wetland ecosystems. These activities are easily replicable because of their reliability,
replicability, and reproducibility. Even if there is an introduction or replacement of a county, a reduction
in sample sizes (for an initial pilot study), or a refinement of qualitative approaches and tools utilized (De
Boo et al. 2005). Figure 4 provides a visual aid to articulation the flow of methodologies used for this
investigation (“Online Diagram Software to Draw Flowcharts, UML & More | Creately” 2017).
29

Research Workflow

Figure 4. Diagram Explaining the Sequence of Research Methodology

30

As a result, the goal of this study was to gauge the environmental perception of individuals
regarding wetland ecosystems. Primarily concentrating on wetland ecosystem services, collectively
referred to as wetland functions (natural processes) and values (useful benefits) for this research. Three
research questions were considered:
1. How do residents describe wetlands?
2. What types of wetland ecosystem services do residents identify most often?
3. Can residents accurately classify ecosystem functions and values related to wetlands?

STUDY SITES
Michigan consists of 83 counties, each with a diverse land and waterscape. The scope of this study
was limited to three counties: Chippewa, Huron, and Macomb because of time constraints. In addition,
these counties were primary focuses for future wetland restoration efforts being led by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, in conjunction with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)
(NAWMP 2012). Figure 5 expresses the up-to-date concentration zones for the said management plan
(NAWMP 1998).

31

Figure 5. Focus Areas for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP 2014)

Study sites were also required to meet two (2) of the following three (3) criteria:
•

The county has experienced significant wetland losses in the past 30 years.

•

The county has undergone restoration efforts to encourage ecological stewardship.

•

The county has a substantial coastline in relation to the Great Lakes.

These sites were to include several lacustrine wetlands and would be representative of a coastal
watershed. Appropriate locations were selected after a thorough analysis of official documents detailing
status and trend data relating to Michigan’s wetlands, as well as scholarly literature (Soulliere and Monfils
1996; Lupi, Kaplowitz, and Hoehn 2002; Fizzell 2014; Fretwell et al. 1996). Figure 6 shows the study site
locations.
32

Figure 6. Map of Study Site Locations

Chippewa County
Chippewa County was selected as a research site due to ongoing reclamation attempts in recent
decades, with the goal of recovering some of the wetlands lost after European settlement (Munuscong
Potholes) (Soulliere and Monfils 1996). Since 1992, these restoration and construction efforts have been
remarkably successful (Soulliere and Monfils 1996). The Munuscong Potholes wetland complex was
developed to observe which waterfowl returned to this microhabitat, document the geophysical
characteristics of these wetlands, and encouraged ecological stewardship. Regardless of the current
preservation initiatives, during European colonization, Chippewa County suffered a loss of roughly 30%
(145,572 acres or ~59,000 ha) of its original wetlands (Fizzell 2014). Nevertheless, wetlands still cover

33

343,735 acres (~140,000 ha) or ~20% of the overall land area (Fizzell 2014). The county has experienced
zero wetlands losses in the past 30 years, due in part to the recovery efforts (Fizzell 2014).
Chippewa County occupies the northeastern most extent of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The St. Mary’s
River runs adjacent to the coastline and separates the U.S. from Canada, and Lake Superior from Lake
Huron by a narrow channel. The St. Mary’s watershed is a network of waterways found within the Rudyard
Clay Lake Plain ecosystem (Silbernagel et al. 1997). Figure 7, the map of Chippewa County offers a glimpse
at the investigation sites and wetlands within said county. Figure 8 depicts the Munuscong Potholes, a
wetland reclamation effort underway within Chippewa County.

Figure 7. Map of Chippewa County Including Terrain, Wetlands, and Study Sites

34

Chippewa County’s Munuscong Potholes

Figure 8. Munuscong Potholes; Constructed Wetlands by the DNR, NAWCC, Bay Mill Indian Community, Great
Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, and Ducks Unlimited, Inc. within Chippewa County, Michigan

Huron County
Huron County was selected for data collection, as the county has experienced approximately an
11% loss of wetlands since 1978. In the intervening time since European occupation, the county has lost
a bewildering 83% of its original wetlands, some 178,225 acres (~72, 000 ha) (Fizzell 2014). Thus, placing
Huron County among the most affected by wetland degradation within Michigan since European
settlement, and the only second behind Macomb County in wetland drainage since 1978 (Fizzell 2014).
The county still hosts roughly 36,000 acres (~14,500 ha) of wetlands (Fizzell 2014).
Huron County covers the entire tip of Michigan’s “thumb” region and surrounded by Lake Huron
and Saginaw Bay. The area encompasses the Saginaw Lake Plain ecosystem (Ricketts 1999; Bailey 2009;
US EPA 2016). The Pigeon and Willow Rivers are the largest within the county. These watersheds are
composed of many, relatively small perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams that flow directly into
Lake Huron or Saginaw Bay (Bailey 2009). Figure 9 is a map of Huron County and provides a visualization
of the investigation sites and wetlands within said county. Figure 10 are images captured while working
in Huron County for field research.

35

Figure 9. Map of Huron County, Michigan Including Terrain, Wetlands, and Study Sites

Figure 10. Images of a Freshwater Palustrine Marsh (left) and a Lacustrine Wetland adjacent to Lake Huron (right)

36

Macomb County
Macomb County was elected as the final research site because the county has lost 86%, some
114,927 acres (~47, 000 ha), of the original wetlands, with roughly 17% being drained since 1978 (Fizzell
et al. 2015). The county ranks in the top five Michigan counties affected by wetland depletion following
the arrival of Europeans, and first amid the most wetland losses after 1978. Macomb County still hosts
approximately 17,851 acres (~7,700 ha) of wetlands (Fizzell 2014), most of which are located in Macomb
County Metro Park surrounded by Lake St. Clair.
Macomb County is in southeastern Michigan’s population corridor and rests upon the shoreline
of Lake St. Clair (sometimes called Michigan’s 6th Great Lake). Canada is only 10 miles away, just across
the lake at it northernmost location. The county is mainly covered by the Clinton River watershed, which
flows directly into Lake St. Clair, and is a large part of the Maumee Lake Plain ecosystem (Ricketts 1999;
Bailey 2009; US EPA 2016). Figure 11 is a map of Macomb County and affords a graphical view of the
investigation sites and wetlands within said county. Also, the images that follow displayed in Figure 12
were captured by Toni A. Walkowiak while in the field collecting research data.

37

Figure 11. Map of Macomb County, Michigan including Terrain, Wetlands, and Study Sites.

Figure 12. Images of a Freshwater Lacustrine Marsh (left) from Lake St. Clair Metro Park (right).

38

PARTICIPANTS
Participation was garnered either by door-to-door canvassing or cold calls, to remain in compliance
with IRB regulations of random and anonymous selection. The object was to assemble a group of
participants that represented a wide-range of demographic categories, which exemplify the county’s
population (Campanelli 1997; Krueger and Casey 2014; Lowery and Morse 2013).
An opening dialogue was initiated to gain willing participants. Each person was greeted with:
“Good day (morning, afternoon, evening),
My name is Toni Anne Walkowiak, and I am a graduate student at Michigan State
University. I am conducting my thesis research within (respective county) this (week (when
in-person) or summer (when cold calling), and I was wondering if you might have a few
minutes to speak with me to see if you are interested in participating?” (after agreeing to
listen)
“This research project is intended to collect environmental perception data regarding
water resources within the state of Michigan, specifically wetlands ecosystem services.
“(Wetland Ecosystem Services are the natural processes (functions) that wetland perform
regardless of human intervention; these functions efficiently and effectively produce
resources, which benefit (use and non-use values) nearby inhabitants, namely humans and
other wildlife).“
“We are particularly interested in gathering information about residents’ knowledge
regarding wetlands ecosystems, and how they support the surrounding environment. Also,
to discover whether participants can distinguish between their functions (natural
purpose/job) and values (use benefits/assets).”
“To collect this information, there are two experiments. One is straightforward and takes
roughly 5-10 minutes to complete. The goal of this inquiry is to see whether people can
distinguish between wetland functions and values (their ecosystem services). This
experiment is an online digital card sorting survey, where each participant sorts thirty (30)
cards (with words or phrases that are describing wetland ecosystem services) into two (2)
categories: functions and values.”
“The second experiment is a tad lengthier but should take no more than 30 minutes. The
aim is to collect data about residents’ knowledge of wetland ecosystems. This experiment
is a semi-structured focus group interview (discussion forum), where each participant
answers eight sequential questions regarding wetland ecosystem services with an
emphasis on values (use benefits/assets).” (if they agreed to the terms, a consent form(s)
was provided (in-person or via email) for authorization of these conditions.)

39

In-person interviews were small groups, of no more than five people, who fit into the same
stakeholder category (e.g., business owners, employees of local/state/federal/tribal agencies, students,
et cetera). In addition, would meet at a designated area, TBD (e.g., local library, city hall, or university
conference room) (Kontogianni et al. 2001; Reed et al. 2009). The same remained true for the online
activities, except their destination was either at home or the office. These parameters fit the ongoing
dialogue amongst scientists who claim that qualitative data collection calls for small sample sizes; with
emphasis on abridged groupings, which allows for a broad overview of the regional population’s viewpoint
(Brown et al. 2000; Olmsted-Hawala 2006; Kaplowitz and Witter 2008; Reed et al. 2009).
The original intention was to assemble five people from each stakeholder category for a sample
size of twenty-five individuals per activity, for each county; or 75 participants/study for an overall sample
size of 150 residents. Because this research was exploratory, finding willing participants within all
stakeholder categories was harder than expected. Thus, this study was deemed a convenience sample or
availability sampling. Consequently, demographic data was utilized in place of stakeholder categories.
In the end, 80 individuals took part in the online digital card sort, and 36 people contributed to
the semi-structured focus group interviews. Table 6 shows the final number of participants for each
county and individual activity.
Table 6. Number of Participants per County for each Research Activity
COUNTY
Chippewa
Huron
Macomb

ACTIVITY
Focus Group
15
9
12

Card Sort
38
20
22

ACTIVITIES
After the locations had been determined, the step-by-step preparation and protocol for each
activity began. Upon arrival to either the in-person focus group interviews or the two online applications

40

(i.e., FocusGroupIt or OptimalSort), a quick review of the day’s agenda, the research objectives, and the
operational diagrams being employed for these activities was explained. The italicized text that follows
was the verbatim dialogue.
“Hello, and thank you for joining me today. I’m just going to give you a little bit of
background information on what we're planning to discuss (accomplish).”
“Some people are familiar with this, while some people are relatively unfamiliar. Either
way, this is the Ramsar Convention’s framework of the values of a wetland. Ramsar is the
largest wetlands treaty organization in the world. They're based in Iran, and roughly 160
countries are part of this alliance. Their objective is to protect wetlands, and also educate
people on wetlands. They mainly focus on wetland values, in terms of direct and indirect
uses for economic purposes. Their usage of indirect use values is actually wetland
functions (natural processes). And so, these are the topics that I want you all to keep in
mind when we get into the focus group questions (or card sorting survey). The fact that
people can fish in them. You know, they help with flood control and things of that nature.”
“Now, this one is from the USGS, and this is a different framework. They break it down
into the internal values (essential for the health of the wetland) and external values
(cultural attributes that spread beyond the wetland) and functions (natural processes),
which is where we are today. We're going to be discussing wetland ecosystem services,
paying particular attention to values (internal or external) (card sort: paying attention to
the differences between functions and values). Those are the terms that I'm using. Ramsar
uses direct and indirect. So, similar, but different. Ok, so, here we go…”

Focus Group Study
Focus groups are a recognized and reliable method for qualitative examinations regarding
wetlands (Kaplowitz and Kerr 2003; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007; Reed et al. 2009). This tool
incorporated group participation techniques and offers rich text along with efficiency in sampling (Krueger
and Casey 2014). Accordingly, semi-structured focus group interviews were utilized to ask a sequence of
questions, with the intention of gathering elicit responses and ascertain individuals’ knowledge of wetland
ecosystems services (Kaplowitz 2001; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007; Reed et al. 2009).
The focus group interviews took place in a relaxed environment that put participants at ease.
Thus, allowing them to provide thoughtful and meaningful answers (Frey and Fontana 1991; Eliot et al.
2005; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007).

41

Regardless of the location, the online participants seemed to have more brevity when responding
(Kitzinger 1994; Schneider et al. 2002). Perhaps due, in part, to the independent nature of this forum
(Schneider et al. 2002). Nevertheless, their answers were introspective and offered great insight into the
minds of these individuals (Schneider et al. 2002). Then again, the in-person interviews allowed the
opportunity for extra dialogue to take place (Kitzinger 1994; Schneider et al. 2002). As such, people took
those liberties to delve further into their perceptions and knowledge to share their experiences with other
people within the groups.
The focus group interviews addressed two research questions:
1. How do residents describe wetlands?
2. What types of wetland ecosystem services do residents identify most often?
These questions helped to create a “baseline” for future research about Michigan wetland ecosystems,
and future wetland management practices (Gollin, McMillen, and Wilcox 2004; Olmsted-Hawala 2006;
Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007). There were eight sequential questions appropriated from previous
wetland research, where focus group interviews were the primary activity. (Weiss 1995; Morgan 1997;
Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007). Each question follows the guidelines established by (Eliot et al. 2005),
and meet the following conditions:
•

Conciseness.

•

One dimensional.

•

Worded clearly.

•

Open-ended.

•

Non-threatening or embarrassing (also a condition of the IRB).

•

Written to prevent simple “yes” or “no” answers.

