Public perceptions of wetlands and preferences for on-site visitor facilities and communication media: a case study from an Australian Ramsar wetland

Keywords: ecotourism, environmental education, protected area management, Ramsar Convention, science communication, wetland management.

Wetlands are critically important for the provision of a range of ecosystem services and their role in biodiversity conservation (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Where data are available, they indicate that half of the mid-Holocene global wetland area has been lost, with much of the remaining area degraded or threatened (Zedler and Kercher 2005; Meng et al. 2017; Convention on Wetlands 2021). There are various reasons for the ongoing loss of wetlands, including both ecological (or direct drivers; e.g. physical modification, pollution, invasive species, climate change) and non-ecological (or indirect drivers; e.g. economic development, lack of information, lack of public awareness of wetland values and threats; Finlayson and Rea 1999; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Most notable among the efforts to address the threats to the loss of wetlands is the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, which was the first international treaty on the conservation of ecosystems (Finlayson et al. 2011). Contracting nations agree to work towards the wise use of all wetlands, to list and effectively manage wetlands of international importance as ‘Ramsar sites’ and to cooperate with other signatories on the management of transboundary wetlands and shared species, such as migratory birds.

Various strategies have been adopted under the Ramsar Convention to achieve wise use, which is considered by some to be synonymous with sustainable use and sustainable development (Finlayson et al. 2011). In the 1970s there was a focus on the designation and management of Ramsar sites, transitioning into policy development for the wise use of all wetlands in the 1980s, into a widening of focus to include ecosystem services and human wellbeing in the 1990s and, finally, expanding to include environmental awareness and engagement in the 21st century (Hettiarachchi et al. 2015). This latter focus was driven by the Convention’s 1999 Resolution (VII.9) ‘for promoting the conservation and wise use of wetlands through communication, education, participation, and awareness (CEPA) and work towards wider awareness of the Convention’s goals, mechanisms…’ (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2010, p. 5). In the more recent Ramsar Resolution XII.9 (2015), the current CEPA program includes communication, capacity building, education, participation and awareness as ‘processes that can be used for specific purposes and specific target audiences to deliver CEPA aims’ (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2015, p. 10).

An important plank in Ramsar’s CEPA efforts has been its focus on tourism and recreation. The Convention urged in its 2012 Resolution (XI.7) that:

Contracting Parties and relevant stakeholders … use Ramsar Sites as a branding opportunity to promote sustainable tourism and recreation practices, with a view to increasing appreciation of wetlands by providing meaningful experiences for visitors, for example through birdwatching and cultural activities [Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2012, p. 5].

Such place-based experiences reduce the extinction of experience (Pyle 2003; Miller 2005) by increasing ‘opportunities’ to have positive experiences of nature (by provisioning access to wetlands) and ‘orientation’ towards nature (e.g. through marketing, educational and outreach activities; Soga and Gaston 2016), thereby promoting pro-environmental behaviour (Mackay and Schmitt 2019). Several studies have reiterated these prescriptions in the context of wetlands, such as the recent global survey by McInnes et al. (2020), which recognised the significant roles that public awareness (i.e. orientation) combined with visitation (i.e. opportunity) play as key positive drivers for conservation (see also Zhang and Lei 2012; Do et al. 2015a; Wilkins et al. 2019). This is also recognised by a joint report from the Ramsar and UN World Tourism Organization (2012, p. 13), in which tourism in and around wetlands is recommended ‘to raise awareness about wetland values and wetland biodiversity, and win support from tourists and others for wetland conservation’.

Despite these calls, there is yet an ongoing need to explore the opportunities and values of wetlands for such experiences, and the preferences of the public, in order to create the necessary orientation. In the studies that have sought to assess public attitudes, preferences and experiences, there is a strong focus on the economic value of the recreational use of wetlands (Bergstrom and Stoll 1993; Gürlük and Rehber 2008), including uses and preferences (Pueyo-Ros et al. 2018). On the same theme, choice experiments have been used to identify attributes (e.g. wetland biodiversity, fish, fenced waterline and walking facilities) that influence the perceived values of wetlands (Carlsson et al. 2003; Newell and Swallow 2013). A smaller number of studies have investigated motivations to visit wetlands and satisfaction in relation to visits (e.g. Wang et al. 2012; Do et al. 2015a; Diaz-Christiansen et al. 2016). The effects of proximity to wetlands on visitors’ knowledge of wetlands has also been investigated (Wilkins et al. 2019). More recently, tourism and recreation in wetlands has been addressed within a broader ecosystem services framework as cultural ecosystem services (Clarke et al. 2021).

