A Participatory Approach to Assess Social Demand and Value of Urban Waterscapes: A Case Study in San Marcos, Texas, USA

Abstract

Waterscapes can have meaningful benefits for people’s wellbeing and mental health by helping them feel calmer and more connected to nature, especially in times of stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The waterscapes along the San Marcos River (Texas, USA) provide economic, social, environmental, and emotional benefits to the surrounding community. To assess the social demand for and emotional experiences in these blue spaces, we used a new framework called Blue Index that collects noncontact data from photo stations. From 10 photo stations across different waterscapes, we collected and analyzed 565 volunteer assessments from May 2021 to March 2022—during the COVID-19 pandemic and following the reopening of riverside parks. Most respondents (57%) indicated they spend more time at the river than they did before the onset of the pandemic. Moreover, 93% of respondents agreed that the waterscape they were visiting represented a refuge from stress and isolation caused by COVID-19. Overall, people valued waterscapes for ecological benefits and relationships with the place, rather than for recreation and tourism. Emotions experienced at all 10 waterscapes were overwhelmingly positive. Statistical tests revealed that higher positive emotions were significantly associated with biophysical perceptions of flow, cleanliness, and naturalness. Our results demonstrate that the benefits of blue spaces derive from an interrelated combination of ecosystem and mental health. The new Blue Index approach presented here promotes participatory land management through noncontact community engagement and knowledge coproduction.

1. Introduction

Aquatic ecosystems are being degraded at an alarming rate [1,2]. A range of threats to freshwater ecosystems including climate change, land-use change, groundwater pumping, and impoundments resulted in an 83% loss of overall freshwater biodiversity from 1970 to 2014 [2,3]. This degradation of aquatic ecosystem health along with the ecosystem services they provide has negative consequences (direct and indirect) on human health [4,5]. Commonly cited negative consequences include wildlife habitat destruction, impaired water quality, flooding, reduced recreation, and loss of tourism; however, the health and appearance of aquatic ecosystems can also impact mental health and overall human wellbeing [6,7,8]. The focus of this article is on this less-studied, psychological aspect of aquatic ecosystems.

Rivers, lakes, and wetlands are freshwater ecosystems but can also be conceptualized as blue spaces or waterscapes. Blue spaces are defined as “health-enabling places and spaces, where water is at the center of a range of environments with identifiable potential for the promotion of human wellbeing” [9]. Maintaining healthy blue spaces promotes positive feedback between environmental health and public health [8]. The waterscape refers to visual and nonvisual elements of the landscape, much like the term riverscape has been used in the literature [10]. Waterscape is broader than riverscape because it also includes lakes and wetlands, which are present in this case study. Blue spaces and waterscapes are synonymous [11], and we use the terms interchangeably depending on the context of the relevant literature.

The benefits of blue spaces and waterscapes are particularly needed in cities with heightened stresses from urban heat islands, poor air quality, traffic, noises, and technological worries. Urban waterscapes can also promote community health and ensure equitable access to ecosystem services within a city [5,7,9]. While several studies have documented the mental and physical benefits of waterscapes [6,12], cultural and emotional aspects of human interaction with water are rarely quantified and even less frequently incorporated into meaningful action or policy [13,14,15,16]. These aspects of interaction, however, are meaningful and can guide the sustainable management of urban waterscapes [17].

Understanding relationships between people and nature is essential to the sustainable management of social–ecological systems (SESs) [7,13,18,19]. SESs refer to the systems formed through complex and dynamic interactions and interrelations between people and nature [19,20]. Studying the social demand of SESs (i.e., social actors’ reasons for visiting/behaviors, preferences, perceptions, and values) can inform those managing tradeoffs or aiming to incorporate community/stakeholder knowledge in policy [20]. SES research often collects data through stakeholder perspectives that influence their interactions with the landscape [21,22,23].

The connections people have with places, especially natural places, can have measurable effects on people’s overall wellbeing. A greater spatial extent of urban green space within a city and proximity of residency to green space has been shown to increase the restorative potential of landscapes and reduce negative emotional experiences [15,23,24,25]. The relationship between exposure to nature and emotional wellbeing has been widely researched, although its mediators (e.g., type of activity and restorative experience) are less documented [26]. Most research on nature and health has investigated the role of green spaces [27]. However, multiple studies have concluded that people prefer blue spaces to green spaces when seeking relaxation or restoration [28,29,30]. Nichols [6] (p. 20) described the unique ability of water to provide relaxation, peace, or higher cognitive functions collectively as “Blue Mind”. “Blue Mind” refers to these mental benefits of water, while “Red Mind” refers to stress, fear, or anxiety around water. The ability of waterscapes to produce “Blue Mind” may be dependent on waterscape features, SES values, and personal meanings. Several studies investigating the role of blue spaces on wellbeing found that the therapeutic benefits of place are variable and subjective and are largely determined by the symbolic meaning of place [31,32,33]. Numerous therapy initiatives are centered around interaction with blue spaces [33,34,35,36].

Rivers as SESs provide a diverse combination of ecosystem services, including social–cultural benefits [4,21]. A review of cultural ecosystem service measurement techniques found that spiritual and cultural symbolism and meaning of place are often underrepresented in ecosystem services valuations [37]. Furthermore, laypeople and scientists often have different conceptions of ecosystem services and the framework of evaluation [38,39,40]. These limitations to the application of the ecosystem services framework have led many, especially cultural geographers, to consider expanding the scope of information that is considered in nature–human relationships [41,42].

Ecosystem values do a better job of uncovering social–ecological dynamics of waterscapes [7]. Because values usually rely on interaction with others, we use the term “SES values” to capture how values for waterscapes are based both on nature–human and social relationships. The literature regarding SES values often gets stuck in a dichotomy of intrinsic vs. utilitarian values [42]. Utilitarian values are those assigned to an ecosystem for a specific means to an end and are derived from human-centered motivations for using or visiting a place. Intrinsic values are biospheric and value the ecosystem in itself. This dichotomy has led to a “discourse of battle” in conservation between benefits to people vs. benefits to nature [38,43]. This divide, however, is not reflective of the ways humans make decisions and interact with the world [44,45]. Relational values highlight the restorative nature and responsibilities that exist in SES through relationships and modes of interaction with place [13] and have been introduced as a “third class of values” alongside intrinsic and utilitarian values [46].