42

In keeping with these parameters, the focus group questions read as:
1. How would you describe a wetland?
2. What are some ecosystem services provided by wetlands?
3. Why are these wetland ecosystem services important to you?
4. What values do you associate with these wetland ecosystem services?
5. Who benefits from these wetland ecosystem services?
6. How are these wetland ecosystem services relevant to your everyday life?
7. Rate these values on a scale from 1-10, where 1 is “mildly important,” 5 is “considerably
important,” and 10 is “exceedingly important.”
8. Are there any other issues you would like to address regarding the values associated with wetland
ecosystem services?
After a review of the research objectives and guidelines had been explained (see greeting above),
the activity began. For the in-person semi-structured focus group interviews, the sequence of questions
was read aloud one at a time. Allowing participants a few minutes to think about how they wanted to
respond or jot down a few words on a piece of blank paper (which was provided). A fifteen-second
warning was given, and then people were encouraged to reply at their will. No set order of participant
responses was followed for any of the questions. The only caveat was if an individual was unresponsive
for too long (more than one question) a non-threatening comment was made by the coordinator
encouraging them to express their viewpoints whenever they felt comfortable.
In contrast, the online focus group forum was slightly different due to software constraints. The
questions were laid out in the same order, but participants were not given any set time to contemplate
their responses. Also, there was no obvious way to nudge someone if they were unresponsive for
extended periods because people entered the website at their leisure.

43

Closed Card-Sort Study
Card sorts methods are used to explore the organic fashion into which people group items
together (Campanelli 1997). Thus, card sorts become a tool for collecting data about individual’s
perceptions related to a set of stimuli; in this example, wetland functions and values (Cataldo et al. 1970;
Campanelli 1997; Gollin, McMillen, and Wilcox 2004; Roth et al. 2011).
A close-ended card sort asks participants to classify the subject matter into predetermined
categories; an open-ended card sort allows participants to organize the stimuli into their categories and
label those groupings as they choose (Jackson and Trochim 2002; Righi et al. 2013).
Open-ended sorts offer a glimpse into the psyche of individuals and reveal how they mentally
categorize each card, also what phrases (words) they use to classify each group (Righi et al. 2013). Closeended sorts help reveal the degree to which the participants agree on which cards belong to a particular
category (Roth et al. 2011). Closed sorting is evaluative, and can be used to gauge if a given set of classes
offers an efficient way to organize a given set of stimuli. A closed-ended online digital card sorting survey
was chosen to gather data about residents’ ability to distinguish between wetland functions and values.
To that end, this card sorting activity was designed to create a “baseline” for understanding residents’
accuracy when asked to categorize those wetland ecosystem services (Gollin, McMillen, and Wilcox 2004;
Olmsted-Hawala 2006; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007). This portion of the research addressed the
question, can residents accurately classify ecosystem functions and values related to wetlands?
Upon arriving at the website, participants entered the secure password specified in the email
instructions. Each participant was required to complete the demographic survey, was given the directions
for the card sort, and asked to review the WES concepts adopted for this research (e.g., Ramsar
Convention and USGS), then the sorting began. As per the directions, the participants were asked to look
at the list of cards on the left-hand side of the screen and then requested to sort those cards into the

44

categories provided on the right: functions and values. At the end of the experiment, participants had the
opportunity to add any supplemental thoughts, which a few were compelled to do so.
For this experiment, each participant sorted 30 cards (with words or phrases) into two categories:
functions and values. The cards represent both types of WES, i.e. functions and values set forth by both
the Ramsar Convention and the USGS operational diagrams. For instance, water quality is a value and
retention of nutrients is a function; sports fishing is a value, but water storage is a function (Fretwell et al.
1996; Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2013). Table 7 displays the accurate classification for the 30 digital
cards being sorted.
Table 7. Correct Classification of the Cards for The Card Sorting Activity
WETLAND FUNCTIONS
Atmospheric Processes
Biochemical Processes
Fish Sanctuaries
Flood-Peak Reduction
Groundwater Recharge and Discharge
Local Climate Stabilization
Retention of Nutrients
Sediment Trapping
Shoreline Stabilization
Storm Protection
Support Plant and Animal Life
Velocity Reduction
Water Purification
Water Storage
Waterfowl Habitat
Wildlife Sanctuary

WETLAND VALUES
Education
Hay Harvest
Historical/Archeological Protection
Livestock Forage
Livestock Watering
Medicine
Peat Harvest
Recreation
Shellfish Harvest
Shoreline Erosion Protection
Sport Fishing
Timber Harvest
Water Quality
Water Quantity

ANALYSIS
Upon completion of the focus groups, some data preparation was required prior to coding (Welsh
2002; Walsh 2003; Leech and Onwuegbuzie 2011). This preparation included the removal of unnecessary
clutter from these data, spelling error corrections, deletion of extra spaces, or superfluous columns and
rows, et cetera (Walsh 2003; Leech and Onwuegbuzie 2011; “NVivo Plus | QSR International” 2017).

45

In addition to the information above, some individual data sets required conversion into
spreadsheets, such as the demographic surveys and online card sorting data. Further, the focus group
demography required that these classifications be entered individually and correctly. Otherwise, they
were unreadable within NVivo 11 Plus (Welsh 2002; Walsh 2003; “NVivo Plus | QSR International” 2017).

Qualitative Coding
Qualitative coding is the labeling, compiling, and organizing of data to reveal conceptual patterns.
The semi-structured focus group interviews were coded to help organize the data and make sense of
textual data. Demographic information, such as age group, educational attainment, gender, and
occupation was coded along with participants’ responses. Allowing for new themes and patterned
relationships to develop within each data set. A list of initial codes pertaining to wetland ecosystems
services was developed based on previous research (Kaplowitz and Kerr 2003; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn
2007; Lowery and Morse 2013; Greenland-Smith, Brazner, and Sherren 2016). These codes were
recognized as descriptive codes to reflect a primary topic seen within the activity notes (Saldaña 2013).
Through analysis emergent codes including concepts, meanings, relationships, et cetera (i.e., themes)
arose and applied. These codes were more participant-oriented than the pre-set codes (Saldaña 2013).
Together, these coding cycles allow for data synthesis to consolidate codes into reliable categories that,
when combined, form patterns (Saldaña 2013).
Following the coding cycles set forth by (Kaplowitz 2001; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007;
Saldaña 2013), several queries were run to further mine through participants response, and amass
additional patterns and themes within the data sets (Welsh 2002; Walsh 2003; Saldaña 2013). Thus,
serving to interpret further participants’ perception and knowledge regarding WES (Basit 2003; Leech and
Onwuegbuzie 2011). These queries ranged from code queries, matrix queries, and text queries to
compound queries. Queries illustrate whether participants spoke with similar word choices, phrases, and

46

sentiments or themes. Once more, queries demonstrated if age group, education, or gender played a role
in their perception and overall knowledge, and helped in answering the research questions.

Sort Accuracy
The card sorting survey required the organization and synthesis of data to establish patterns
within participants’ answers. A number of data transformations were performed on the card sort data
using Microsoft Excel and the OptimalSort web tools (“Card Sorting Software | Optimal Workshop” 2016).

47

RESULTS
The objective of this research was to explore how residents of Michigan understand and perceive
wetland ecosystem services. As previously stated, most wetland research has focused on their economic
value, with an emphasis on best management practices, as well as socio-cultural values, regarding
perceived benefits. However, those case studies have focused mainly on international communities
located within France, Sweden, or Uganda, along with many others. The cultural investigations that have
been conducted within North America have been primarily completed in Canada and Mexico, with a few
being conducted in Michigan. Albeit, most of those concentrated on mid-Michigan. This analysis pays
attention to the Michigan counties that have experienced significant wetland losses in recent years or
have undergone restoration initiatives. Residents from Chippewa, Huron, and Macomb counties were
asked to participate in either a semi-structured focus group interview or an online card sorting survey,
with some opting to contribute to both activities.
Additionally, this research provides future researchers with some information about the gaps in
residents’ knowledge about wetland ecosystems. Accordingly, this section focuses on characterizing
residents’ perceptions of wetland ecosystems services. Next, this section centers on the broad patterns
and emergent themes or theories that came from the data analysis itself, with an in-depth look at both
investigations, separately. Finally, a discussion of the implications of these discoveries within the broader
scope of wetland research for Michigan and the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

FOCUS GROUPS
The following presents the results from the focus group interviews. This activity was intended to
reveal what wetland ecosystem services were most recognizable by residents. In these interviews, a series
of eight questions were asked to elicit responses from participants. These questions were asked
sequentially and borrowed from previous research, applied either to focus group or individual interview
activities (Morgan 1997; Weiss 1995; Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007).
48

Participants

In the end, 36 participants answered the focus group interview questions. There were eight inperson interviews and 28 online interviews. Regardless of the forum, people had the opportunity to
communicate with other participants, with the hope of adding further meaning to their answers.
Participants, in both forums, did communicate with others and shared experiences. Individuals who
contributed to this activity ranged from 19-80 years of age. Children 18 and under were absent from the
investigation, due to added parental consent necessary for participation. One participant has lived in
Michigan for 3-5 years, while the other n=35 have lived in Michigan for 9+ years, and all of them enjoy
recreational activities (i.e., boating, fishing, hunting, hiking, nature walks, and swimming). These
demographics were applied to delve further into generational and occupational differences and
similarities of knowledge, which offered a unique perspective into the minds of participants, allowing
certain themes to emerge. In addition, these demographics were used to discover whether educational
attainment and gender played a role in a person’s overall environmental perception of WES. Table 8
indicates the gender and age distribution of participants.
Table 8. Number of Participants for the Focus Group Activity Identified by Age and Gender
AGE GROUP
19-34-years old
35-44-years old
45-54-years old
55-64-years old
65-80-years old

FEMALE
5
1
8
5
3

MALE
5
3
3
1
2

Thematic Codes
Qualitative coding using the codes described in the Methods section above were applied to the
focus group texts. Personal quotes were coded and utilized to express people’s opinions and gave merit
to their worldview. For instance, some participants mentioned aesthetics in relation to human refuge and

49

quality of life; others talked about naturalness in relation to the balance of nature. Additionally, individuals
spoke of biodiversity in the context of breeding or flora, and fauna. The coding dictionary applied to the
focus group text can be found in Appendix B and C at the end of this document.

Cross Tabulations of Wetland Ecosystem Services
As seen in Table 9, participants with higher educational attainment referenced more wetland
ecosystem services than those with less education, at a rate of roughly 30%. However, there was a bias in
the sample size of lower education participants, as there were three with a high school education or
equivalent and one with a vocation or technical training. Nevertheless, individuals with some college
spoke about conservation and education more frequently than the others at 15% and 14%, respectively.
Also, people who received their bachelor’s degree talked about filtration 43% more often than those with
other forms of education levels. Again, individuals who have higher educational attainment were better
represented, in comparison to other educational categories for these focus group interviews.
Although, when all the WES were consolidated and coded into the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment’s (MEA) broad categories: cultural, provisioning, regulating, and supporting, a few
informative patterns arose. For example, cultural services were mentioned 2.5 times more often than
supporting services, 3.5 times as frequently as regulating services, and a staggering 15.5 times more often
than provisioning services. People mentioned provisioning services in terms of a wetlands’ ability to offer
agricultural services, such as being a food and water sources. The following five tables provide a tabular
display of the MEA’s four broad categories by demographics, such as educational, generational,
occupation, gender, and organizational affiliation (sector), respectively. These visual aids allow thematic
patterns within coding schemes to emerge and offers insight into these demographic differences.

50

Table 9. Cross-Tabulation of Participants' Educational Attainment with the Number of Times
the MEA Categories were Mentioned

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Bachelor's Degree
High school or equivalent
Master's Degree
Professional degree (MD, JD, etc.)
Some college
Vocational/Technical School

Cultural
Services
142
12
162
4
145
19

MEA CATEGORY
Provisioning Regulating
Services
Services
10
57
1
5
11
33
0
3
7
38
2
2

Supporting
Services
80
8
59
6
38
4

Aesthetics and conservation were regularly mentioned cultural services when participants were
describing wetlands ecosystem services; as one person with a bachelor’s degree and on with some college
noted,
“They provide a natural place where you can get away from the sights of buildings and
cars and the man-made noises.”
“It's important to have a place where it's still wilderness, and you can actually go out and
appreciate that and preserve that ecosystem and see the difference flora and fauna that's
there.”
Residents aged 65-80 years old and 19-34 years old talked of aesthetics roughly double the
number of times than the other groups. In addition, the 19-34-year-old age group referenced conservation
and education 50% more frequently throughout the focus group interviews than any other age group.
They also mentioned protections, filtration, and flood control as WES more often as well. The sentiment
of recreational space and wildlife were also spoken about at higher rates by people 19-34 years old. On
the other hand, individuals who are 45-54 years old and 55-64 years old addressed agriculture,
microclimate, and vulnerability when no other age group did. Also, only the participants 35-44 years old
referenced flora and fauna as well as food and water sources as WES.
After consolidating the generational data into MEA classification, and similarly to the more
extensive list of WES, people 19-34-years old referenced all ecosystem services more often than other age

51

groups. With the exception of provisioning services, which were cited more frequently by individuals who
were between 45 and 54-years old. These two generational groups had more participants than the other
three. Compared to the cross tabulation of educational attainment, cultural services were mentioned
more often than the other services. However, supporting services pooled a larger number of references
during the analysis of age rather than education. For example, one 34-45-year old explained about
wetland ecosystems,
“They are often diverse and highly complex ecosystems that are interesting to try and
understand. I enjoy the native wildflowers and plants that grow in quality wetlands both
for their aesthetics and for the diversity they provide to the natural system.”