There is more work to be done to fill in temporal and geographic gaps in furthering a combination of CEPA and recreation opportunities, and to explore the relationships of wetland knowledge, motivation and satisfaction, such as in the case now of Australia. Despite being one of the first signatories of the Ramsar Convention and the first country to produce a Wetland CEPA National Action Plan in 2001 (Prahalad and Kriwoken 2010), there has been a limited understanding of how or whether CEPA initiatives have been translated into tangible outcomes (e.g. public awareness of Ramsar sites) and what mix of opportunities and orientation may be required to inform policy and practice both in Australia and elsewhere.

Using a case study of Moulting Lagoon Game Reserve, one of the oldest Ramsar sites (listed in 1982), we investigate the public awareness of this Ramsar site, the public’s general understanding of wetland biota and ecosystem services and, for the first time in the Australian context, public preferences for particular knowledge, on-site activities, facilities and modes of communication. We also examine whether these results are explained by sociodemographic variables of origin, age and occupation. These investigations allow us to take stock of the level of public awareness of the Ramsar brand, and of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services, in order to make informed suggestions for: (1) increasing the opportunities for visitors to have meaningful experience in wetlands; and (2) suitable communication methods for marketing these opportunities. In doing so, we seek to contribute to improve the conservation effectiveness of wetlands as the Convention celebrates its 50th birthday.

Moulting Lagoon is located at the head of Great Oyster Bay, near the popular Freycinet National Park (NP), on the east coast of Tasmania, Australia (Fig. 1). The lagoon is ~10 km north-east of the town of Swansea and ~10 km north of Coles Bay, which is the entry and the main hub for the NP (Parks and Wildlife Service 2007). Moulting Lagoon Game Reserve was the third Australian Ramsar site to be listed as a Wetland of International Importance and is now one of the 10 Ramsar sites located in the State of Tasmania (Parks and Wildlife Service 2007). On the northern end of Moulting Lagoon is Apsley Marshes – another Tasmanian Ramsar site. Because Apsley Marshes is almost entirely privately owned and without public access, we restrict our case study to the publicly owned and accessible Moulting Lagoon.

Fig. 1.  Location of the Moulting Lagoon Ramsar site and the four survey collection interception points in Tasmania, Australia. Base data from theLIST (www.thelist.tas.gov.au), © State of Tasmania.

Moulting Lagoon is ~4760 ha, of which 4507 ha are listed as a Ramsar site (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities 2011). Much of the land surrounding the lagoon has been cleared for agricultural use since British colonisation in 1821. In recent decades, parts of the adjacent land have been set aside for conservation and restoration (e.g. fencing out stock and weed removal), through either conservation agreements with private landowners or direct purchases for private reserves (Prahalad and Kriwoken 2010).

There are ~1048 ha of saltmarshes fringing the Lagoon (Fig. 1), which is close to one-fifth of the Tasmanian extent (Prahalad and Kirkpatrick 2019). Tasmanian coastal saltmarshes, including those in Moulting Lagoon, are recognised as ‘threatened ecological communities’ under the Australian Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The lagoon also has large areas of intertidal and subtidal seagrass beds and other submerged aquatic vegetation, mainly dominated by Ruppia megacarpa (Temby and Crawford 2008). Unvegetated areas of the lagoon are made up of a mixture of sand and silt.

Thirteen plant species in the lagoon are listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (Parks and Wildlife Service 2007). The lagoon also provides habitat for several waterbirds and shorebirds species, notably as year-round habitat for 5000–10 000 black swans (Cygnus atratus; Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities 2011). Several migratory shorebird species that use the lagoon, such as the pacific golden plovers (Pluvialis fulva), are listed as protected under the EPBC Act. The lagoon also provides an important fisheries habitat, with ~37 species of fish that represent ~60% of all species found in open lagoons in Tasmania (Edgar et al. 1999).