Relational value statements depend on aspects of identity, kin, emotions, responsibility, community, health, or a combination of these factors [38]. Depending on the type of statement used (or emotion considered), different meanings of relational values may be expressed. Relational values go beyond traditional monetary quantification and are essential to capture non-Western conceptions of nature–human relationships [47]. Relational values tend to situate personal relationships within a subjective framework of meaning, rather than through a strict definition [17,31].

Blue spaces represent opportunities to promote relational values and “urban commons” by encouraging shared responsibilities, stewardship, and equitable access to waterscapes [7,8,48,49]. Measuring subjective experiences and SES values may reveal cultural and subjective meanings, which are valuable insights for land-use and water resources planning. There is an increasing social demand for interaction with waterscapes and the ecosystem services they provide, but this increased demand includes necessary tradeoffs between different stakeholders and various bundles of ecosystem services [40,50,51,52]. Taking into account these complex dimensions of blue space SESs, Jeffery and Davidson [53] introduced the Blue Index framework to increase public participation in urban waterscape management. The Blue Index assessment quantifies the effect of waterscapes on emotional health to guide the design of public waterscapes and coproduce solutions for tradeoffs in water management. The framework uses spatiotemporal photos to document changes over time and represent relationships with waterscapes. Other studies have also shown that photo databases embody cultural aspects of SES values and relationships with place [54,55]. Here, we expand on the Blue Index participatory framework and its use of photo stations to assess emotional experiences in response to waterscapes, social demand for these waterscapes, and broader SES dynamics.

The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has provided researchers with a unique opportunity to make observations about the ways people interact in nature to cope with stressful events, particularly when normal opportunities/practices are removed or unavailable. The literature published on how much time spent in nature in response to COVID-19 has produced mixed results. While the frequency of outdoor excursions and distance traveled to experience the outdoors has declined in some places because of COVID-19 restrictions [56], some studies have shown that the visitation of local urban greenspaces has increased [57]. When studying urban green spaces and emotions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Samus et al. [58] found that the degree to which people felt connected to nature predicted their positive emotions during COVID-19 lockdowns. Two international surveys found that there is a global increase in the frequency of using blue/green spaces and an increased appreciation for these spaces during and after COVID-19 lockdowns [59,60].

This study used mixed methods and an SES framework to quantify and characterize urban waterscape interrelationships. The guiding research question was the following: “How do people feel, perceive, value, and interact with waterscapes, and what biophysical differences influence these experiences”? This question was investigated through a “Blue Index” assessment on social demand for and emotional experiences in response to waterscapes. Because of the unique challenges presented by COVID-19 and the need for spatially explicit data, assessments were administered remotely through strategically placed stations with quick response (QR) codes along an urban waterscape consisting of rivers, wetlands, and a spring-fed lake. Participants also submitted photos (taken from the same distance, perspective, and angle) with their assessments to ensure responses were spatially accurate and to create a waterscape photo database.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Hays County in Texas (USA) grew by 55% from 2000 to 2010 [61] and by another 54% from 2010 to 2020 [62], making it the fastest growing county in the nation (by percent) over this period with a minimum population of 100,000. San Marcos—the county seat—has been one of the fastest growing cities in the nation (by percent) over the past decade with an ~8% annual population increase in recent years [63]. This rapid population increase at the city and county levels has been accompanied by intense development and enhanced urban stresses. Over this period, the city of San Marcos and its river have also become a major regional, national, and even international tourist destination [8,64,65].

The San Marcos River (SMR) along with its tributaries, wetlands, and lake are centrally located within the city of San Marcos (Figure 1) and represent a social–ecological system (SES). These waterscapes provide a multitude of ecosystem services that benefit the surrounding communities [7,8]. The spring-fed river ecosystem is a habitat for several endangered species and possesses important biodiversity [64,66]. In the coming years, the San Marcos River SES will be challenged by tradeoffs between ecosystem health and development [7]. These future tradeoffs make San Marcos a valuable case study for measuring social demand of urban blue spaces and community preferences for future land and water management. An analysis of community SES values and mental health is necessary to provide reflexive decision making in these tradeoff scenarios. The data collection for this study took place at 10 sites along the San Marcos River, its headwaters and wetlands at Spring Lake, and one of its tributaries. See Appendix A for site descriptions of these 10 waterscapes.

2.2. Data Collection

The social demand and emotional experiences of waterscapes in San Marcos were measured through volunteer assessments (also known as questionnaire surveys) and photos at various sites along the San Marcos River, including its headwaters, which form Spring Lake, and its adjacent wetland ecosystems (Figure 1). Assessment stations were spatially distributed to capture multiple degrees of different waterscape characteristics, including extent of development and optical water quality, to conduct a natural experiment across different waterscapes.

Data were collected over a 10 month period (29 May 2021 to 4 March 2022) using 10 Blue Index photo stations. Each station consisted of an L-shaped frame attached to an existing bridge or post and an acrylic sign (15 cm × 15 cm) with instructions for submitting photos and participating in the assessment. This structure forms a fixed photo station where a participant can place their cell phone and submit a photo of the waterscape they are visiting (Figure 2). Participants accessed the assessment through a quick response (QR) code posted on the acrylic sign. Participants were required to have a cell phone and access to cellular data to use the Internet, as almost all of the study sites were in public parks without free Wi-Fi.

2.3. Assessment Design

The assessment was designed on the basis of previous research from and in collaboration with the Blue Index project [53] (https://blueindex.org/ accessed on 10 May 2023). No risks were anticipated as a result of participation in this study (IRB #7792). All subjects gave their informed consent and permission to use their photo before they participated in the assessment. The assessment consisted of 18 questions and a photo submission. Photos were collected to track landscape characteristics over time and to complement the information provided in assessment. Questions in the assessment consisted of (1) reported emotional experiences at the waterscape, (2) perceptions of waterscape characteristics including cleanliness, naturalness, accessibility, and flow, (3) perceptions of relaxation and refuge, (4) values based on which river function was deemed most important, (5) types of activity and frequency of visits, (6) relationships with waterscapes before and after the onset of COVID-19, and (7) demographics of participants including permanent and temporary residency. The full assessment is in Appendix B. All assessment responses were self-reported and based on perceptions and personal experience. Measures of emotional experience were collected on a five-point Likert scale for six emotions that represent a diverse subset of Plutchik’s [67] Wheel of Emotions: joy, serenity, fear, disgust, sadness, and amazement. These emotions represent different “spokes” on the wheel of emotions and were selected to represent general categories of emotions that participants potentially experienced. Participants had the opportunity to write in any emotions they experienced that were not represented by these six choices. Participants had several opportunities to provide their own responses including additional emotions they felt or additional comments about each waterscape.