Table 10. Cross-Tabulation of Participant’s Age Group with the Number of Time
the MEA Category was Mentioned

AGE GROUP
19-34-years old
35-44-years old
45-54-years old
55-64-years old
65-80-years old

Cultural
Services
197
38
82
83
101

MEA CATEGORY
Provisioning Regulating
Services
Services
9
70
6
37
11
43
1
33
4
41

Supporting
Services
110
57
106
80
78

Governmental, municipalities and tribal employees spoke of habitat and naturalness in detail, and
more regularly than any other area of occupational groups. Educational support staff presented an
aesthetic viewpoint, with habitat being among the most commonly referenced themes as well. At the
same time, students noted conservation at greater rates, but education was also referred to quite often.
On the contrary, stay-at-home moms, and primary and secondary school teachers focused on quality of
life, which included air quality and provisions, such as food in keeping with the vital ecosystem services
afforded by wetlands. Individuals employed in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, or hunting classification,
mentioned aesthetics, filtration, habitat, flora, and fauna much more regularly than the other WES. The
sole participant who employed in the construction field spoke about recreation, flood control, and wildlife
52

more than the other WES. In the interim, retirees expressed contradictory opinions on WES in general.
Some believe they are a critical component to the planet’s, as well as humanity’s, well-being; others think
the laws protecting them are too stringent and should be less rigid.
Meanwhile, people who work in the educational sector, referenced cultural services at a greater
rate than other areas of employment, when examining the MEA categories. Even though, government and
public administration participants outnumbered the academic segment of the population matrix. On the
other hand, K-12 teachers mentioned provisioning services far more often than others did; and retirees
talked about the regulating services more frequently than other sectors, as there were only 4 of them.
One K-12 teacher expressed this of wetlands’ provisioning services,
“I need oxygen to breathe and food to live. If the plants aren't there, the animals would
not have anywhere to live, and people wouldn't have food or oxygen.”
While one retiree said,
“They are necessary for clean drinking water and also important in purifying our
groundwater.”

53

Table 11. Cross-Tabulation of Participant Occupation with the Number of Times
the MEA Categories were Mentioned

OCCUPATION
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, or Hunting
Construction
Education-College, University, or Adult
Education- IT Support
Education-Library and Legal Services
Education-Primary/Secondary (K-12)
Government and Public Administration
Homemaker
Information
Other____ Library
Other____ Non-Profit Conservation Fund
Religious
Retired
Scientific or Technical Services
Student
Unemployed

Cultural
Services
11
9
56
28
13
31
43
4
0
2
6
3
27
9
32
6

MEA CATEGORY
Provisioning Regulating
Services
Services
4
10
1
4
2
13
2
8
0
5
7
9
7
39
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
5
2
2
1
19
3
5
2
12
0
1

Supporting
Services
19
5
31
14
8
18
47
5
0
1
9
1
22
4
9
3

In contrast, female and male participants referenced education, human refuge, and recreational
space in equal amounts. Nevertheless, males talked about wetland functions, such as flood control,
groundwater recharge, and water filtration more often than females. Conversely, females spoke of
aesthetics, biodiversity, and habitat more frequently than males.
On the other hand, when the MEA categories were taken into consideration, both females and
males discussed each ecosystem services group equally. Males did reference regulating services at far
greater rates and females mentioned cultural services much more often. As one man stated,
“Water Quality, ecological diversity, flood control, groundwater recharge, food (wild rice,
water fowl, etc.).”
And one female remarked,
“For me, it is the aesthetic beauty. I got myself some boots, and I go out there across from
my house. It's that little wetland (redacted) where I go out, and I can see coyotes, beaver,
porcupines. I can see raccoons; you know anything that is out there. I see Mallard ducks,
54

all the time in the spring on those wet spots. I find their nests. (redacted). The diversity of
what's growing out there, the choke cherries and thorn apples and all of the plants and
cranberries.”
Table 12. Cross-Tabulation of Participant Gender with the Number of Times
the MEA Categories were Mentioned

GENDER
Female
Male

Cultural
Services
308
203

MEA CATEGORY
Provisioning Regulating
Services
Services
18
123
13
101

Supporting
Services
250
181

Word Occurrence
The results for the semi-structured focus group interviews were further mined to explore word
count occurrences, or the number of times a certain demographic classification mentioned individual
wetland ecosystem services (e.g., retention of nutrients and water quantity). The word frequency query
and text search query within NVivo 11 Plus were utilized to establish the rate at which participants spoke
about any WES, so unrelated to the MEA broad categories results discussed previously. Each of the
following eight tables was normalized as well as converted into weighted percentages, as can be seen in
Table 13 and so on.

55

Table 13. Ecosystem Services Rate of Occurrence

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLE
AGE GROUP
19-34-years old
35-44-years old
45-54-years old
55-64-years old
65-80-years old
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Bachelor’s Degree
Doctoral Degree
High school or equivalent
Master's Degree
Professional degree (MD, JD, etc.)
Some college
Vocational/Technical School
GENDER
Female
Male
OCCUPATIONAL AREA
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, or Hunting
Construction
Education-College, University, or Adult
Education-College, University, or Adult - IT Support
Education-Library and Legal Services
Education-Primary/Secondary (K-12)
Government and Public Administration
Homemaker
Information
Other _____Library
Other _____Non-Profit Conservation Fund
Religious
Retired
Scientific or Technical Services
Student
Unemployed
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
Don’t know
Non-profit
Other
Local Government
Private Sector
Public Sector

56

MOST COMMON
WETLAND ECOSYSTEM
SERVICE

OCCURRENCE
(%)

Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat

0.67%
0.34%
0.75%
0.53%
0.51%

Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat

1.02%
0%
0.14%
0.86%
0.12%
0.59%
0.09%

Habitat
Habitat

1.63%
1.20%

Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat

0.28%
0.08%
0.38%
0.23%
0.09%
0.18%
1.89%
0.10%
0%
0.02%
0.15%
0.03%
0.37%
0.06%
0.17%
0.04%

Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Habitat

0.09%
0.26%
0.10%
0.02%
0.39%
1.94%

This table shows that each demographic category spoke about habitat more often than any other
ecosystem services. Aesthetics was mentioned more frequently by a few demographics. However,
aesthetics represents a USGS SolVES ecosystem service and was not part of the operational diagrams
being referenced for this research as a WES. Table 14 provides a list of the top five WES mentioned by the
entire sample group (n=36). Once again, these occurrences were normalized and converted into weighted
percentages.
Table 14. Top Five Most Mentioned Wetland Ecosystem Services across the Entire Participant Pool
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE

OCCURRENCE (%)

First Most
Second Most
Third Most
Fourth Most
Fifth Most

Habitat at 2.84%
Filtration at 0.63%
Recreation & Biodiversity at 0.59%
Water Quality at 0.48%
Education at 0.45%

In addition to the word occurrences inquiries, a word frequency query was conducted to ascertain which
adjectives were cited most often for each of the eight focus group questions. These occurrences were
normalized and converted, as well. Table 15 offers a visual aid for these unique noun modifiers.
Table 15. Top Five Most Common Adjectives used to Describe Wetlands
ADJECTIVE
Saturated
Wet
Low-lying
Thrive
Natural

OCCURRENCE (%)
2.35%
1.77%
1.01%
0.76%
0.63%

As can be seen in Table 15, saturated was the most often cited adjective when participants were asked to
describe a wetland. Question two offered a slightly different list of adjectives to explain what were some
of the WES mentioned by participants. Table 16 brings these word choices into the mix.

57

Table 16. Top Five Most Common Adjectives used to Reference a Wetland Ecosystem Services
ADJECTIVE
Water(y)
Natural
Protection
Clean
Good

OCCURRENCE (%)
5.79%
2.13%
1.22%
0.61%
0.61%

The adjective watery came up more often than any other modifying word when prompted to
discuss some WES. “Water quality” was a commonly referenced term, but water, by itself, does
not constitute an adjective. On the other hand, when the word frequency query parameters were
selected, the option to generate a list of stemmed words was chosen; hence, watery. Table 17
illustrates the responses for question three, why are these wetland ecosystem services important
to you?
Table 17. Top Five Most Common Adjectives used to Emphasis Importance
ADJECTIVE
Natural
Diverse
Clean
Helpful
Useful

OCCURRENCE (%)
3.07%
1.34%
0.96%
0.96%
0.77%

It was found that natural(ness) and diversity were the most common adjectives to explain the
importance. Granted, naturalness was neither a WES by the standards of Ramsar, USGS, nor the
MEA, but diversity was representative of a WES by each of these organizations; albeit,
biodiversity. Table 18 gives the responses for question four and offers a glimpse of what
adjectives were used to describe the values people associate with WES.

58

Table 18. Top Five Most Common Adjectives used to Express Values
ADJECTIVE
Natural
Important
Protection
Diverse
Helpful

OCCURRENCE (%)
1.91%
1.37%
1.09%
0.82%
0.55%

Again, natural was the top chosen word as well as other similarly frequently referenced words,
such as protection and helpful. Question five asked who benefits from these WES; thus, common
adjectives were less emphasized because many people offered one-word responses, like
“everyone” and “we all do.” Table 19 offers a set of some newly indicated words that give a sense
of how important aesthetics are to people.
Table 19. Top Five Most Common Adjectives used to explain Everyday Life
ADJECTIVE
Like
Natural
Clean
Great
Beauty

OCCURRENCE (%)
1.40%
0.80%
0.60%
0.60%
0.40%

Adjectives, such as great and beauty were now being referenced when discussing WES and relevance to
everyday life.

CARD SORTING
The following presents the results of the online digital card sorting survey. The closed card sorting
activity was designed to determine how accurately participants can categorize wetland functions and
values. Figure 13 offers a summary of a number of time participants took to complete this activity.

59

Figure 13. Overview of Time Taken by Participants to Complete the Closed Card Sorting Activity

Demography for the Online Card Sort
Eighty participants completed the card sorting activity. Once again, participants ranged in age
from 19-80 years old. Two participants have lived in Michigan for 0-2 years, five for 3-5 years, one for 6-8
years, and the other n=72 have lived in Michigan for 9+ years. Demographic data were used to evaluate
potential influences on how accurately individual sorted each card.
Table 20 offers an illustration of the results matrix by age group. The matrix results demonstrate
how many times a person sorted each card into a category with no indication of accuracy.

60

Table 20. Cross-Tabulation of the Results Matrix by Age
Atmospheric Processes

19-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-80 years old
Grand Total

Function
24
15
14
10
7
70

Value
4
1
2
2
1
10

Biochemical Processes
Function
24
15
12
12
7
70

Value
4
1
4
0
1
10

Flood-Peak Reduction

19-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-80 years old
Grand Total

Ground-Water Recharge and
Discharge
Function Value
17
11
15
1
12
4
9
3
5
3
58
22

19-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-80 years old
Grand Total

Livestock Forage
Function Value
14
14
4
12
6
10
6
6
5
3
35
45

Livestock Watering
Function Value
14
14
6
10
9
7
8
4
2
6
39
41

Function
20
11
8
10
5
54

Value
8
5
8
2
3
26

61

Education
Function
8
3
4
3
2
20

Value
20
13
12
9
6
60

Hay Harvest
Function
13
8
9
6
1
37

Value
15
8
7
6
7
43

Medicine
Function Value
7
21
3
13
7
9
1
11
2
6
20
60

Fish Sanctuaries
Function
14
7
7
4
1
33

Value
14
9
9
8
7
47

Historical/Archeological
Protection
Function Value
8
20
2
14
4
12
3
9
1
7
18
62
Local Climate Stabilization
Function Value
14
14
9
7
6
10
9
3
8
0
46
34

Table 20. (cont’d)

19-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-80 years old
Grand Total

19-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-80 years old
Grand Total

Peat Harvest
Function Value
13
15
4
12
8
8
7
5
2
6
34
46

Recreation
Function Value
8
20
0
16
2
14
2
10
0
8
12
68

Retention of Nutrients
Function Value
18
10
10
6
12
4
8
4
4
4
52
28

Sediment Trapping
Function Value
23
5
12
4
12
4
10
2
6
2
63
17

Shellfish Harvest

Shoreline Erosion
Protection
Function Value
14
14
7
9
9
7
7
5
5
3
42
38

Shoreline Stabilization

Sport Fishing

Support Plant and Animal
Life
Function Value
12
16
10
6
8
8
6
6
4
4
40
40

Timber Harvest

Function
14
4
9
6
2
35

Value
14
12
7
6
6
45

Storm Protection

19-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-80 years old
Grand Total

Function
10
9
13
10
5
47

Value
18
7
3
2
3
33

62

Function
13
9
11
8
4
35

Function
12
6
9
4
2
33

Value
15
7
5
4
4
45

Value
16
10
7
8
6
47

Function
10
2
3
4
2
21

Value
18
14
13
8
6
59

Velocity Reduction
Function
16
15
10
11
4
56

Value
12
1
6
1
4
24

Table 20. (cont’d)

19-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-80 years old
Grand Total

Water Purification
Function Value
17
11
14
2
10
6
9
3
5
3
55
25

Water Quality
Function Value
11
17
9
7
6
10
6
6
5
3
37
43

19-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-80 years old
Grand Total