The Oyster Bay tribe of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people occupied the lagoon and most of the Tasmanian east coast before British colonisation (Parks and Wildlife Service 2007). Wildlife around the lagoon, particularly black swan eggs, was an important resource for the Aboriginal people. Currently, the lagoon offers duck hunting in season, boating, fishing, bird watching and rough camping (Parks and Wildlife Service 2007). There are two campsites located on the outskirts of the lagoon. The River and Rocks Campsite is located ~8 km north of Coles Bay, next to the lagoon, and was selected as a survey collection location for this study (Fig. 1). There is one pit toilet at the River and Rocks Campsite, and a few fireplaces available on-site. The other campsite is located ~15 km north of Coles Bay, next to the Kitty’s Mistake car park, and is accessible only by an unsealed road. Fireplaces have been established at this site, but no other facilities are available.

Data were collected using an on-site visitor survey, a method commonly used in surveying public visitors to parks (Chiu and Kriwoken 2003; Hughes and Morrison-Saunders 2003; Weaver and Lawton 2011; Rossi et al. 2015; Pueyo-Ros et al. 2018). Section 1 sought to evaluate visitor knowledge of Moulting Lagoon (as a Ramsar wetland of international importance) and wetlands more generally. Section 2 focused on visitor expectations of recreational activities and facilities available in wetlands. Section 3 sought visitor demographic information, including the origin of the visitors, their age, occupation and length of visit. The questionnaire was designed with inputs from representatives of Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (park ranger) and the local Glamorgan Spring Bay Council (manager of natural resources).

Approval for the study was granted by the University of Tasmania Human Research Ethics Committee (H0018207). All study participants provided informed consent to participate in the study and for their anonymised data to be published.

A Likert scale (1–5) was used for respondents to report their knowledge of biotic attributes (comprising insects and spiders, mammals, birds, crabs and snails, fish, plants and algae and fungi) and their role in the provision of ecosystem services (comprising habitat for biodiversity, fish nurseries, a carbon sink, a flood buffer, water purifiers, protectors of the coast and providers of cultural services). The biotic attributes were selected and classed following Prahalad et al. (2020). The ecosystem services cover the four classes of de Groot et al. (2002).

This part of the survey was designed to understand the level of interest that Freycinet NP visitors have for recreational activities and the facilities they consider important, rated using a Likert scale (1–5). The list of activities comprised trail walking, photography, fishing, bird watching, duck hunting, camping, kayaking, boat cruises, guided tours and cultural interpretation; these classes following the Moulting Lagoon Management Plan (Parks and Wildlife Service 2007). The activities currently available (camping, boating, duck hunting and fishing) were supplemented by other activities available in other reserved wetlands in Tasmania (e.g. Parks and Wildlife Service 2013). The list of facilities comprised walking tracks, viewing platforms, toilets, picnic tables, a barbeque station, campsite, campsite showers, fireplaces, vehicle tracks, rubbish bins, information panels and an information centre. Visitors were then asked to select their preferred source of information on wetlands and on-site activities and facilities from brochures, books, websites, apps, video clips (e.g. YouTube), information panels and guided tours (Ramsar and UN World Tourism Organization 2012).

Participants were asked to identify as either Tasmanian residents or interstate or overseas visitors. Blank sections were left for participants to fill out their home state or home country. Participants were asked to select their age group (18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 54–65 and ≥65 years). Participants were also asked to fill in their occupation. Responses were initially coded to the 10 classes with reference to the International Standard Classification of Occupations (see https://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/, accessed 1 April 2022), and further reduced to 1 of 5 categories comprising blue collar, professional, retired, student and white collar. Questions on age and occupation were identified as being optional.

Participants were asked to fill in their length of visit to Freycinet, and whom they travelled with. Options available for selection were travelled alone or travelled with friends, family or a tour group. Participants were then asked about their interest (yes or no) in visiting the Moulting Lagoon and any other wetlands in the future. In the final part of this survey, an open section was provided to participants for any comments or questions.