2.4. Analyses and Techniques

Assessments were distributed and archived using the Qualtrics online survey platform. We analyzed data using Excel statistics and R Studio. Data were compared among four types of waterscapes (lake, wetland, perennial river, and intermittent tributary) to determine how relationships with waterscapes varied with biophysical settings. These four primary locations had large and comparable assessment sample sizes. We conducted a secondary analysis using all 10 sites and acknowledge that these statistical tests with smaller sample sizes are less meaningful. We used Kruskal–Wallis, pairwise Wilcoxon ranked sum, and Spearman’s rho, all nonparametric statistical tests, to analyze how emotions and perceptions were influenced by waterscape type and values. Kruskal–Wallis tests analyzed variance between groups in the nonparametric dataset, pairwise Wilcoxon tests identified which groups were different, and Spearman’s rho measured the strength of correlation between variables. Nonparametric statistics were utilized due to the non-normal distribution of the data. Thirdly, we performed a qualitative text mining analysis of additional comments to complement statistical conclusions and provide information about relationships with waterscapes that went uncaptured by closed, quantitative questions.

3. Results

3.1. Social Demand and Emotional Experiences of Waterscapes

Data collection took place from 29 May 2021 to 4 March 2022. There were a total of 870 responses. After removing entries that did not answer the questions about emotions and/or uploaded a photo, 565 responses remained viable for analyses. Across the 10 sites, response counts ranged from 12 to 98 usable assessments at each site.

Descriptive statistics across sites, as well as a breakdown of demographic characteristics for the entire sample, revealed a wide range of social actors that visit the San Marcos River social–ecological system (SES) (

Table A1. Demographic characteristics of participants across all sites. Photo station numbers (in parentheses) can be located in Figure 1.

	All Waterscapes	City Park (#2)	City Park Bridge (#3)	Rio Vista Island (#4)	Rio Vista Park (#5)	Sewell Park (#6)	Ramon Lucio Park (#7)	Wilderness Park (#8)	Spring Lake (#9)	Wetlands at Spring Lake (#10)	Purgatory Creek (#11)
Age (all units % of total responses at each site)
18 to 24 years	51.3	70.0	55.6	72.7	81.0	62.4	41.2	65.4	44.6	39.0	38.2
25 to 34 years	20.5	6.7	24.4	18.2	9.5	21.2	27.5	15.4	24.3	20.7	19.1
35 to 44 years	13.4	13.3	2.2	9.1	9.5	7.1	11.8	7.7	17.6	24.4	16.2
45 to 54 years	10.1	6.7	15.6	0	0	9.4	9.8	11.5	8.1	14.6	10.3
55 to 64 years	3.2	3.3	2.2	0	0	0	7.8	0	2.7	1.2	10.3
65+ years	1.4	0	0	0	0	0	2.0	0	2.7	0	5.9
Education (all units % of total responses)
Less than high school	0.2	0	0	0	0	0	2.0	0	0	0	0
High-school graduate	3.7	3.3	6.8	0	4.8	0	5.9	0	0	2.4	11.8
Some college—Texas State student	37.6	50.0	43.2	72.7	66.7	49.4	27.5	46.2	33.8	26.8	20.6
Some college—other institution	4.7	0	2.3	0	4.8	2.4	3.9	3.8	10.8	4.9	5.9
Some college—not currently enrolled	4.5	0	6.8	0	4.8	1.2	3.9	11.5	5.4	4.9	5.9
2 year degree	3.5	0	4.5	0	4.8	2.4	3.9	3.8	2.7	6.1	2.9
4 year degree	23.6	10.0	15.9	18.2	14.3	20	27.5	23.1	21.6	35.4	27.9
Master’s/professional degree	17.9	33.3	15.9	9.1	0	0	19.6	11.5	17.6	17.1	19.1
Doctorate	4.5	3.3	4.5	0	0	0	5.9	0	8.1	2.4	5.9
Gender of Participants (all units % of total responses)
Female	64	66.7	68.9	63.6	71.4	60.2	60.8	61.5	59.4	71.2	59.7
Male	33.1	30	26.7	36.4	28.6	32.5	35.3	38.5	37.8	26.2	38.8
Nonbinary	2.9	3.3	2.2	0	0	7.23	7.2	0	2.7	2.5	1.5
Residency Status (all units % of total responses)
Self-described resident	63.2	70	62.2	81.8	81	71.8	60.8	65.3	54.1	56.6	60.3
Self-described nonresident	36.8	30	37.8	18.2	19	28.2	39.2	34.6	49.9	43.4	39.7
78666 permanent zip code	42.7	55.6	42.9	30	38.1	47	46.7	42.3	32.4	39.5	47.6
Other permanent zip code	57.3	44.4	57.1	70	61.9	53	53.3	57.7	67.6	60.5	52.4
Frequency of Visit (all units % of total responses)
Daily	6.4	8.3	3.2	0	0	3.9	18.8	0	5.3	6.5	9.8
Weekly	28.8	37.5	29	0	17.6	38.2	25	53.3	10.5	15.2	41.5
Monthly	24.5	33.3	38.1	57.1	29.4	27.6	21.9	26.7	10.5	13.0	22.0
A few times a year or less	40.4	20.8	29	42.9	52.9	30.3	34.4	20	73.7	65.2	26.8

). Most river visitors were young college students who identified as residents, but more than one-quarter of respondents were older than 35. More than half of respondents were not permanent residents, meaning they were likely a tourist/visitor or a nonresident student. Most of the river visitors frequented the SES at least monthly, with one-third visiting it at least weekly (Table A1). Over 9% of participants at the tributary visited daily, likely because of the photo station’s position on a walking path.