Waterfowl Habitat
Function Value
16
12
8
8
9
7
5
7
1
7
39
41

Wildlife Sanctuary
Function Value
13
15
6
10
9
7
4
8
1
7
33
47

63

Water Quantity
Function Value
7
21
11
5
7
9
5
7
6
6
32
48

Water Storage
Function Value
16
12
14
2
11
5
7
5
7
1
55
25

These matrix configurations illustrated that roughly 36% of people aged 19-34-years old
recognized storm protection as a function. While, 56% of participants aged 35-44-years old, 81% of 45-54year-olds, 63% of 65-80-year-olds sorted this service into the functions class. However, the age group 5564-years old placed storm protection in that class 83% of the time. Moreover, individuals aged 65-80-years
old categorized water storage as functions 88% of the time, as did 67% of residents aged 35-44-years old.
Participants’ 45-54-years old as well as 55-64-years old sorted this in the function class as well, at a rate
of 69% and 58%, respectively. The individuals 19-34-years old placed wildlife sanctuary amid the functions
54%, whereas 37% of 35-44-year-olds, 33% of 55-64-year-olds, and 13% of 65-80-year-olds. Nevertheless,
45-54-year-olds situated wildlife sanctuary amid the functions 56% of the time.
On the contrary, 92% of people 55-64-years old perceived medicine as a value, and so did 81% of
35-44-year-olds. Individuals within age groups 19-34-years old and 65-80-years old cataloged medicine
88% and 75%, respectively into the values, while 56% of people 45-54-years old sorted this service into
the value category. In addition, participants from 45-80 years of age separated education into the value
classification 75% of the time, although 19-34-year-olds did 83% and 35-44-year-olds 81% of the time
throughout the card sort. Historical/Archeological protection was arranged amongst the values 83% by
19-34-year-olds, 88% via 35-44-year old’s as well as 65-80-year-olds, and 75% of 45-64-year-olds. In
comparison, people aged 35-44-years old, in addition to 65-80-year-olds categorized recreation as a value
100% during this activity. Meanwhile, 80% of 19-34-year-olds, 83% of 55-64-year-olds, and 88% of 45-54year-olds placed recreation with the value group.
When considering gender, men positioned biochemical processes, groundwater recharge and
discharge, and flood-peak reduction into the function category at a nearly equal rate to women. However,
men placed retention of nutrients and fish sanctuaries with the functions more often than women. In
addition, men sorted livestock water and historical/archeological protection as values to a greater degree
than women but classified recreation within the value category equally to women. In contrast, women

64

opted to characterize sediment trapping and atmospheric processes amid functions, as well as water
quantity and hay harvest along with the values at a greater rate than men.
When educational attainment was inspected more thoroughly, participants, by and large, failed
to accurately categorize fish and wildlife sanctuaries with the functions at a rate of less than 50%
throughout this experiment regardless of education. Additionally, the same was true of water quality and
shoreline erosion protection amongst the value classification. Storm protection was also sorted alongside
the functions less than 50% of the time, except among people who have master’s degrees, as they picked
this service approximately 90% of the time. However, compared to each of the matrix patterns analyzed
previously, people cataloged sediment trapping along with atmospheric and biological processes in the
functions at rates of nearly 100% when educational attainment was scrutinized more carefully. At the
same time, recreation was grouped with the values more than 90% during the card sorting experiment.
Conversely, when individual educational levels were separated out, people with some college experience
chose to place water quantity and medicine paired with a value 85% during this investigation. Participants
who have received bachelor’s degrees or attended some college selected education and
historical/archeological protection amidst values nearly 90% of the time.

Accuracy
The accuracy histogram shown in Figure 14 offers data regarding the proportional frequency of
times the group (n=80) classified each card into the two categories, correctly. This graphical
representation was normalized and weighted similarly to the focus group results. Meanwhile, Table 21
provides the accuracy results regarding average (mean), the minimum, maximum, and standard deviation
for the entire participant pool.

65

Figure 14. Histogram of the Accuracy Distribution of each Card Sorted by the Group of Participants

The graph demonstrates that 11 (or ~14% of) participants accurately sorted each card between
78% and 90% of the time. Fundamental errs occur thereafter. For instance, eight (10% of) people only
accurately classified each WES 30 to 42% of the time.
Table 21. Average, Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation of Accuracy Results
for the Entire Participant Pool
ACCURACY
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Standard Deviation

%
60.2
30
90
14.6

In addition, Table 21 shows that there was an average of 60.2% accuracy throughout the entire
card sorting survey with a standard deviation of 14.6%. Individuals correctly categorized WES a minimum
of 30% and a maximum 90% of the time.
As shown in Table 22, individuals incorrectly categorized wildlife sanctuary and fish sanctuaries as
a value 59% during the card sorting activity, while 41% correctly classified this WES as a function. People
66

also, incorrectly grouped waterfowl habitat with the value category 51% of the time and 49% of
participants accurately sorted waterfowl habitat into the functions category. Shoreline erosion
stabilization was inaccurately classified within the functions class 53% of the time, although 47% of
individuals classified waterfowl habitat into the correct WES category. Supporting of plant and animal life
was split directly down the middle with 50% of people opting to place this WES into the functions category
and 50% selecting the values category.
Table 22. Least Accurate Card Sort for Each Card by the Entire Group

LEAST ACCURATE
Wildlife Sanctuary
Fish Sanctuaries
Waterfowl Habitat
Shoreline Erosion Protection
Support Plant and Animal Life

Function

Value

41%
41%
49%
53%
50%

59%
59%
51%
47%
50%

Correct
Answer
Function
Function
Function
Value
Function

Table 23 offers an indication as to which cards were sorted with the most confusion. This table
does have some of the same cards that were seen in Table 22. However, other cards were added to the
confusion pile. For example, livestock watering was categorized as a function 49% or nearly half of the
participants placed this WES into the incorrect classification. Hay harvest and water quality were
accurately sorted with the value category 54% of the time. Even though 46% of people incorrectly situated
these WES into the function group.
Table 23. Most Confused Card Sort for Each Card by the Entire Group

MOST CONFUSED
Shoreline Erosion Protection
Support Plant and Animal Life
Livestock Watering
Waterfowl Habitat
Hay Harvest
Water Quality

67

Function

Value

53%
50%
49%
49%
46%
46%

47%
50%
51%
51%
54%
54%

Correct
Answer
Value
Function
Value
Function
Value
Value

Overall, participants did accurately sort cards into the appropriate category. Table 24 shows how
88% of individuals categorized atmospheric and biochemical processes correctly. Eighty-five percent of
people accurately classified recreation, 79% sorted sediment trapping appropriately, and 78% categorized
historical/archeological protection properly.
Table 24. Most Accurate Card Sort for Each Card by the Entire Group

MOST ACCURATE

Function

Value

Atmospheric Processes
Biochemical Processes
Recreation
Sediment Trapping
Historical/Archeological Protection

88%
88%
15%
79%
22%

12%
12%
85%
21%
78%

68

Correct
Answer
Function
Function
Value
Function
Value

DISCUSSION
The goal of this thesis was to assess the level of accuracy with which residents could distinguish
between wetland functions and values, and to determine the way in which individuals describe wetland
and perceive wetland ecosystem services. The data analysis suggests that there are some common
misperceptions among Michigan residents with regards to wetland ecosystems. The results demonstrate
how personal experiences help to form individual’s environmental perception.
The results of these activities demonstrated that prior research involving EP and WES remains true.
Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn (2007) found that many Michigan residents have some experience,
knowledge, and familiarity with wetlands ecosystems. For example, those focus groups showed that while
some participants have basic knowledge of what defines a wetland (e.g., saturation and type, et cetera),
they largely describe wetland functions, such as water filtration and flood prevention (Kaplowitz, Lupi,
and Hoehn 2007). In contrast, during these focus groups, participants describe wetlands as wet, low,
swampy areas with diverse, native plants and animals that thrive in those ecosystems. People expressed
how wetlands are unique, saturated, and valuable environments are part of the hydrological cycle. Some
even recognized that wetlands are too wet and thick for urban development, but as a male college student
explained,
“An area of land that is unaltered by man that houses ecosystems that thrive off of the
unaltered state that it's in. But, then also I know they're pretty difficult to build things on
and stuff like that. Unstable and so a lot of times they're filled in, and a lot of times they’re
cheap pieces of land because they're hard to build on and they get filled in, and then they
get built on top of anyway.”
Kaplowitz (2000), also uncovered how many mangrove (an estuary wetland) ecosystem services
had been broadly recognized as vital by scientists, but seem imperceptible to local beneficiaries. Storm
protection was among the services that people skirted around in the discussions, as this service was
insignificant to them since the mangroves absorb storm surges. In comparison, 59% of card sorting
participants accurately identified storm protection as wetland functions (a natural process). Both
69

Kaplowitz (2000) and this current research had participants who explained that wetlands ecosystems offer
beauty (aesthetic) as a beneficial service in nearly all focus groups or individual interviews.
Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn (2007) also discovered that most people were aware of wetlands’
ability to provide animals and plants with sustainable habitats. Nevertheless, those focus groups revealed
some significant misperceptions. For instance, some participants believe that "trees don't grow in
wetlands" and that "wetlands kill trees” (Kaplowitz, Lupi, and Hoehn 2007). When, in fact, wetlands are
known for hygrophyte plants that have roots system which adapted to, and thrive in, these wet
environments, such as mangroves, pond cypresses, and sycamore trees (Tiner 1991; Kaplowitz 2001;
Mayda 2013). Moreover, these plants make available wood products for building supplies and fuel, two
highly critical wetland ecosystem provisioning services that benefit humanity all around the world
(Kaplowitz 2001). In contrast, these investigations found that during the focus group activity, n=30
individuals mentioned animals more often than plants when discussing habitat. They spoke specifically of
waterfowl for hunting, indicator species for identifying pollution, and breeding-grounds for terrestrial and
aquatic animals during spring. Moreover, during this card sorting activity, 50% of people were unable to
accurately determine support of plant and animal life as a wetland function. As well as, 53% of participants
were unable to identify shoreline erosion protection as a wetland value correctly, and 59% of participants
were unable to accurately classify waterfowl habitat and fish sanctuaries as wetland functions.

FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS SUMMARIZATION
The cross tabulations demonstrated the number of times a participant spoke of particular wetland
ecosystem services (e.g., biodiversity, food, or water purification) throughout the entire semi-structured
focus group interview process. However, an analysis of each question allowed for a person to illustrate
their environmental perception of wetland ecosystems in their own words. In the end, there was very
slight variation in the overall content of people’s answers, whether analyzing the cross-tabulations or
individual questions and regardless of age, education, gender, or occupation. Even though these data
70

were coded the same, the results emphasized various ways the research questions could be articulated,
and, thus, generated two unique points-of-view to highlight the findings further.

Description of Wetlands
When participants were asked to describe a wetland, an array of responses was given that
characterized wetland types, such as marshes or swamps (palustrine), and they noted that wetlands
remain permanently saturated all year. People also mentioned some wetland functional services (e.g.,
filtration of water, groundwater, and surface water recharge). A few people stated that if wetlands are
removed or damaged, specific niche plants and animals will have a difficult time surviving and may even
die out. Habitat was spoken about more frequently than any other WES when offering a description. As
one male, retiree with a master’s degree, and one female with bachelor’s degree, who works in the
agriculture, forestry, fishing, or hunting sector indicated,
“They provide a functional habitat for diverse wildlife such as frogs, turtles, snakes, etc.
and can be used to hide from predators.”
“They provide breeding habitat for many threatened or endangered species, aiding in reestablishing the populations.”

Wetland Ecosystem Services
Participants could inventory various wetland ecosystem services when prompted. They focused
on air quality, education (e.g., class field trips and research opportunities), habitat, and recreation. A few
referenced wetlands’ ability to capture runoff, filter water, and produce fodder. As two males, one with a
master’s degree and the other with a high school or equivalent specified,
“Surface water access, groundwater recharge, recreation, wildlife habitat, water quality
improvement through filtration, unique vegetation, stable drainage areas.”
“Drainage areas for surface runoff as well as fertile living and feeding areas for wildlife.
Helps to maintain balance with naturally occurring ecosystems in rapidly developing rural
and suburban areas.”

71

Importance
The balance of nature, conservation, and education for children came to mind when people were
asked why the wetland ecosystem services they previously spoke about were important to them. Many
noted, beauty (aesthetics), filtration of water for consumption, and migratory bird habitats. Along with
recreational activities (e.g., duck hunting and fishing), relocation of water, and transportation of goods,
such as lumber. Individuals voiced concerns about loss of diversity, natural resources, and quality of life
when wetlands were destroyed. As one female with bachelor’s degree and aged 55-64-years old called
attention to,
“I think it's important to have areas left untouched by human hands, and wetlands provide
a lot of diversity. Because it isn’t easy for humans to utilized that area, you hope that some
are left alone. Laugh.”
One participant even mentioned Not In My Back-Yard (NIMBY) perspectives,
“I have heard people say, well I own this piece of property, and a portion of it has been
termed a wetland, but it's mine, and I should be able to do what I want. And then I think
about, how people act on ownership. That idea of ownership. Are you a steward of the
land or selfish? Can I make money on this?”
Some farmers voiced concerns of wetlands encroaching onto their fields, the invasive species, and erosion
of land because the areas were designated wetlands. Moreover, they reference the invasion of wetland
animals (critters), who burrow underground and make the terrain unstable for farming. While others,
simply wish the regulations were less stringent where wetlands are concerned. The thought that they
must pay for unusable land bothers them greatly. One non-farming, landowner retiree commented,
“I own wetlands and am not allowed to disturb them. While I understand and appreciate
that, I could really use the land for placement of my well, pit, and septic system. The laws
determine how many feet apart these systems must be and I had to get a variance that
allowed me to build them closer together. I hope I am not paying taxes on land I cannot
use. These wetlands protect an endangered fern that is ugly and brown.”