The survey was conducted from July to August 2019. Despite the number of visitors to Tasmania being highest in the austral summer (>300 000), there are enough visits during our sampling period (>250 000) and from similar places of origin to exclude bias attributable to seasonal variation (Tourism Tasmania 2019). Our choice of the popular Freycinet NP is also notable because it is Tasmania’s fifth most visited attraction (Discover Tasmania 2021), receiving a broad demographic of visitors year-round. To further enhance our data quality in this regard, we collected data during peak visitor times between 0900 and 1700 hours, and on both weekdays and weekends (Rossi et al. 2015). In addition, we used a random selection of survey respondents from a carefully selected range of intersection points, designed to maximise the representativeness of our survey respondent demographic (Chiu and Kriwoken 2003; Pueyo-Ros et al. 2018).

Due to the close geographic proximity of Moulting Lagoon and Freycinet NP, we chose survey collection interception points located within and on the outskirts of Freycinet NP (Fig. 1). The Freycinet NP visitor centre was the primary intercept location because it is often the first stop for visitors to the region to purchase park passes and obtain relevant brochures and maps. The Geographe Café is a popular local business located in the Coles Bay area and was included as the second intercept point to survey visitors to the region who are not necessarily also visiting Freycinet NP. The Whitewater Wall campsite is a free campsite located within the Freycinet NP, is only accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles and is likely to be more popular with Tasmanian locals, who are less likely to use the visitor centre. The River and Rocks campsite is located on the margins of the Moulting Lagoon and is frequented by Tasmanian locals with caravans.

At each survey location, potential participants were approached with printed copies of the survey ready in paper form for people to read and fill out. Care was taken through reminders and checking to ensure completion of all questions requiring a response (Rossi et al. 2015). To increase the survey rate, participants were offered a copy of the Tasmanian wetland birds poster (developed by the second author, VP) as a token of appreciation for their contribution to this study. In total, 326 usable surveys were collected. Only six surveys were unusable due to incomplete data.

Data from completed surveys were entered manually into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for curation and accuracy testing. Each completed survey was assigned a number (1–326). An accuracy assessment was done to check whether data had been transferred accurately from paper form to the Excel spreadsheet. Samples used for accuracy testing were randomly selected using the Excel RANDBETWEEN formula. Thirty samples were audited (~10% of the whole population). Each of the randomly selected samples was checked against the original survey in paper format and no errors were found.

The Chi-Square test was used for all analyses because all the data were collected in classes. For tables in which expected values in cells were <5, adjacent Likert scale classes with low expected values were merged. We present data as the percentage of respondents who answered 4 or 5 on Likert scales as an indicator of agreement with statements. Analyses were performed using Minitab statistical software (ver. 18, see https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/18/). Data were visualised using R (ver. 3.6.2, R Core Team, R Foundation, Vienna, Austria) and the Rstudio ggplot2 package (Rstudio, Boston, MA, USA; Wickham 2016).

Approximately half the participants were visiting from interstate, ~30% were Tasmanian residents and ~20% were visiting from overseas. The greatest number of interstate visitors came from Victoria (34% of the remainder), New South Wales (32%) and Queensland (26%), similar to the order and proportion of visitors to Tasmania during the same period (Tourism Tasmania 2019; see also East Coast Tasmania Tourism 2020). Overseas survey participants represented 21 nations, with most visitors from Asian countries, the US and UK, again in line with data for Tasmania for this period (Tourism Tasmania 2019). All age groups (ranging from 18 to ≥65 years) were well represented, with a minimum of 10% of responses in each of the six age classes. At the higher end, close to one-third (32%) of the participants were in the 25–34 year age group. Tasmanians were prominent in the youngest and oldest age groups and in the occupational categories of student and retired (Table 1). Visitors from the mainland of Australia were prominent in the 56–65 year age group and the professional and blue collar categories, whereas those from overseas were prominent in the 25–45 year age groups and in the white collar work category (Table 1). Students were prominent in the 18–24 year age group and retirees were prominent in the groups >55 years of age (Table 2).