When asked about what they valued most about the waterscape, almost half of the respondents chose relational values (45.7%) while a similar percentage chose intrinsic values (44.6%). Only 9.6% of participants chose utilitarian values as the most important. Overall, positive emotions were ranked as more intense than negative emotions (Figure 3). Results about how COVID-19 has impacted relationships with waterscapes revealed that the pandemic has shifted perceptions and visitation patterns. Over half (56.8%) of respondents indicated that they spent more time at the river at the time of the assessment than they did before the onset of the pandemic. Furthermore, 93% of respondents agreed that the waterscape they were visiting represented a refuge from stress and isolation caused by COVID-19. We did not find any statistically significant differences in social demand among participants based on sociodemographic information.

We conducted statistical tests with SES value as the independent variable. Those that expressed a utilitarian value reported significantly lower average intensity of joy, serenity, and relaxation (

Table 1. Average scores for dependent variables for all sites organized by SES value.

	Joy	Serenity	Disgust	Fear	Sadness	Amazement	Relax	Access	Flow	Clean	Natural	Refuge
Overall	3.80	4.23	0.40	0.35	0.49	3.52	4.08	4.44	4.12	4.08	4.29	4.38
Intrinsic (n = 227)	3.80	4.34	0.36	0.33	0.52	3.58	4.15	4.47	3.91	3.87	4.39	4.40
Relational (n = 233)	3.90	4.28	0.37	0.34	0.47	3.49	4.15	4.49	4.37	4.28	4.40	4.48
Utilitarian (n = 49)	3.38	3.61	0.53	0.28	0.36	3.25	3.73	4.14	4.31	4.37	3.41	3.98

). Pairwise Wilcoxon tests revealed that perceptions of flow, cleanliness, naturalness, and feelings of refuge were significantly associated with expressed SES value (

Table 2. Results of Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon post-tests (all 10 sites) investigating emotional experiences and perceptions as a function of SES value: intrinsic (I), utilitarian (U), and relational (R). Bold values were significant at an alpha of 0.05.

Dependent Variable	p-Value of Kruskal–Wallis Test	p-Values of Pairwise Wilcoxon Test by SES Value			Summary of Significant Differences
Joy	0.009		I	R	Utilitarian lower than relational or intrinsic
		R	0.35	-
		U	0.05	0.01
Serenity	0.009		I	R	Utilitarian lower than relational or intrinsic
		R	0.59	-
		U	0.003	0.006
Disgust	0.57		I	R	Utilitarian higher than relational or intrinsic
		R	0.35	-
		U	0.05	0.01
Fear	0.81		I	R
		R	0.67	-
		U	0.74	0.56
Sadness	0.98		I	R
		R	1	-
		U	0.86	0.85
Amazement	0.45		I	R
		R	0.43	-
		U	0.25	0.46
Relaxation	0.04		I	R	Utilitarian lower than relational or intrinsic
		R	0.41	-
		U	0.03	0.02
Access	0.12		I	R	Utilitarian lower than relational
		R	1	-
		U	0.06	0.05
Flow	<0.001		I	R	Intrinsic lower than relational
		R	<0.001	-
		U	0.06	0.62
Clean	0.002		I	R	Intrinsic lower than relational or utilitarian
		R	<0.001	-
		U	0.03	0.79
Natural	<0.001		I	R	Utilitarian lower than intrinsic or relational
		R	0.7	-
		U	<0.001	<0.001
Refuge	0.009		I	R	Utilitarian lower than intrinsic or relational
		R	0.17	-
		U	0.03	0.002

).

3.2. Differences among Waterscape Biophysical Settings

There were key differences in social demand and emotional experiences among waterscape biophysical settings: lake, wetland, perennial river, and intermittent tributary. We chose one of the seven river settings (Sewell Park) to represent the river as it had a similar sample size to the other three settings. Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted to determine whether statistically significant differences exist between waterscape settings (

Table 3. Relationships between emotions/perceptions and waterscape setting: San Marcos River (R), Spring Lake (L), Spring Lake Wetlands (W), and Purgatory Creek tributary (T). Bold values were significant at an alpha of 0.05.

Dependent Variable	p-Value of Kruskal–Wallis Test	p-Values of Pairwise Wilcoxon Tests				Summary of Significant Differences by Waterscape
Joy	0.01		R	L	W	Joy was higher at wetland than tributary
		L	0.16	-	-
		W	0.78	0.22	-
		T	0.73	0.27	0.04
Serenity	<0.001		R	L	W	Serenity was higher at the wetland than the tributary
		L	0.36	-	-
		W	0.27	0.82	-
		T	0.46	0.10	0.07
Sadness	0.078		R	L	W	Higher at tributary than lake or wetland
		L	0.70	-	-
		W	0.84	0.85	-
		T	0.06	0.03	0.04
Amazement	0.009		R	L	W	Lowest at tributary
		L	0.91	-	-
		W	0.39	0.33	-
		T	0.01	0.01	0.001
Disgust	<0.001		R	L	W	Highest at tributary
		L	0.35	-	-
		W	0.95	0.38	-
		T	<0.001	0.001	<0.001
Fear	0.283		R	L	W	Higher at tributary than river
		L	0.25	-	-
		W	0.71	0.44	-
		T	0.02	0.23	0.06
Flow	<0.001		R	L	W	River higher than all; lake higher than wetland and tributary; wetland higher than tributary; tributary lower than all
		L	<0.001	-	-
		W	<0.001	0.12	-
		T	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Clean	<0.001		R	L	W	River higher than all others; lake higher than wetland; wetland higher than tributary; tributary lower than all others
		L	0.001	-	-
		W	<0.001	0.01	-
		T	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Natural	<0.001		R	L	W	Wetland and tributary higher than river and lake setting
		L	0.73	-	-
		W	<0.001	0.003	-
		T	0.002	0.01	0.91
Refuge	<0.001		R	L	W	Tributary lower than all other settings
		L	0.80	-	-
		W	0.92	0.78	-
		T	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Access	0.09		R	L	W	Tributary lower than river
		L	0.18	-	-
		W	0.32	0.65	-
		T	0.02	0.25	0.09
Relative restoration (relaxation)	<0.001		R	L	W	Tributary lower than all other settings
		L	0.11	-	-
		W	0.76	0.19	-
		T	<0.001	0.01	<0.001

). Several variables were found to vary with setting, with the intermittent Purgatory Creek (Tributary) typically being the most distinct from other settings. Disgust was higher, but amazement and perceptions of refuge were lower for Purgatory Creek than other settings (Figure 3). Participants at the wetland demonstrated significantly higher reports of joy and serenity than those at the tributary. The tributary sight also produced higher sadness than the lake and wetland.