72

Values
When questioned about what values people associated with wetland ecosystem services,
participants were confused. They asked for clarification. To expound upon values more clearly, two
examples were given:
Wetlands offer a multitude of fish species and other amphibious life (a function) for animal
and human consumption (an external value). Additionally, wetlands afford a wealth of
educational opportunities (an external value) because of the biodiversity (an internal
value) supplied by the unique habitat (a function).
Individuals perceived wetland values as being primarily aesthetic and recreational (e.g., fishing, hunting,
et cetera). Some made the distinction between being habitats for indicator species, which alert humanity
of effects, such as pollution. As one male with a bachelor’s degree and one female with a master’s degree,
who both work in government and public administration pointed out,
“They are home to several indicator species, which by nature react negatively to pollutants
faster than other organisms.”
Several participants expressed that wetland values are seen in their ability to provide breeding grounds
for countless species, allow commerce for shellfish and timber harvests, as well as offer a measured
quality of water for drinking, and an abundance of biodiversity. One female, aged 19-34-years old with a
vocation or technical certification stated,
“Any wild habitat has value as a place where wild animals can live without humans
bothering them. Wetlands are also valuable because we can go there to hike, or to boat
and fish, or just because the plants there produce the very oxygen that we breathe.”

Benefits
Some people replied with broad, succinct statements when asked about who benefits from these
wetland ecosystem services. Many immediately shouted,
“Everybody.”
“We all do.”
“The World.”
Whereas, others responded with,
73

“They provide Global benefit. Migratory waterfowl can travel thousands of miles on their
annual migrations. Fewer wetlands mean higher rates of runoff that carry sediment and
pollutants directly to our rivers and streams. Rivers carry sediment and pollutants from
high up in the watersheds all the way to their outlets in the oceans.”
“I went specific and obvious, people who live near the wetlands would benefit from the
services directly. People who sourced their water from those areas would benefit from
water filtration. Tourists would come in, and they would use these areas for recreation,
hunting, and then the state would get capital from these tourists. DNR would get money
from hunting licenses that sort of thing. It would bring money into the state that would be
used to benefit hopefully the residents of the state and children would be able to get the
first hands-on education about wilderness. And like (redacted), pretty much everything.”

Everyday Life
Once prompted to answer how these wetland ecosystem services are relevant to their every day,
many participants began the discussion with having the luxury of clean drinking water, recreation, fishing,
and hunting. Others expressed just how wetlands help them act more environmentally conscious. Some
even claimed wetlands serve as a deterrent to littering and encourage people to take part in local recycling
campaigns. One male with a master’s degree and one female with a bachelor’s degree acknowledged,
“We love swimming and recreating in (redacted). We also raise crops and livestock on a
small farm. I think of the line from Finding Nemo, "all drains lead to the ocean." Well, that
is definitely true and that thought process is important for everyone to understand. Each
drop will wind up having an impact. Everyone needs to do their part in ensuring that our
water resources are conserved from both quantity and quality standpoint. That way we
can enjoy the many great services they provide for generations.”
One participant, who works with the DNR expressed that,
“It is my responsibility to maintain the integrity of the wetland ecosystems while
managing the lands.”
Meanwhile, a participant who works directly with city planning offered this,
“Well for a positive, you get a clean environment. A variety of wildlife etc. etc.. But, in our
specific community we have and an overabundance of wetlands, which makes it very
difficult to find developable land, and it's hard to even to convince people to come
(redacted) to developed property and open businesses. Then you add in the cost and the
timelines associated with mitigating wetland impacts, which at this point are more or less
unavoidable. It really has an economic impact on the community, which is not a positive
one.”

74

Additional Sentiments
The closing question, which asked if there were any other issues people wanted to address. A few
groups simply said, no and were done. Whereas, a few statements stood out among the rest.
“We don't know what else is in those systems and we haven't even scratched the
surface on what they have in them and what we value. We know little of what
there is; this is the tip of the iceberg.”
“Wetlands are important but need to be managed with common sense.”
“There needs to be more emphasis on the protection of natural wetland areas. I
do not believe that it is appropriate for developers to be allowed to destroy a
natural wetland area by "creating" a wetland area in another location.”
“My personal observations and being somewhat aware of what has happened in
our (redacted) area, that there should be some way to preserve and increase the
(redacted) Lake (Natural Wetland) area to its original state. It has reduced in size
tremendously over the past decades because of ditch drainage needed for what is
so called "Farm Preservation." Spring and Fall, the shoreline waters of Lake Huron
and Saginaw Bay are brown and smelling from silt and manure runoff from farm
lands. Our beaches have been closed in the summer, from time to time, because
of high e. coli. Please convey this message with other information you gather with
your survey as it tries to educate us all as to the importance of wetlands. In closing
"Water is life, and without it, there is no life." Thanks

FOCUS GROUP MISUNDERSTANDING
In due course, these cross tabulations and personal narratives further assisted this research to
learn how residents from Chippewa, Huron, and Macomb counties describe wetlands. Also, these analyses
revealed that residents can recognize some wetland ecosystems services, and identified some knowledge
gaps concerning individual perceptions of wetland ecosystems.
Despite being reasonably aware of WES, most participants fixated on habitat and recreation, with
fishing, hunting, and swimming being amongst the most commonly identified forms of recreation.
Multiple participants mentioned flood control, groundwater recharge, and filtration of water in
conjunction with nutrient retention. One person referenced atmospheric processes (greenhouse effect);
one, local-climate stabilization (micro-climate control); and, one, storm protection. On the other hand,

75

when specifically referring to values, individuals expressed appreciation for having quality drinking water
and wilderness areas (habitats). The vast amount of educational opportunities afforded by wetlands was
talked about at length, as several people pointed to the biodiversity of flora and fauna as well as
naturalness.
Only a few recognized the value of erosion control, shellfish harvesting, and transportation
opportunities provided by wetland ecosystems. And, hardly anyone voiced an understanding of how
wetlands help to fertilize the surrounding land, nurture the hierarchy of nature’s food chains, and preserve
nature’s bounty. Similarly, a small amount noted their support of livestock foraging and watering, as well
as water-quality improvements. When in fact, one person spoke about energy production; another
referenced health and welfare.
No one acknowledged wetlands’ ability to protect historical and archeological artifacts, form soils,
and stabilize shorelines. In addition, participants overlooked biochemical processes, namely carbon
sequestration, and evapotranspiration; on top of biological productivity, such as plants (fibers) used for
textiles. There was no mention of the countless medicinal applications afforded by local flora and fauna
(e.g., bee venom, leeches, maggots, spider webs, et cetera). Participants also failed to reference the
various cultural legacies afforded by wetlands. For instance, oral stories of hunting wild game or catching
that legendary fish. In the end, Michigan residents offered empirical insight into their perception of
wetland ecosystem via a semi-structured focus group interviews.

CARD SORT MISPERCEPTIONS
As with the focus group interview, several misperceptions arose during the online digital card sort.
However, no assumption can be made as to why these misunderstandings exist. Regardless, determining
whether peat harvest was a function or value confused participants. Fifty-seven percent (n=46) of people
sorted peat harvest into the value category, while 43% (n=34) believed this service was a function. In
actuality, peat harvesting ranks as a value for humanity has benefited greatly from peat and has for
76

generations. Consider this: the term harvesting means to gather (Van Seters and Price 2001; Reddy and
De Laune 2008). Humans gather many plants and crops for consumption or even fuel. Peat is an anaerobic
process, which naturally accumulates from decomposed flora or organic matter native to wetland
environments and becomes useful for fuel after being dried out properly (Van Seters and Price 2001;
Reddy and De Laune 2008). Hence, peat harvest falls into the value class, as humanity utilizes the dried
substance to cook and heat their homes.
Similarly, water quality perplexed individuals. N=43 people sorted water quality with the value
classification, and 46% (n=37) categorized this services as a function. Ponder this: wetlands purify water
from sediments and excess nutrients, as well as other pollutants, such as heavy metals (US EPA 2015;
Reddy and De Laune 2008; Mitsch and Gosselink 2015). These functions prove essential because wetlands
filter water before ever reaching the groundwater (Reddy and De Laune 2008; Mitsch and Gosselink 2015).
Not to mention, these functions remain critical for the myriad of fish and other wildlife that inhabit the
wetlands and surrounding watersheds (Jude and Pappas 1992; Reddy and De Laune 2008; Mitsch and
Gosselink 2015). Given that, water purification is a function that wetlands naturally perform, which is
another way of saying that the “water” is ready for consumption. Thus, “water quality” is a value because
consumption is a benefit afforded by wetlands and measured for humans. In addition to imbibing water,
people use filtered water for cooking, irrigation, and many recreational activities. As seen by a few focus
group participants when water filtration, purification, and quality were discussed,
“Wetlands area are also a local water source for groundwater recharge, which is
important for agricultural crops and drinking water.”
“They help keep the ground water clean.” “Value in helping to provide clean
drinking water from artesian wells.”
“They are also important in purifying our groundwater.”
“In this area surface water filters, back into the ground recharging the aqueducts
with clean and usable water.”

77

LIMITATIONS
The limitations of a study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impact or
influence the interpretation of the findings from the research. They are the constraints of applications in
practice and usage of results. The various limitations associated with this present research were: the
limitation of time; self-reporting; actual sample sizes; and, appropriateness of questions.
The very nature of thesis research limits one’s time. Moreover, the challenge of self-reporting
creates limitations, as the integrity of the researcher comes into question since the researcher is the only
one was conducting the activities, analyzing the data, and reporting the findings.
These activities were exploratory and, therefore, made procuring enough willing participants
quite difficult, which makes this a convenience sample. In addition, these findings can neither be
generalized to the entire state of Michigan nor do they represent the whole state.
Finally, a few of the focus group questions created some hesitation and confusion. Question 7 in
the focus group interviews seemed to be more complicated than some were able to comprehend. The
question read,
“Rate these values on a scale from 1-10, where 1 is “mildly important,” 5 is
“considerably important,” and 10 is “exceedingly important.”
Perhaps, poor wording and explanation were to blame, for this question was to ascertain how people
rated the values that they had been discussing throughout the entire focus group interview. That is,
aesthetics, habitat, and recreation, et cetera. Some individuals were waiting for the researcher to offer
examples, while others provided blanket statements with a sweeping 8, 9, or 10.
Having the ability to analyze these responses would have given the researcher the opportunity to
see where a person’s institutional knowledge of ecosystem services stood overall, as well as provide
additional, individual perspectives. Although several people responded with the all-encompassing 8, 9, or
10, a few stated,
“No less than 10.”
78

“Values from my value tab: Water Quality-10, ecological diversity-9, flood control8, groundwater recharge-10, food (wild rice, water fowl, etc.)-5.”
“This is complex. It is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" thing for me. I think the
External values listed on the graphic are a 10 because they are essential for life;
food, water, shelter. Internal values- 9. Functions- 8. This is consistent with my
thought that conservation is a luxury, but is also necessary... So, in general, when
considering the graphic, I would put the highest value on the outer ring and a
slightly reduced value with each move to the center. But having said that, as noted
above, I recognize that the functions listed in the center are critical and the values
would not be attainable without the functioning system. They are nearly directly
related and have a symbiotic relationship.”
“I learned something new. I knew they were a part of our ecosystem, but I wasn't
aware of all its role that it plays or how it is affecting me.” That's a hard question
because if you would have put wetlands on a list with ten other items, we wouldn't
have talked about them, and then I would have rated them differently than after
our conversation today. In general, having wetlands area 10, as we don't want to
lose them. Also, a 10, I like having natural wetlands over mitigated one.
While a few others misunderstood the question altogether and, therefore, proved no ranking for anything.
Some were looking for a particular prompt instead of remarking on the values they had been discussing
throughout the entire focus group interview.
A few of the other focus group questions may have been better served as one subject versus two
or worded another way to obtain more thought-provoking answers. The choice of activities may have
altered the results, such as performing individual interviews instead of focus groups, or in-person card
sorts rather than online.

DELIMITATIONS
In addition to the limitation, some delimitations were: the use of three counties; activity choice;
and, missing age and occupational demographics.
The selection of only three counties was due in part to the time and financial constraints. Having
added data from the counties who experienced similar losses during the past 30 years or underwent
restoration efforts could have served to add merit to these findings further.

79

The choice of activities may have altered the results, such as performing individual interviews
instead of focus groups, or in-person card sorts rather than online.
This study was unable to obtain a lot of information regarding how different professionals
(agribusiness, developers, etc.) perceive wetland ecosystems. The exploratory nature of these activities
made it difficult to acquire scores of participants, and, thus, some occupational demographics were
limited or left out altogether. Moreover, participants 18 or under were omitted from the demographic
makeup because of the additional parental consent necessary to study adolescents.