Table 1.  Age and occupation of survey respondents by origin
Tas., Tasmanian residents; Aus., Australian visitors residing outside the islands of Tasmania; OS, overseas visitors, P values are from Chi-Square analysis for each of the age group and occupation subtables. The figures are column percentages for each table

Table 2.  Age of survey respondents by occupation (%)
Values show the percentage of respondents in each age group for each occupation group (column percentages). The bold values are the highest occupational percent for each age group. The probability value for the whole table (χ²) was < 0.001

Among the ~91% of participants who filled out their occupation, the most common occupations were retirees, students, healthcare and medical, and hospitality and retail. Most participants were traveling with friends and family (37% + 52% = 89%). Very few were traveling with a tour group (~1%). Only 18 participants were traveling alone. Thirteen participants lived in the Freycinet area, which has a small resident population of 353 people as of the 2016 census (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017). The time participants spent in the Freycinet area ranged from 1 day to 6 weeks. The mean number of days participants spent in Freycinet NP was 2.6 days, the identical number of days reported for the mean length of stay in the region (East Coast Tasmania Tourism 2020). These results indicate that our sampling strategy, combined with our chosen intercept points, was effective in collecting a dataset that we believe is representative of the public seeking visitor experiences in our study region.

Approximately 80% of participants had not visited Moulting Lagoon. Over half (54%) of the participants were not aware of the lagoon. Of the remaining 20% of participants, only ~35 people (11%) had visited the lagoon previously. Of these, only 7 (~2%) respondents had visited the lagoon within the previous year. The average time period since the previous visit was 5 years and the longest time since the previous visit was 35 years. The people who best knew Moulting Lagoon were aged >55 years, retired and Tasmanian (Tables 3–5).

Table 3.  Survey responses by origin (%) and knowledge of wetlands (%)
Unless indicated otherwise, values show the percentage of respondents in each column group who answered 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale. Tas., Tasmanian residents; Aus., Australian visitors residing outside the islands of Tasmania; NA, not applicable; OS, overseas visitors. The probability values are for a Chi-Square analysis relating the row variable to the column variable. For rows with P < 0.05, bold values show the highest value for origin

Table 4.  Survey responses by age
Values show the percentage of respondents in each age group who answered positively to the item (i.e. those who circled 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale). The probability values are for a Chi-Square analysis relating the row variable to age group. For rows with P < 0.05, bold values show the highest value for an age group

Table 5.  Survey responses by occupation
Unless indicated otherwise, values show the percentage of respondents in each occupational group who answered positively to the item (e.g. those who circled 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale). The probability values are for a Chi-Square analysis relating the row variable to age group. For rows with P < 0.05, bold values show the highest value for an occupational group

Over half (52%) the participants knew nothing (17%) or very little (35%) about wetlands. The rest of the participants (48%) claimed they had a basic knowledge (38%) or that they knew wetlands well (10%). This separates respondents into two approximately equal-sized populations: Group 1, not knowledgeable of wetlands (~52%; n = 172); and Group 2, knowledgeable of wetlands (~48%; n = 153). The local people thought that they were informed about wetlands more than those from overseas (Table 3). The 56–65 year age group had the highest percentage of people who thought they were knowledgeable about wetlands (Table 4).

Those who were knowledgeable about wetlands wanted to know more about insects and spiders than those not knowledgeable, but the two groups did not differ in their desire for knowledge on any other of the biotic or ecosystem service variables (Table 3). Those who thought they were knowledgeable about wetlands had a greater preference for trail walking and bird watching, but a lesser preference for boat cruises, than those who thought they were not knowledgeable (Table 3). Water refill stations, rubbish bins, information centres, vehicle tracks, barbeques and showers were more desirable for those who thought they were not knowledgeable about wetlands than the rest of the respondents (Table 3).

The respondents as a whole thought that they had a better knowledge of mammals, birds, fish and vascular plants than of invertebrates and cryptogams (Fig. 2a). A greater proportion of Tasmanian respondents believed that they knew the wetland birds well compared with respondents from elsewhere, but the reverse pertained to crabs and snails (Table 3).

Fig. 2.  Survey participants’ (n = 326) ratings of their knowledge of wetland (a) biodiversity and (b) ecosystem services.