All four settings had significantly different perceptions of flow (Table 3, Figure 4). Participants perceived the intermittent tributary setting (Site #11) as less flowing, less clean, and more natural than all other settings. The tributary setting also had a significantly lower relaxation and refuge effect (Table 3). Reasons for visiting varied across settings, but common reasons for visiting showed that ecosystem functioning and relationships with place were prioritized over recreation, with frequent reasons for visiting including relaxing/stress relief/meditation and wildlife viewing/exploring nature (

Table 4. Reasons for visiting across four waterscape settings. The three most common reasons for visiting each setting are shaded.

Reason for Visiting	River (n = 91)	Lake (n = 98)	Wetland (n = 89)	Tributary (n = 82)	All Settings (n = 565)
Art/photography	10	6	9	0	38
Community event/music event/special occasion	3	6	1	1	29
Commuting	5	1	1	2	10
Dog walking	19	3	5	9	45
Exercising	28	7	16	33	45
Family outing/date/socializing	4	30	37	23	182
Fishing	5	0	0	0	8
Relaxing/stress relief/meditating	40	20	30	33	199
Solitude	21	5	15	14	90
Water sport/tubing	20	2	2	2	54
Wildlife viewing/exploring nature	35	35	47	19	207
Work/school	43	37	24	10	188

). An important note is that Spring Lake and its adjacent wetlands are protected ecosystems where public swimming and fishing are not permitted. The intermittent tributary does allow swimming and fishing, but its conditions for these activities are not ideal.

3.3. Comparative Analysis of Sites along the Perennial Mainstem San Marcos River

We compared seven stations along the perennial mainstem San Marcos River (Sites #2–8) to hold waterscape setting (and flow) as a constant and test the effect of other variables on social demand. Other than site 6 (Sewell Park), the data from these river stations were not included in Section 3.1 due to small sample sizes. While this section is a relatively short segment of the river, it is diverse in its degree of maintenance, development, geomorphology, and ecological features (Figure 1). Several public parks offer river access points, but these also vary in their degree of accessibility and visitation frequency.

The seven perennial river sites varied in aspects of emotional experience, SES values, and perceptions (

Table 5. Comparative analysis of perennial river sites along the upper San Marcos River (SMR).

	City Park (#2)	City Park Bridge (#3)	Rio Vista Island (#4)	Rio Vista Park near Rapids (#5)	Sewell Park (#6)	Ramon Lucio Park (#7)	Wilderness Park (#8)
# of Responses	32	48	12	26	91	59	27
Mean emotional scores where 5 represents the highest rating
Joy	4.03	3.65	3.00	3.62	3.96	4.05	3.81
Serenity	4.16	4.33	4.00	3.38	4.29	3.97	4.18
Disgust	0.33	0.58	0.09	0.24	0.32	0.36	0.32
Fear	0.20	0.64	0.30	0.27	0.22	0.46	0.29
Sadness	0.37	0.49	0.42	0.42	0.46	0.43	0.50
Amazement	3.5	3.53	3.17	3.35	3.68	3.36	3.85
Mean score of perceptions of waterscape characteristics where 5 represents the highest rating
Relaxation	4.55	4.00	4.25	3.46	4.24	3.91	4.41
Access	4.71	4.46	4.27	4.39	4.55	4.54	4.67
Flow	4.81	4.54	4.64	4.78	4.91	4.57	4.96
Clean	4.94	4.15	4.82	4.83	4.65	4.31	4.89
Natural	4.16	4.52	4.18	3.35	3.94	4.26	4.59
Refuge	4.68	4.35	4.73	4.26	4.50	4.30	4.63
SES value frequency
Intrinsic	9	19	2	3	24	19	7
Relational	19	24	8	5	51	31	17
Utilitarian	3	4	1	13	11	2	2

). The variability in reasons for visiting waterscapes reflected the diverse settings of the San Marcos River (

Table 6. Reasons for visiting across all sites along the San Marcos River (SMR).

	City Park (#2)	City Park Bridge (#3)	Rio Vista Island (#4)	Rio Vista Park near Rapids (#5)	Sewell Park (#6)	Ramon Lucio Park (#7)	Wilderness Park (#8)
Art/photography	4	5	0	1	10	4	4
Community event/music event/special occasion	3	3	0	4	3	1	0
Commuting	1	1	0	0	5	1	0
Dog walking	2	5	0	2	19	9	5
Exercising	13	11	0	6	28	17	10
Family outing/date/socializing	14	17	1	3	4	21	8
Fishing	1	1	0	0	5	2	0
Relaxing/stress relief/meditating	16	16	1	5	40	24	14
Solitude	8	8	1	3	21	8	7
Water sport/tubing	8	8		4	20	1	6
Wildlife viewing/exploring nature	12	15	1	5	35	25	15
Work/school	13	12	8	17	43	12	12

). While relational values were the most frequent SES value across all river sites, the distribution of values varied according to site. Again, positive emotions were experienced to a greater extent than negative emotions across sites (Figure 5), and negative emotions were often qualified with a concern for the river’s ecological integrity. It is worth noting that the two sites where fear was ranked the highest (#3 and #7) were both located on bridges.

Ranked correlation and Spearman’s Rho revealed that waterscape characteristics were significantly associated with emotions (

Table 7. Results of Spearman’s rho (ρ) ranked correlation test. Bolded variables were significantly associated with the dependent variable at the 0.05 alpha level.