80

CONCLUSION
The goal of this research was to evaluate Michigan’s residents’ environmental perception of
wetland ecosystem services, at a county level. With a primary focus on WES, namely functions and values.
Once more, providing empirical evidence that environmental perceptions are subjective and that many
individuals place themselves apart from the natural world.
Participants are confident in discussing wetland types, such as marshes and swamps, as well as
some wetland functions (e.g., habitat and water filtration). During the focus group interviews, people
recognized that wetlands serve as facilitators of flood-peak reduction, educational venues, and wildlife
habitats. Furthermore, many participants understand wetlands are home to an abundance of native flora
and fauna (biodiverse) and relate their knowledge of wetlands to the ones they have seen within Michigan
(i.e., lacustrine, and palustrine). Remarking that Michigan’s (non-tidal) wetlands have a distinct ecosystem
compared with tidal (e.g., estuary and marine) wetlands, as they referenced ice jams and contaminated
agricultural runoff flowing into the Great Lakes when wetlands are drained or damaged and not
maintained properly. As one participant said,
“I see them as the kidneys of the Great Lakes, filtering runoff and reducing pollution to the
water we rely on for drinking, recreation, fisheries and another wildlife habitat.”
Throughout the card sorting survey, residents also demonstrated familiarity with wetlands’ ability to
purify water, perform atmospheric and biochemical processes, as well as serve as recreational hotspots.
On the other hand, participants exhibited a lack of knowledge about some important WES, such as timber
and peat harvest as well as livestock watering and foraging. Some focus group participants failed to take
notice of biochemical processes, medicinal benefits, and shoreline stabilization. Whereas, the card sort
saw misperception in distinguishing between whether habitat is a value or a function, as well as if
shoreline erosion protection is a value or a function.

81

The results illustrate that semi-structured focus group interviews and card sorts are useful tools
in helping researchers and educators to better understand their audiences' baseline water (natural)
resource knowledge and misperceptions. This analysis also shows how focus groups and participant
observations are complementary, with each yielding somewhat different perspectives on what individuals
understand about wetland ecosystems. Another key message is that one method is no more useful than
the other. These two approaches for analyzing environmental perception are equally beneficial.
Each activity provided helpful insight into the institutional (knowledge) gaps regarding people’s
awareness (perceptions) of wetlands ecosystems. The mixed reviews on whether wetlands offer energyproducing byproducts, such as peat or serve as sinks for carbon sequestration help to expose the
underlying misperceptions of wetlands ecosystems. Although people do recognize some WES, there
remains a substantial rift between what is known and unknown.
In the end, these investigations suggest that future wetland (even other freshwater resources)
research within Michigan are needed. Even though many participants remarked on the numerous
educational opportunities afforded by wetland ecosystems, their knowledge gaps further support the
notion for future environmental education reforms. Of course, additional research is necessary to approve
these suggestions further. Future freshwater research within Michigan can take these findings and build
upon them, or even expound upon lacustrine wetlands’ impacts on the Great Lakes. For example,
investigating the effects of wetlands on the Great Lakes as filters of agricultural runoff, to alleviate or even
eliminate the ongoing eutrophication problems plaguing the Great Lakes. In addition, any accumulation
of data to provide academia with evidence that links the lack of proper environmental education to the
ongoing ecological calamities affecting the global community, can only help to offer sustainable solutions
or even resolve the problems in generations to come.

82

APPENDICES

83

APPENDIX A. Demographic Questionnaire
1.

What is your age group?
a. 15-18 years’ old
b. 19-34 years’ old
c. 35-44 years’ old
d. 45-54 years’ old
e. 54-64 years’ old
f. 65-80 years’ old
g. 81+ years’ old

2.

What is your gender?
a. Female
b. Male
c. Fluid
d. No comment

3.

What is your marital status?
a. Married
b. Divorced
c. Widowed
d. Separated
e. Never been married
f. A member of an unmarried couple

4.

What is the highest level of education you have completed?
a. Grammar school
b. High school or equivalent
c. Vocational/technical school (2-year degree)
d. Some college
e. Bachelor's degree
f. Master's degree
g. Doctoral degree
h. Professional degree (MD, JD, etc.)
i.
Other _________________________

5.

How long have you lived in Michigan, USA?
a. 0-2 years
b. 3-5 years
c. 6-8 years
d. 9+ years

6.

How many hours per week do you USUALLY work at your job?
a. 35 hours a week or more
b. Less than 35 hours a week
c. I am not currently employed

7.

Which of the following categories best describes your primary area of employment (regardless of your
actual position)?
a. Homemaker
b. Retired
c. Student
d. Unemployed
e. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, or Hunting
f. Arts, Entertainment, or Recreation
g. Broadcasting
h. Education - College, University, or Adult
i.
Education - Primary/Secondary (K-12)

84

j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s.
t.
u.
v.
w.
x.
y.
z.
aa.
bb.
cc.
dd.
ee.
ff.
gg.
hh.

Education – Other___________________
Construction
Finance and Insurance
Government and Public Administration
Health Care and Social Assistance
Hotel and Food Services
Information - Services and Data
Information – Other
Processing
Legal Services
Manufacturing - Computer and Electronics
Manufacturing – Other
Military
Mining
Publishing
Real Estate, Rental, or Leasing
Religious
Retail
Scientific or Technical Services
Software
Telecommunications
Transportation and Warehousing
Utilities
Wholesale
Other ____________________________

8.

Which of the following best describes your role in your industry of employment?
a. Upper management
b. Middle management
c. Junior management
d. Administrative staff
e. Support staff
f. Student
g. Trained professional
h. Skilled laborer
i.
Consultant
j.
Temporary employee
k. Researcher
l.
Self-employed/Owner
m. Other ____________________________

9.

Is the organization you work for in the?
a. Public sector
b. Private sector
c. Nonprofit sector
d. Don't know
e. Other ____________________________

10. What are some of your recreational activities? (check all that apply)
a. Boating
b. Fishing
c. Hiking
d. Hunting
e. Nature walks
f. Swimming
g.

85

APPENDIX B. Initial Qualitative Codes Applied to The Focus Group Text
CODE
Aesthetic
Agriculture
Balance of Nature
Biodiversity
Breeding
Conflict
Conservation
Destruction
Dumping
Ecosystem
Educational
Filtration
Flood Control
Flora & Fauna
Food & Water “Source”
Groundwater Recharge

Habitat
Hydric Conditions
Marshy
Microclimate

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
A set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty using the senses.
The science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the
rearing of animals to provide food and other products.
The natural balance or equilibrium of nature (Stevenson 2010).
The living diversity of ecosystems, natural communities, and habitats, where a variety of flora,
fauna, and organisms live in the world (Warf 2010).
The mating and production of offspring by animals (Stevenson 2010).
Be incompatible or at variance; clash (Stevenson 2010).
Preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment and its wildlife (Stevenson
2010).
The action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be
repaired (Stevenson 2010).
Deposit or dispose of (rubbish, waste, or unwanted material), typically carelessly or hurriedly
(Stevenson 2010)
The biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment (WARF 2010).
Intended or serving to educate or enlighten (Stevenson 2010).
The action or process of filtering something (Stevenson 2010).
The prevention of massive overflow or inundations of large amounts of water beyond reasonable
limits (Warf 2010).
The plants and animals of a particular region, habitat, or geological period (Stevenson 2010).
A place or thing from which something originates or can be obtained, such as food or water
(Stevenson 2010).
A hydrologic process where water percolates/infiltrates downward from the surface into the
substrate, while purifying the water before flowing to underground aquifers
(Warf 2010).
The natural home or environment of an animal, plant, or another organism (Warf 2010).
An environment or habitat that contains an abundance of moisture (EPA 2015).

Recreation Space

Characteristic of or resembling a marsh; waterlogged (Stevenson 2010).
The climate of a very small or restricted area, especially when this differs from the surrounding
environment (EPA 2016).
The action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or destruction of something (Stevenson 2010).
Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind (Stevenson 2010).
Materials or substances that are occurring in nature which can be exploited for economic gain (EPA
2016).
The arrangement or disposition of things in relation to each other according to a sequence, pattern,
or method (Stevenson 2010).
The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or
poisonous effects (Stevenson 2010).
The action of protecting, or the state of being protected (Stevenson 2010).
The removal of contaminants from a resource, such as water (Warf 2010).
The standard of health, comfort, and happiness experienced by an individual or group (Stevenson
2010).
An area relating to or denoting leisurely time to enjoy outdoor activities (Stevenson 2010).

Refuge
Saturated
Swamp

Sanctuary; the state of being safe; sheltered from pursuit, danger, or difficulty (Stevenson 2010).
Holding as much water or moisture as can be absorbed; thoroughly soaked.
An area of low-lying, uncultivated ground where water collects; a bog or marsh (EPA 2016).

Undeveloped

Not having been developed; in a natural state (Stevenson 2010).

Vulnerability

The quality or state of being exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed (Stevenson
2010).
The biochemical, physical, and radiological characteristics of water; the measure of the condition of
water relative to the requirements of one or more biotic species (Warf 2010).
Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions
(EPA 2016).
Undomesticated flora, fauna, and organisms that grow or live in the wild (Stevenson 2010).

Mitigation
Natural
Natural Resources
Ordered
Pollution
Protection
Purification
Quality of Life

Water Quality
Wetlands

Wildlife

86

APPENDIX C. MEA Categorical Codes Used in the Coding of Focus Group Text
CODE

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

CULTURAL SERVICES

Nonmaterial benefits people acquire from ecosystems through aesthetic experiences,
reflection, recreation, and spiritual enrichment, (Alcamo et al. 2003).

Aesthetic

A set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty using the
senses (Stevenson 2010).
•
Sanctuary; the state of being safe; sheltered from pursuit, danger, or
difficulty (Stevenson 2010).
•
The standard of health, comfort, and happiness experienced by an
individual or group (Stevenson 2010).

•

Human Refuge

•

Quality of Life

Conservation
•

Protection

•
•

Undeveloped
Vulnerability

Preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment and its wildlife
(Stevenson 2010).
•
The action of protecting, or the state of being protected (Stevenson
2010).
•
Not having been developed; in a natural state (Stevenson 2010).
•
The quality or state of being exposed to the possibility of being attacked
or harmed (Stevenson 2010).

Educational

Intended or serving to educate or enlighten (Stevenson 2010).

Recreation Space

An area relating to or denoting leisurely time to enjoy outdoor activities (Stevenson
2010).

PROVISIONING SERVICES

Products obtained from ecosystems, such food and water (Alcamo et al. 2003).

Agriculture

The science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of
crops and the rearing of animals to provide food and other products (Warf 2010).

Food & Water “Source”

A place or thing from which something originates or can be obtained, such as food or
water (Stevenson 2010).

REGULATING SERVICES

Benefits gained from the regulation of natural ecosystem processes, such as climate
regulation and disease control (Alcamo et al. 2003).

Filtration

The action or process of filtering or purifying something (Stevenson 2010).

Flood Control

The prevention of massive overflow or inundations of copious amounts of water beyond
reasonable limits (Warf 2010).

Microclimate

The climate of a very small or restricted area, especially when this differs from the
surrounding environment (EPA 2016).

Purification

The removal of contaminants from a resource, such as water (WARF 2010).

Water Quality

The biochemical, physical, and radiological characteristics of water; the measure of the
condition of water relative to the requirements of one or more biotic species (Warf
2010).

SUPPORTING

Supportive services that are necessary to produce all other ecosystem services, which
include but are not limited to, nutrient recycling, primary production, and soil formation
(Alcamo et al. 2003).

Biodiversity

The living diversity of ecosystems, natural communities, and habitats, where a variety of
flora, fauna, and organisms’ life in the world (Warf 2010).

Groundwater Recharge

A hydrologic process where water percolates/infiltrates downward from the surface into
the substrate, while purifying the water before flowing to underground aquifers (Warf
2010).

Habitat

The natural home or environment of an animal, plant, or another organism (Warf 2010).

Hydric Conditions

An environment or habitat that contains an abundance of moisture (EPA 2015).

87

Natural Resources

Materials or substances that occur in nature which can be exploited for economic gain
(EPA 2016).

88

APPENDIX D. Card Sorting Accuracy Table of Each Card by the Entire Participant Pool
Table D1. Card Sorting Accuracy Table of Each Card by the Entire Participant Pool

CARD
Atmospheric Processes
Biochemical Processes
Education
Fish Sanctuaries
Flood-Peak Reduction
Ground-Water Recharge and Discharge
Hay Harvest
Historical/Archeological Protection
Livestock Forage
Livestock Watering
Local Climate Stabilization
Medicine
Peat Harvest
Recreation
Retention of Nutrients
Sediment Trapping
Shellfish Harvest
Shoreline Erosion Protection
Shoreline Stabilization
Sports Fishing
Storm Protection
Support Plant and Animal Life
Timber Harvest
Velocity Reduction
Water Purification
Water Quality
Water Quantity
Water Storage
Waterfowl Habitat
Wildlife Sanctuary

CORRECT
CLASS
Function
Function
Value
Function
Function
Function
Value
Value
Value
Value
Function
Value
Value
Value
Function
Function
Value
Value
Function
Value
Function
Function
Value
Function
Function
Value
Value
Function
Function
Function

89

FUNCTION
70
70
20
33
54
58
37
18
35
39
46
20
34
12
52
63
35
42
45
21
47
40
33
56
55
37
32
55
39
33

VALUE
10
10
60
47
26
22
43
62
45
41
34
60
46
68
28
17
45
38
35
59
33
40
47
24
25
43
48
25
41
47

ACCURACY
88%
88%
75%
41%
68%
73%
54%
78%
56%
51%
57%
75%
43%
85%
65%
79%
56%
48%
56%
74%
59%
50%
59%
70%
69%
54%
60%
69%
49%
41%

BIBLIOGRAPHY

90

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acharya, G. 2000. “Approaches to Valuing the Hidden Hydrological Services of Wetland Ecosystems.”
Ecological Economics, SPECIAL ISSUE THE VALUES OF WETLANDS: LANDSCAPE AND
INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES, 35 (1): 63–74.
Adekola, O., G. Mitchell, and A. Grainger. 2015. “Inequality and Ecosystem Services: The Value and Social
Distribution of Niger Delta Wetland Services.” Ecosystem Services 12 (April): 42–54. doi:
10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.005.
Albert, D. A. 2003. Between Land and Lake: Michigan’s Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands. Extension Bulletin,
E-2902. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Alcamo, J., N. J. Ash, C. D. Butler, J. B. Callicott, D. Capistrano, S. R. Carpenter, J. C. Castilla... 2003.
Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Arcury, T. A. 1990. “Environmental Attitude and Environmental Knowledge.” Human Organization 49 (4):
300–304.
Bailey, R. G. 2009. Ecosystem Geography: From Ecoregions to Sites. Springer Science & Business Media.
Barbier, E. B., M. Acreman, and D. Knowler. 1997. “Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A Guide for Policy
Makers and Planner.” Ramsar Convention Bureau Department of Environmental Economics And
Environmental Management, University Of York Institute Of Hydrology Iucn-The World
Conservation Union.
Barbier, E. B., E. W. Koch, B. R. Silliman, S. D. Hacker, E. Wolanski, J. Primavera, E. F. Granek, et al. 2008.
“Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management with Nonlinear Ecological Functions and Values.”
Science 319 (5861): 321–323.
Basit, T. 2003. “Manual or Electronic? The Role of Coding in Qualitative Data Analysis.” Educational
Research 45 (2): 143–54. doi:10.1080/0013188032000133548.
Baxter, P., and S. Jack. 2008. “Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation
for Novice Researchers.” The Qualitative Report 13 (4): 544–59.
Bögeholz, S. 2010. “Nature Experience and Its Importance for Environmental Knowledge, Values and
Action: Recent German Empirical Contributions.” Environmental Education Research 12 (1): 65–
84.
91

Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. “What Are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized
Environmental Accounting Units.” Ecological Economics 63 (2–3): 616–26. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002.
Brannen, J. 2005. “Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into the
Research Process.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 (3): 173–84.
doi:10.1080/13645570500154642.
Brinson, M. M., and A. I. Malvárez. 2002. “Temperate Freshwater Wetlands: Types, Status, and Threats.”
Environmental Conservation 29 (02). doi:10.1017/S0376892902000085.
Brooks, K. N., P. F. Ffolliott, and J. A. Magner. 2013. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. 4th
ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Brown, E., A. Peterson, R. Kline-Robach, K. Smith, L. Wolfson, G. Rinkenberger, and V. Anderson. 2000.
“Developing a Watershed Management Plan for Water Quality: An Introductory Guide.” Institute
for Water Research, Michigan State University Extension and Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality.
Butchart, S., E. Dieme-Amting, H. Gitay, S. Raaymakers, and D. Taylor. 2005. “MEA - Ecosystems and
Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water.” World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Campanelli, P. 1997. “Testing Survey Questions: New Directions in Cognitive Interviewing.” Bulletin of
Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique 55 (1): 5–17.
doi:10.1177/075910639705500103.
“Card Sorting Software | Optimal Workshop.” 2016. Optimal Workshop.
https://www.optimalworkshop.com/optimalsort?gclid=Cj0KCQjw4vzKBRCtARIsAM3l8OCMiHX_
8ylWpIeR-tk_Vw84oMP9mOzhrx3HnAtcvTqZLWRX2pegG9oaAtVHEALw_wcB.
Cataldo, E. F., R. M. Johnson, L. A. Kellstedt, and Lester W. Milbrath. 1970. “Card Sorting as A Technique
for Survey Interviewing.” Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (2): 202–15. doi:10.1086/267790.
Chapman, D., ed. 1996. Water Quality Assessments: A Guide to the Use of Biota, Sediments and Water
Environmental Monitoring. 2. ed. London: E & FN Spon.
Chee, Y. E. 2004. “An Ecological Perspective on the Valuation of Ecosystem Services.” Biological
Conservation 120 (4): 549–65. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028.
Clarkson, B., A. E. Aussei, and P. Gerbeaux. 2013. “Wetland Ecosystem Services.” In Ecosystem Services
in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends, 182–92. Lincoln, NZ: Manaaki Whenua Press.
92

Clayton, L., and S. R. Moran. 1982. “Chronology of Late Wisconsinan Glaciation in Middle North
America.” Quaternary Science Reviews 1 (1): 55–82.
Clifton, J. A., J. M. McClurken, and G. L. Cornell. 1986. People of the Three Fires: The Ottawa,
Potawatomi, and Ojibway of Michigan. Grand Rapids Publishing. 978-0961770709.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, et al. 1997. “The Value
of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Nature 387 (6630): 253–60.
doi:10.1038/387253a0.
Costanza, R., S. C. Farber, and J. Maxwell. 1989. “Valuation and Management of Wetland Ecosystems.”
Ecological Economics 1 (4): 335–361.
Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S. J. Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, and R. K.
Turner. 2014. “Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services.” Global Environmental
Change 26 (May): 152–58. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.
Cottet, M., H. Piégay, and G. Bornette. 2013. “Does Human Perception of Wetland Aesthetics and
Healthiness Relate to Ecological Functioning?” Journal of Environmental Management 128
(October): 1012–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.056.
Coveney, M.F, D.L Stites, E.F Lowe, L.E Battoe, and R Conrow. 2002. “Nutrient Removal from Eutrophic
Lake Water by Wetland Filtration.” Ecological Engineering 19 (2): 141–59. doi:10.1016/S09258574(02)00037-X.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States.” U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service: Office
of Biological Services.
Creswell, J. W. 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th
ed. Thousand Oak, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Dahl, T. E. 1990. “Wetlands Losses in the United-States: 1780s to 1980s.” Report to Congress.
Washington, D.C: US Department of the Interior: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Dahl, T. E. 2011. “Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009.” US
Department of the Interior: US Fish and Wildlife Service.

93

Dahl, T. E., C. E. Johnson, and W. E. Frayer. 1991. Wetlands, Status and Trends in the Conterminous
United States, Mid-1970’s to Mid-1980’s: First Update of the National Wetlands Status Report.
Washington, D.C: U.S. Dept. of the Interior & Fish and Wildlife Service.
Daily, G. C., ed. 1997. “Chapter 1: Introduction to Ecosystem Services.” In Nature’s Services: Societal
Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, 1–10. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
Daily, G. C., S. Alexander, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P. A. Matson, H. A. Mooney, P. E Ehrlich, et al. 1997.
“Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems.” The
Ecologica Society of America: Issues in Ecology 2 (1): 1–18.
Dale, P. E. R., and R. Connelly. 2012. “Wetlands and Human Health: An Overview.” Wetlands Ecology and
Management 20 (3): 165–71. doi:10.1007/s11273-012-9264-4.
De Boo, M. J., A. E. Rennie, H. M. Buchanan-Smith, and C. F. M. Hendriksen. 2005. “The Interplay
between Replacement, Reduction and Refinement: Considerations Where the Three Rs
Interact.” Animal Welfare-Potters Bar Then Wheathampstead 14 (4): 327.
De Groot, R. S., M. Stuip, M. Finlayson, and N. C. Davidson. 2006. Valuing Wetlands: Guidance for
Valuing the Benefits Derived from Wetland Ecosystem Services. Gland, Switzerland; Montreal,
Quebec, Canada: Ramsar Convention Secretariat; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
De Groot, R. S., M. A. Wilson, and R. O. Boumans. 2002. “A Typology for the Classification, Description
and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services.” Ecological Economics 41 (3): 393–
408.
De Pinto, J. V., T. C. Young, and L. M. McIlroy. 1986. “Great Lakes Water Quality.pdf.” Environmental
Science & Technology 20 (8): 753–60.
“DEQ - Water.” 2017. Accessed July 7. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313---,00.html.
Dias, V., and K. Belcher. 2015. “Value and Provision of Ecosystem Services from Prairie Wetlands: A
Choice Experiment Approach.” Ecosystem Services 15 (October): 35–44. doi:
10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.07.004.
Dixon, A. B. 2005. “Wetland Sustainability and the Evolution of Indigenous Knowledge in Ethiopia.” The
Geographical Journal 171 (4): 306–23.
Dugan, P. J., ed. 1990. Wetland Conservation: A Review of Current Issues and Required Action. IUCN.
94

Eliot, and Associate. 2005. “Guidelines for Conducting a Focus Group.” Duck University.
Farley, J., and R. Costanza. 2010. “Payments for Ecosystem Services: From Local to Global.” Ecological
Economics 69 (11): 2060–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.010.
Finlayson, C. M., N. C. Davidson, A. G. Spiers, and N. J. Stevenson. 1999. “Global Wetland Inventory –
Current Status and Future Priorities.” Marine and Freshwater Research 50 (8): 717.
doi:10.1071/MF99098.
Fisher, B., R. K. Turner, and P. Morling. 2009. “Defining and Classifying Ecosystem Services for Decision
Making.” Ecological Economics 68 (3): 643–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014.
Fizzell, C. 2014. “Status and Trends of Michigan’s Wetlands: Pre-European Settlement to 2005.” Lansing,
MI: Department of Water Quality.
Fretwell, J. D., J. S. Williams, P. J. Redman, and Geological Survey (U.S.), eds. 1996. National Water
Summary on Wetland Resources. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2425.
Washington, D.C: U.S. G.P.O.
Frey, J. H., and A. Fontana. 1991. “The Group Interview in Social Research.” The Social Science Journal 28
(2): 175–87.
“Function - Definition of Function in English | Oxford Dictionaries.” 2017. Oxford Dictionaries | English.
Accessed July 7. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/function.
Gollin, L. X., H. McMillen, and B. Wilcox. 2004. “Participant-Observation and Pile Sorting: Methods for
Eliciting Local Understandings and Valuations of Plants as a First Step Towards Informed
Community Participation in Environment and Health Initiatives in Hawai’i.” Applied
Environmental Education & Communication 3 (4): 259–67. doi:10.1080/15330150490882001.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., R. de Groot, P. L. Lomas, and C. Montes. 2010. “The History of Ecosystem Services
in Economic Theory and Practice: From Early Notions to Markets and Payment Schemes.”
Ecological Economics 69 (6): 1209–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007.
Graff, L., and J. Middleton. 2001. “Fish and Wetlands: Catch the Link” Accessed July 7.
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/fishandwetlands.pdf
Grasset et al. 2016. “Carbon Emission along a Eutrophication Gradient in Temperate Riverine Wetlands:
Effect of Primary Productivity and Plant Community Composition.” Freshwater Biology.
95

Greenland-Smith, S., J. Brazner, and K. Sherren. 2016. “Farmer Perceptions of Wetlands and
Waterbodies: Using Social Metrics as an Alternative to Ecosystem Service Valuation.” Ecological
Economics 126 (June): 58–69. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.002.
Hernández-Crespo, C., N. Oliver, J. Bixquert, S. Gargallo, and M. Martín. 2016. “Comparison of Three
Plants in a Surface Flow Constructed Wetland Treating Eutrophic Water in a Mediterranean
Climate.” Hydrobiologia 774 (1): 183–92. doi:10.1007/s10750-015-2493-9.
Ittelson, W. H. 1978. “Environmental Perception and Urban Experience.” Environment and Behavior 10
(2): 193–213. doi:10.1177/0013916578102004.
Jackson, K. M., and W. M. K. Trochim. 2002. “Concept Mapping as an Alternative Approach for the
Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Responses.” Organizational Research Methods 5 (4): 307–36.
doi:10.1177/109442802237114.
Jenks, A. E. 1901. The Wild Rice Gatherers of the Upper Lakes; a Study in American Primitive Economics.
Washington, DC: USA.
Jude, D. J., and J. Pappas. 1992. “Fish Utilization of Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands.” Journal of Great
Lakes Research 18 (4): 651–72. doi:10.1016/S0380-1330(92)71328-8.
Kane, D. D., J. D. Conroy, P. R. Richards, D. B. Baker, and D. A. Culver. 2014. “Re-Eutrophication of Lake
Erie: Correlations between Tributary Nutrient Loads and Phytoplankton Biomass.” Journal of
Great Lakes Research 40 (3): 496–501. doi: 10.1016/j.jglr.2014.04.004.
Kaplowitz, M. D. 2000. “Identifying Ecosystem Services Using Multiple Methods: Lessons from the
Mangrove Wetlands of Yucatan, Mexico.” Agriculture and Human Values 17 (2): 169–179.
Kaplowitz, M. D. 2001. “Assessing Mangrove Products and Services at the Local Level: The Use of Focus
Groups and Individual Interviews.” Landscape and Urban Planning 56 (1–2): 53–60.
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00170-0.
Kaplowitz, M. D., and J. Kerr. 2003. “Michigan Residents’ Perceptions of Wetlands and Mitigation.”
Wetlands 23 (2): 267–77. doi:10.1672/15-20.
Kaplowitz, M. D., F. Lupi, and O. Arreola. 2012. “Local Markets for Payments for Environmental Services:
Can Small Rural Communities Self-Finance Watershed Protection?” Water Resources
Management 26 (13): 3689–3704. doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0097-y.