Dependent Variable	Predictor Variables	Spearman’s Rho	p-Value
Joy	Access	0.1	0.11
	Flow	0.18	0.003
	Clean	0.28	<0.001
	Natural	0.24	<0.001
	Refuge	0.38	<0.001
Serenity	Access	0.05	0.43
	Flow	0.2	<0.001
	Clean	0.21	<0.001
	Natural	0.22	<0.001
	Refuge	0.42	<0.001
Disgust	Access	−0.10	0.14
	Flow	−0.10	0.15
	Clean	−0.22	<0.001
	Natural	−0.11	0.11
	Refuge	−0.15	0.02
Fear	Access	−0.02	0.78
	Flow	−0.18	0.008
	Clean	−0.17	0.009
	Natural	−0.11	0.1
	Refuge	−0.21	0.001
Sadness	Access	−0.03	0.6
	Flow	−0.06	0.39
	Clean	−0.17	0.008
	Natural	−0.16	0.01
	Refuge	−0.18	0.005
Amazement	Access	0.1	0.1
	Flow	0.16	0.01
	Clean	0.25	<0.001
	Natural	0.2	0.001
	Refuge	0.39	<0.001
Relaxation	Access	0.18	0.003
	Flow	0.23	<0.001
	Clean	0.31	<0.001
	Natural	0.22	<0.001
	Refuge	0.5	<0.001

). Flow, cleanliness, and naturalness had a positive association with joy, serenity, amazement, and relaxation. Perceptions of cleanliness and whether the waterscape is a refuge were significantly associated with all emotions. Perceptions of flow significantly predicted joy, serenity, sadness, fear, and amazement (Table 7). Access only had a significant association with relaxation, meaning higher perceptions of access were not associated with higher intensity of emotional experiences.

3.4. Qualitative Text Mining Analysis

The qualitative analysis was based on text mining of optional comments left by participants and additional emotional experiences mentioned in the assessment (see Appendix D for all comments). In addition to the six emotions included, the participants could write in their own emotions and rank their intensity. Common additional emotions mentioned included nostalgia, happiness, and peace (

Table 8. Most mentioned additional emotions listed in the assessment.

Emotion	Number of Times Mentioned
Peace/peaceful	9
Happy/happiness	6
Nostalgic/nostalgia	6
Love	3
Wonder	3
Relaxation/relaxing	3
Appreciation	2
Excitement	2
Hope	2
Pride	2

).

Participants could also leave additional comments at the end of the assessment. The most common keywords in these additional comments were related to water clarity, degree of naturalness, the interaction of people and landscapes, and noise (

Table 9. Keywords with the highest frequency from additional comments left by participants at each site.

Setting	Most Common Keywords
River setting (Sewell Park)	Water River Rice Wild Clear
Lake setting	Water Clear Beautiful Lake Blue
Wetland setting	Clear Noise Water Natural Wildlife
Tributary setting	Water Beautiful Stagnant Algae Area
Across all settings	Water River Clear Beautiful People

). A word cloud shows the most common words from comments (Figure 6). Most comments were positive, although some people expressed negative emotions that stemmed from disapproval of how others treat the waterscape. Several people correctly identified species by sight. Others commented on seasonal or other temporal changes to optical water quality, vegetation density, and shoreline composition (e.g., “I feel the water color has been impacted by ongoing construction and winter time”; “My favorite time to come here is in the fall or winter when there are less people in the water which causes the water and sediment to be less disturbed”). One comment mentioned the fact that the river has been inhabited by humans for over 12,000 years. Another noteworthy comment was the following: “We find the waters of the SM river to have a certain magic to them—the history, the color, the constant temp—it’s spiritual.”

4. Discussion

4.1. Nature–Human Relationships and SES Values in Blue Spaces

Our results show that San Marcos waterscapes, for most visitors, are valued more for their habitat provision or opportunities for connection with nature than for recreation or development opportunities. The locals and nonlocals alike expressed a reverence for the wildlife, optical water quality, and educational opportunities that the river ecosystem accommodates. Statistical tests demonstrated that perceptions of biophysical and social characteristics of waterscapes are significantly associated with emotional experiences. The degree of perceived cleanliness and naturalness had a positive association with higher positive emotions. This supports the finding that the benefits of blue spaces are in part determined by visual landscape features [39,68].

Additionally, Wilcoxon tests revealed that both emotional experiences and waterscape perceptions varied as a function of SES value. Those expressing a utilitarian value experienced significantly lower levels of joy, serenity, and relaxation, and they reported significantly higher levels of disgust. SES values were also significant in predicting perceptions of flow, naturalness, accessibility, cleanliness, and whether the blue space represented a refuge from stress. Those that expressed utilitarian values often saw places as less natural and less of a refuge.

Comparative analyses of sites along the San Marcos River (SMR) revealed patterns of interaction and SES values. The SMR sites exhibited varying degrees of development, recreational opportunities, and traffic noise. These factors were often reflected in comments, SES values, and reported reasons for visiting. For example, Sewell Park is located on Texas State University campus and caters to social and recreational activities. Relational values were most common here, and the most common reason for visiting was relaxing/stress relief/meditation. This reflects the intended scene of Sewell Park, which is an on-campus blue space and refuge from the stresses of urban living or attending school [8]. The presence of healthy blue spaces on university campuses and visiting them for just 10 min a day can significantly improve the mental health outcomes of college students [69,70].

Wilderness Park (#8) is a more isolated and less developed location. Because of its position off the main trail among a grove of trees, Wilderness Park is not visible from the road or any parking lots, and requires walking a fair distance from parking. The noise from traffic and crowds is negligible, making it an ideal location for those seeking solitude, relaxation, or wildlife viewing. Wilderness Park responses reflected this situation, with relational values ranking highest and the most common reason for visiting being wildlife viewing/exploring nature. These findings support our hypothesis that the most common reasons for visiting reflect the SES value expressed at that waterscape.

Values often reflected reason for visiting waterscapes, although the frequency of reasons given was not always reflective of typical activities at each site. For example, Rio Vista sees thousands of tubers pass through the park every year, but only a handful of people indicated they were visiting for tubing. However, the prominence of utilitarian values at Rio Vista should be considered, especially since utilitarian values were so rarely cited across the entire study area. Rio Vista is catered toward recreation activities such as kayaking and tubing down the river rapids. This result may imply that value orientations are dependent on visual or social waterscape features, and values vary more according to setting than individual experience or perceptions. While aspects of social demand for blue spaces did not vary significantly among SMR sites, the range of responses reflects the myriad of activities and diversity of experiences that take place in these waterscapes every day.

4.2. Quantifying Emotional Experiences as a Measure of Restorative Potential of Waterscapes

The findings described in the previous section support the idea that emotional experiences are mediated through the symbolic meaning of place [9,17]. Those that demonstrated an intrinsic or relational value may feel a deeper sense of connection to blue spaces, which can increase the benefits to mental and physical health associated with exposure to blue spaces [6,58]. Logically, the reasons we perceive a place as important or valuable influence the ways those places affect us emotionally [9,71]. Thus, blue spaces impact our mood, and longitudinal exposure to blue spaces can result in positive outcomes for community health [15]. Positive emotions were experienced at waterscapes significantly more often and to a higher degree than negative emotions, reflecting the potential for waterscapes to provide community health benefits and restoration from stress [6].

Quantifying emotions can bring to light what seems obvious; the San Marcos River SES is a source of pleasure, education, and enlightenment for community members and visitors alike. Momentary affect may help reveal implications for community wellbeing [6]. Rather than a purely quantitative approach, the framework of this study was targeted toward community engagement and communication of stakeholder perspectives; thus, a mixed-methods analysis was needed to capture holistic relationships with urban waterscapes [46,72]. These data help water managers identify areas of need, i.e., where maintenance, environmental monitoring, or increased enforcement of regulations would be beneficial.

Ranked correlations revealed that lower perceptions of flow, cleanliness, and naturalness resulted in a lower intensity of positive emotions (joy, serenity, and amazement). These results provide evidence that experiences of urban waterscapes likely depend on the biophysical aspects of those waterscapes. While the statistical analysis did not support our hypothesis that waterscape perceptions would significantly predict negative emotions, it did reveal that waterscape perceptions, especially biophysical perceptions, influence positive emotional experiences. This shows that it is not aesthetics alone, but perceptions of SES function that mediate experiences with waterscapes. Less positive emotional experiences at the intermittent tributary site support conclusions from Cottet et al. [73] that intermittent streams are often devalued due to stakeholder perceptions and lack of meaningful interaction with these streams.

The concept of nature is complex and contested [74]. The San Marcos River, like most urban waterways, is an altered and intensively managed ecosystem that is problematic to claim as natural. Rather than assigning the label of natural to any of the waterscapes, we based our analyses on perceptions of naturalness—using ranked values to look for associations between perceptions and behaviors. This allowed participants to define natural for themselves and reflect on how they assign that attribute to an urban landscape. Different people will have different ideas of what naturalness is, and some participants commented on this, with one stating the following: “Natural seems like a problematic adjective. I feel like it’s a beautiful place either way but there’s clearly anthropogenic influences, like there are in any landscape in one way or another.”

Interactions with blue spaces can produce happiness, relaxation, and reflection, and they contribute to physical and mental wellbeing in the long term [12,15,58,69,75]. Blue spaces can also provide opportunities for social interaction, education, and restoration [15,17,76], which can promote positive health outcomes and foster a sense of place that promotes waterscape stewardship [7]. San Marcos, Texas is a community that protects and cherishes its river, and the positive emotions experienced across sites reflect this culture of stewardship [7,8].

4.3. Using Relational Values to Examine Interactions and Perceptions of Waterscapes

Relational values move beyond traditional ecosystem services to represent relationships with and responsibility to place [42]. Measuring relational values of waterscapes allows water managers to view nature–human relationships through expressions of SES values and meanings [7]. As part of social–ecological systems (SES), humans change and are changed by their place attachments. In our study, intrinsic and relational values were balanced but much more common than utilitarian values. Those representing a relational value had more positive emotional experiences than those with a utilitarian value and had the highest perception of waterscapes as a “refuge”.

Relational values aim to represent the complex and dynamic ways that people can relate to and feel about nature [14,38]. The mental health benefits provided by blue spaces are mediated and negotiated through our experiences, perceptions, and beliefs [31,58]. Therefore, relationships may represent symbolic meaning of place, and that meaning can change or be reinforced through new experiences [6]. Qualitative analysis of comments left by participants revealed the dynamic ways in which characteristics of blue spaces can negotiate emotional reactions, perceptions, and relationships with place. Relational values were expressed as nuanced relationships with waterscapes that represent responsibilities and attachments to these places, as well as personal emotional experience, such as “nostalgia” expressed by many in the comments (Table 9).

The different meanings of place and the complexity of factors that Influence that meaning are partly captured through a survey of relational values; however, to understand what relational values represent to different people, qualitative analysis is crucial. A cost–benefit analysis of ecosystem services in the traditional empirical sense would fail to account for these types of relationships and experiences [47]. For many people, buy in for supporting ecosystems increases when they are coproducers of knowledge [22]. Managers face tradeoffs when planning urban blue and green spaces and may benefit from a relational values approach. By using a participatory approach such as ours, policy can reflect human experiences with blue spaces rather than just a quantification of the monetary or anthropocentric benefits they provide.

4.4. Emerging Effects of COVID-19 on Nature–Human Interactions

In line with previous literature, we found that 90% of participants perceived waterscapes as a refuge from the stress and isolation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. About half of participants reported spending more time at urban waterscapes than they did before the pandemic, while the other half indicated spending less time or the same amount of time. These results reflect the complex conditions of the pandemic that has simultaneously made people more isolated and more curious about exploring nature [57].

The pandemic increased feelings of negativity, stress, grief, and economic loss [77,78]. Medical research has called for interventions that offer preventative care to reduce the potential for negative mental health symptoms amplified by the pandemic [79]. Collective stressful events can provide opportunities for landscapes and waterscapes to act in a transformative way. Connectedness to nature can lead to mobilization that promotes collective action [80] and may lead communities to hold refuge opportunities in higher regard [58]. The framework presented in this study is also a starting point for designing new landscape monitoring or environmental education programs that foster connections with nature while maintaining social distancing and other COVID-19-related safety measures. The data collection period for this study took place from May 2021 to March 2022. At this time, city parks had been reopened for 8 months after they had been closed from March to September 2020. While our results do not reflect relationships with urban waterscapes during lockdown, they show how waterscapes were a refuge in a time of great uncertainty and isolation.