96

Kaplowitz, M. D., F. Lupi, and J. P. Hoehn. 2007. “What Does the Public Know about Wetlands in
Michigan? Using Focus Groups for Scoping and Exploratory Research.” Michigan Academician 37
(1–3): 19–33.
Kaplowitz, M. D., and S. G. Witter. 2008. “Agricultural and Residential Stakeholder Input for Watershed
Management in a Mid-Michigan Watershed.” Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (1): 20–27. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.06.004.
Keddy, P. A., L. H. Fraser, A. I. Solomeshch, W. J. Junk, D. R. Campbell, M. T. K. Arroyo, and C. J. R. Alho.
2009. “Wet and Wonderful: The World’s Largest Wetlands Are Conservation Priorities.”
BioScience 59 (1): 39–51. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.1.8.
Kennedy, J. C. 1862. Preliminary Report on the Eighth Census, 1860. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Kitzinger, J. 1994. “The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction between Research
Participants.” Sociology of Health & Illness 16 (1): 103–21. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023.
“Knowledge - Definition of Knowledge in English | Oxford Dictionaries.” 2017. Accessed July 7.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knowledge.
Kontogianni, A., M. S. Skourtos, I. H. Langford, I. J. Bateman, and S. Georgiou. 2001. “Integrating
Stakeholder Analysis in Non-Market Valuation of Environmental Assets.” Ecological Economics
37 (1): 123–38.
Krueger, R. A., and M. A. Casey. 2014. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. SAGE
Publications.
Lambert, A. 2003. “Economic Valuation of Wetlands: An Important Component of Wetland Management
Strategies at the River Basin Scale.” Conservation Finance Guide, Washington.
Leech, N. L., and A. J. Onwuegbuzie. 2011. “Beyond Constant Comparison Qualitative Data Analysis:
Using NVivo.” School Psychology Quarterly 26 (1): 70–84. doi:10.1037/a0022711.
Lemberg, I., I. Kirchberger, G. Stucki, and A. Cieza. 2010. “The ICF Core Set for Stroke from the
Perspective of Physicians: A Worldwide Validation Study Using the Delphi Technique.” European
Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 46 (3): 377–88.
Lowery, D. R., and W. D. Morse. 2013. “A Qualitative Method for Collecting Spatial Data on Important
Places for Recreation, Livelihoods, and Ecological Meanings: Integrating Focus Groups with

97

Public Participation Geographic Information Systems.” Society & Natural Resources 26 (12):
1422–37. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.819954.
Lupi, F., M. D. Kaplowitz, and J. P. Hoehn. 2002. “The Economics of Wetland Ecosystem Restoration and
Mitigation: The Economic Equivalency of Drained and Restored Wetlands in Michigan.”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 (5): 1355–61. doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00402.
Manuel, P. M. 2003. “Cultural Perceptions of Small Urban Wetlands: Cases from the Halifax Regional
Municipality, Nova Scotia, Canada.” Wetlands 23 (4): 921–44.
Mayda, C. 2013. A Regional Geography of the United States and Canada: Toward a Sustainable Future.
1st ed. Rowmann and Littlefield Publishing.
Meng, L., N. Roulet, Q. Zhuang, T. R. Christensen, and S. Frolking. 2016. “Focus on the Impact of Climate
Change on Wetland Ecosystems and Carbon Dynamics.” Environmental Research Letters 11 (10):
100201. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/100201.
Michalak, A., E. J. Anderson, D. Beletsky, S. Boland, N. S. Bosch, T. B. Bridgeman, J. B. Chaffin, et al. 2013.
“Record-Setting Algal Bloom in Lake Erie Caused by Agricultural and Meteorological Trends.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (16).
Mir, R., and A. Watson. 2000. “Strategic Management and the Philosophy of Science: The Case for a
Constructivist Methodology.” Strategy Management Journal 21 (9): 941–53.
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. “The Value of Wetlands: Importance of Scale and Landscape
Setting.” Ecological Economics, THE VALUES OF WETLANDS: LANDSCAPES AND INSTITUTIONAL
PERSPECTIVES, 35 (1): 25–33.
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 2015. Wetlands. Fifth edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Morgan, D. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
doi:10.4135/9781412984287.
Morse, J. M. 1991. “Approaches to Qualitative-Quantitative Methodological Triangulation.” Nursing
Research 40 (2): 120–23.
Nabahungu, N. L., and S. M. Visser. 2013. “FARMERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF AGRICULTURAL
WETLAND MANAGEMENT IN RWANDA: FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS IN RECLAIMED WETLAND.”
Land Degradation & Development 24 (4): 363–74. doi:10.1002/ldr.1133.

98

NAWMP. 1998. “Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Michigan Implementation
Strategy (1998 - 2013).” Implementation Strategy. North American Waterfowl Management
Plan.
NAWMP. 2012. “People Conserving Waterfowl and Wetlands.” Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.
Ndaruga, A.M., and P.R. Irwin. 2003. “Cultural Perceptions of Wetlands by Primary School Teachers in
Kenya.” International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 12 (3): 219–30.
doi:10.1080/10382040308667534.
Newlon, S. R. 2014. “The Past, Present, and Future of Wetlands Permitting in Michigan.” Michigan Bar
Journal, no. Environmental Law.
Nsengimana, V., S. Weihler, and B. A Kaplin. 2017. “Perceptions of Local People on the Use of
Nyabarongo River Wetland and Its Conservation in Rwanda.” Society & Natural Resources 30 (1):
3–15. doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1209605.
“NVivo Plus | QSR International.” 2017. Accessed July 7. http://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivoproduct/nvivo11-for-windows/plus.
Olmsted-Hawala, E. 2006. “Card Sorting, Information Architecture and Usability: Adding in Our Users’
Perspective to Re-Design the Census Bureau Web Site.” In, 1:1–11. New York: Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/IPCC.2006.320360.
“Online Diagram Software to Draw Flowcharts, UML & More | Creately.” 2017. Accessed July 7.
https://creately.com/.
Palmer, B. W. 1915. Swamp Land Drainage with Special Reference to Minnesota. Bulletin of the
University of Minnesota.
“Perception - Definition of Perception in English | Oxford Dictionaries.” 2017. Accessed July 7.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perception.
Prince, H. 1997. Wetlands of the American Midwest: A Historical Geography of Changing Attitudes. 1st
ed. University of Chicago Press.
“Process - Definition of Process in English | Oxford Dictionaries.” 2017. Oxford Dictionaries | English.
Accessed July 7. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/process.

99

Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2013. “The Ramsar Convention Manual, 6th Edition.” The Ramsar
Convention Manual: A Guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). Gland,
Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
Reddy, K. R., and R. D. De Laune. 2008. “Biogeochemistry of Wetlands: Science and Applications.” CRC
Press. July 28.
Reed, M. S., A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, J. Morris, C. Prell, C. H. Quinn, and L. C.
Stringer. 2009. “Who’s in and Why? A Typology of Stakeholder Analysis Methods for Natural
Resource Management.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5): 1933–49. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.
“Resource - Definition of Resource in English | Oxford Dictionaries.” 2017. Oxford Dictionaries | English.
Accessed July 8. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/resource.
Richardson, C. J. 1994. “Ecological Functions and Human Values in Wetlands: A Framework for Assessing
Forestry Impacts.” Wetlands 14 (1): 1–9.
Ricketts, T. H. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press.
Righi, C., C. Howe, D. L. Day, J. E. Fox, J. Gieber, L. Ruby, and M. Beasley. 2013. “Card Sorting Best
Practices.” Journal of Usable Studies 8 (3): 69–89.
Roebeling, P., N. Abrantes, S. Ribeiro, and P. Almeida. 2016. “Estimating Cultural Benefits from Surface
Water Status Improvements in Freshwater Wetland Ecosystems.” Science of The Total
Environment 545–546 (March): 219–26. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.063.
Roth, R. E., B. G. Finch, J. I. Blanford, A. Klippel, A. C. Robinson, and A. M. MacEachren. 2011. “Card
Sorting for Cartographic Research and Practice.” Cartography and Geographic Information
Science 38 (2): 88–99.
Saldaña, J. 2013. “Chapter 1: An Introduction to Codes and Coding.” In the Coding Manual for
Qualitative Researchers, 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Limited.
Saldaña. J. 2013. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications
Limited.
Saldaña, Johnny. 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
Publications Limited.

100

Sandifer, P. A., A. E. Sutton-Grier, and B. P. Ward. 2015. “Exploring Connections among Nature,
Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health and Well-Being: Opportunities to Enhance
Health and Biodiversity Conservation.” Ecosystem Services 12 (April): 1–15. doi:
10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007.
Sather, J. H., and R. D. Smith. 1984. “AN OVERVIEW OF MAJOR WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES.”
Government. Washington, D.C: US Department of the Interior: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Schneider, S. J., J. Kerwin, J. Frechtling, and B. A. Vivari. 2002. “Characteristics of the Discussion in Online
and Face-to-Face Focus Groups.” Social Science Computer Review 20 (1): 31–42.
Sharma, B., G. Rasul, and N. Chettri. 2015. “The Economic Value of Wetland Ecosystem Services:
Evidence from the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal.” Ecosystem Services 12 (April): 84–93.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.007.
Sherrouse, B., and D. Semmens. 2010. “Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES)-Using GIS to
Include Social Values Information in Ecosystem Services Assessments.” Fact Sheet. Social Values
for Ecosystem Services (SolVES). Washington, D.C: US Geological Survey (USGS).
Silbernagel, J., S. R. Martin, M. R. Gale, and J. Chen. 1997. “Prehistoric, Historic, and Present Settlement
Patterns Related to Ecological Hierarchy in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan, U.S.A.”
Landscape Ecology 12 (4): 223–40. doi:10.1023/A:1007946907682.
Soulliere, G. J., and M. J. Monfils. 1996. “Waterbird Use of Constructed Wetland Complex Eastern UP
(Year 3).” Wildlide Division 3262. Sault Ste. Marie, MI: Michigan Department of Natural
Resource.
Stratford, D. 2006. “Environmental Value.” Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Thousand Oak, CA: SAGE
Publications Limited.
Sumarga, E., L. Hein, B. Edens, and A. Suwarno. 2015. “Mapping Monetary Values of Ecosystem Services
in Support of Developing Ecosystem Accounts.” Ecosystem Services 12 (April): 71–83. doi:
10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.009.
“Surface Water Projects - USGS, MI-WSC.” 2017. Accessed July 7.
https://mi.water.usgs.gov/projects/SWindex.html.
Suvedi, M., D. Krueger, A. Shrestha, and D. Bettinghouse. 2000. “Michigan Citizens’ Knowledge and
Perceptions About Groundwater.” The Journal of Environmental Education 31 (2): 16–21.
doi:10.1080/00958960009598634.

101

Tanner, H. H. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History (Civilization of the American Indian Series). 2nd
ed. University of Oklahoma Press.
Tansley, A. G. 1935. “The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms.” Ecology 16 (3): 284–307.
Tellis, W. M. 1997. “Application of a Case Study Methodology.” The Qualitative Report 3 (3): 1–19.
Tiner, R. W., M. W. Lang, and V. V. Klemas, eds. 2015. Remote Sensing of Wetlands: Applications and
Advances. 1st ed. Taylor and Francis Group.
Tiner, R. W. 1984. “Wetlands of the United States-Current Status and Recent Trends.” National Wetland
Inventory 3386. Washington, D.C: Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tiner, R. W. 1991. “The Concept of a Hydrophyte for Wetland Identification: Individual Plants Adapt to
Wet Environments.” BioScience 41 (4): 236–47.
Tiner, R. W. 2003. “Geographically Isolated Wetlands of the United States.” Wetlands 23 (3): 494–516.
doi:10.1672/0277-5212(2003)023[0494: GIWOTU]2.0.CO;2.
Tuan, Y. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values. Columbia
University Press.
Turner, R. K., and G. C. Daily. 2008. “The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital
Conservation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 39 (1): 25–35. doi:10.1007/s10640-0079176-6.
Turner, R. K., S. G. Georgiou, and B. Fisher. 2008. Valuing Ecosystem Services: The Case of MultiFunctional Wetlands. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Turner, R. K., J. C. M Van Den Bergh, T. Söderqvist, A. Barendregt, J. Van Der Straaten, E. Maltby, and E.
C. Van Ierland. 2000. “Ecological-Economic Analysis of Wetlands: Scientific Integration for
Management and Policy.” Ecological Economics 35 (1): 7–23.
US EPA. 2015. “Great Lakes Facts and Figures.” Overviews and Factsheets. US EPA. September 18.
https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/great-lakes-facts-and-figures.
US EPA. 2016. “Ecoregion Download Files by State - Region 5.” Data and Tools. US EPA. March 9.
https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregion-download-files-state-region-5.

102

“Value - Definition of Value in English | Oxford Dictionaries.” 2017. Oxford Dictionaries | English.
Accessed July 7. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value.
Van Seters, T. E., and J. S. Price. 2001. “The Impact of Peat Harvesting and Natural Regeneration on the
Water Balance of an Abandoned Cutover Bog, Quebec.” Hydrological Processes 15 (2): 233–48.
doi:10.1002/hyp.145.
Vörösmarty, C. J., P. B. McIntyre, M. O. Gessner, D. Dudgeon, A. Prusevich, P. Green, S. Glidden, et al.
2010. “Global Threats to Human Water Security and River Biodiversity.” Nature 467 (7315): 555–
61. doi:10.1038/nature09440.
Walsh, M. 2003. “Teaching Qualitative Analysis Using QSR NVivo.” The Qualitative Report 8 (2): 251–56.
Weiss, R. S. 1995. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. Simon
and Schuster.
Welsh, E. 2002. “Dealing with Data: Using NVivo in the Qualitative Data Analysis Process.” Forum:
Qualitative Social Research 3 (2): 1–7.
Wilson, M. A., and S. R. Carpenter. 1999. “Economic Valuation of Freshwater Ecosystem Services in the
United States: 1971-1997.” Ecological Applications 9 (3): 772. doi:10.2307/2641328.
Zedler, J. B., and S. Kercher. 2005. “WETLAND RESOURCES: Status, Trends, Ecosystem Services, and
Restorability.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 (1): 39–74. doi:
10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144248.

103