4.5. Qualitative Analysis of Photos and Comments

In San Marcos, there is a cultural and social norm of reverence and protection for Spring Lake and the San Marcos River [7]. During our time installing or replacing stations at various sites, we had conversations with community members that possessed extensive knowledge of the ecological conditions and wildlife of the San Marcos River, including endangered species and the history of protection that partly stems from their presence. Over 300 people left additional comments expanding on their answers or providing unsolicited information.

From text mining the additional comments, we found many of the same keywords used across the sites (Table 9). For example, many participants wrote “clear” in additional comments, and commented on how optical water quality was a draw to the river, lake, or wetland. The wetland was unique, however, in that it was the only site where “wildlife” was mentioned in the top five keywords. It is likely that some respondents observed wildlife in this rich habitat, but there was also the perception of wildlife because this site was considered the most “natural” among the different waterscapes (Figure 4). It is also likely that the educational signage along the wetland boardwalk gave the perception of wildlife. The third most mentioned word at the intermittent tributary was “stagnant” (Table 9), reinforcing the finding that perceptions and beliefs mediate personal experiences with waterscapes [7,8,9].

Qualitative analyses of comments also reflected respondents’ environmental concerns for the integrity of the river. Negative comments were often accompanied by a concern for perceived misuse or degradation of the river ecosystem. Ten comments mentioned trash or pollution of the river. One participant remarked the following: “Green algae from fertilizer must be stopped. City ordinance to prohibit its use is the only way. Trash in the bends of river is gross. Must fine offenders through camera evidence”. This concern for the river may not have been captured in a purely quantitative analysis of social demand.

Many comments showed a deep knowledge of the ecosystem composition, history, and functions of the San Marcos River. On several occasions, species were identified correctly by name. People commented on the coverage and health of the Texas wild rice (Zizania texana; Figure 7) over time, and it was the third most mentioned word at the perennial river site. One participant pointed out the ways the pandemic and lack of visitors to the river had been helpful in restoring wild rice populations. Participants also expressed appreciation for the symbolic or environmental significance of the ecosystem. As one participant phrased it, the river has “a certain magic… it’s spiritual”.

Many people in San Marcos have pursued or been exposed to environmental education about the river system. The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment located next to Spring Lake is committed to educating people about the ecosystems and history of the spring-fed lake and river system. Knowledge about specific ecosystem functions or species may create a heightened sense of responsibility to monitor and protect those things [8]. One participant even stated this directly: “Having waterscapes like this in my community makes me more invested in maintaining their health and conserving their ecosystems.” See Appendix B for all comments.

In addition to documenting nature–human relationships as functions of SES values and perceptions, this project resulted in a temporal and spatial database of participant-submitted photos. Photos taken from the same angle of the same place over a 10 month period provide visual data of landscape variability and change over time. Time-stamped photo databases provide insight into the ways that extreme weather events or land-use practices including recreation affect San Marcos waterscapes. On one occasion in October 2021, the San Marcos River experienced a major flood and became quite turbid. Participants submitted photos in the aftermath of the storm that may help reveal the timing and duration of hydrologic responses to extreme flood events (Figure 8).

Photo submissions documenting changes and extreme events promote this collective value [54,55]. Providing photos and their experiences and emotions allows stakeholders to take ownership of their role in the production of knowledge and the protection of the ecosystem [22,23,80]. The mixed-methods approach allowed for nuanced experiences to be incorporated with quantitative data analysis to provide holistic representations of relationships with place. Without the qualitative approach, these perspectives would not have been considered.

4.6. Limitations to Study

There was an inherently spatial limitation to this study that created a selection bias. Only those that are physically visiting the river and willing to engage with a cell phone application were participants in the study. Therefore, this analysis missed an opportunity to assess perceptions in populations that have limited access to blue spaces or technology. The locations of our photo stations may have also created a spatial bias. The site at Rio Vista Island, for example, was not prominent along a heavily trafficked trail and, thus, had a very small sample size (n = 12). As with all survey data, these data were subject to errors from humans either rushing through the assessment or giving intentional false information.

Another limitation of the assessment was the question asking if people spent more or less time at waterscapes than they did before the beginning of the pandemic. City parks were closed due to COVID-19 for over 6 months prior to the beginning of the assessment period, which could have led to confusion about what the question meant by “since before the pandemic”. This wording may also have been confusing for those who moved to the area during the pandemic. Emotional variables likely faced ceiling effects, as a majority of people ranked positive emotions 4 or 5 out of 5. A more effective method may be to ask about specific emotional reactions to place and rank these emotions, rather than placing them on an intensity Likert scale.

5. Conclusions

The benefits of blue spaces are influenced by visual biophysical characteristics but are also shaped by unseen emotional experiences. In sum, blue spaces (or waterscapes) have profound and measurable benefits to overall wellbeing, especially in urban settings where stressors are typically more intense and ubiquitous. Maintaining healthy blue spaces is a cost-effective way to mitigate negative mental health effects from these stressors. In central Texas, unique blue spaces are held in high regard and are seen as a symbol of the cultural, social, and environmental history of the region. The community of San Marcos, including resources managers, is faced with determining the future of their waterscapes in terms of access versus protection. Community surveys such as ours can ensure that different perspectives are considered in assessments of potential tradeoffs in water resource management.

Understanding and considering diverse stakeholder perspectives is essential to the sustainable management of blue spaces. In this regard, relational values are an emerging framework to appreciate the interdependent relationships between people and nature as part of a social–ecological system (SES). Our results show that people in San Marcos, Texas (USA) uphold waterscapes mostly for their intrinsic and relational values, more so than utilitarian values. Waterscapes produced positive emotional experiences, which were dependent on perceptions of flow, cleanliness, and naturalness. Waterscapes were perceived as a refuge from stress in general, and from the stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Documenting photos and relationships with waterscapes, as we did with this project, provides insight into relevant waterscape changes and SES values. Future research could use geotagged photos as a qualitative expression of cultural relationships with place and to track changes to waterscapes over time.

Planning green and blue spaces in urban settings often comes with difficult tradeoffs and can be influenced by push–pull factors from competing or contrasting interests within the community. By collecting perspectives from stakeholders that go unseen and unheard, this project promotes the equitable consideration of stakeholder interests when considering tradeoffs between community interests in blue space management.