Among wetland ecosystem services, there was moderate knowledge of coastal protection, water quality and habitat for biodiversity, with lesser knowledge of other services (Fig. 3b). More Tasmanian respondents felt that they understood the role of wetlands in improving water quality than respondents from elsewhere and more mainland respondents felt that they understood the flood mitigation role of wetlands than respondents from elsewhere (Table 3). More of those in the older age groups felt that they understood coastal protection values, flood protection values, cultural values and carbon storage values than those in the younger age groups.

Fig. 3.  Survey participants (n = 326) rating of (a) recreational activities and (b) on-site facilities in wetlands.

Most participants (52%) indicated that they were interested in birds. Apart from birds, participants were most interested in mammals, plants and fish, with some interest expressed in cryptogams, namely algae and fungi (Table 3). Participants were least interested in crabs and snails and insects and spiders. Among ecosystem services, participants expressed similar levels of interest across most of the listed services (Table 3), with notably less interest shown in the flood buffering service.

Tasmanian respondents wanted to know more about insects and spiders, cryptogams, crabs and snails, coastal protection and carbon sink services than mainland and overseas respondents, whereas overseas tourists wanted to learn more about water quality than respondents from elsewhere (Table 3). Both older and younger people wanted to know about birds and carbon sink service more than middle-aged people, whereas younger people wanted to know more about water quality than the older (Table 4). White collar workers wanted to know more about insects and spiders than the other occupational groups, whereas students were prominent in wanting to know more about cultural services (Table 5).

Most participants (95%) stated that they would like to visit Moulting Lagoon, and an even higher number (97%) stated that they would like to visit wetland areas in the future. In terms of wetland recreational activities, most participants expressed interest in trail walking and photography (Fig. 3a). Participants were also interested in camping and cultural interpretation. A high number of participants expressed ‘very low’ interest in duck hunting (~79%). Several participants added a ‘0’ or a ‘–1’ next to the Likert scale in the survey form to express their disinterest in (or dislike of) this activity.

Tasmanians were more interested in camping and less interested in guided tours than mainland and overseas tourists, whereas the few duck hunters were concentrated among Tasmanians and overseas tourists (Table 3). Kayaking and duck hunting were concentrated in the younger age groups, whereas bird watching was a more prominent activity among the older (Table 4). Camping, fishing, and duck hunting drew most interest from blue collar workers (Table 5). Most participants noted walking tracks and viewing platforms as important facilities if they were to visit wetlands for recreational purposes (Fig. 3b). Participants were less interested in having barbeque stations and showers on-site. Viewing platforms, information centres and vehicle tracks were most desired by overseas tourists (Table 3). There was no significant differentiation in desired facilities between age or occupational groups (Tables 4, 5).

Most participants (71%) chose ‘website’ as their preferred media platform for information on the natural and recreational values of wetlands (Fig. 4). Over half (54%) the participants chose ‘brochures’ as their preferred platform for obtaining information. Information panels were also popular (42%). In comparison, fewer participants (13%) chose ‘books’ as their preferred source of information. Books were preferred more by Tasmanians than mainland or overseas tourists as a way of gaining information (Table 3). There was no variation by age group or occupation in preference for communication mode (Tables 4, 5).

Fig. 4.  Preferred sources of information on wetlands (or orientation towards wetlands) identified by the survey respondents.

Although the Ramsar nomination of a wetland site signifies its natural significance, the present study indicates that the status itself does not guarantee public awareness and visitation. In our case study area, survey participants had driven past, unaware of the Moulting Lagoon Ramsar site (and the adjoining Apsley Marshes Ramsar site), to access the Freycinet NP and were within 20 km of the lagoon at the time of surveying (Fig. 1). Even respondents whose surveys were collected from the River and Rocks Campsite, which is located right on the boundary of Moulting Lagoon, did not know of its location. This is a sobering finding considering the size, location and proximity of the lagoon to Tasmania’s most visited NP (Fig. 1) and the fifth most visited attraction (Discover Tasmania 2021). This lack of awareness and interest in this Ramsar wetland, despite its setting, has implications for the long-term conservation of wetlands in general (Prahalad and Kriwoken 2010). Public awareness of wetlands is crucial to their wise use by balancing conservation against long-term degradation and loss of wetland values (Brock et al. 1999; Finlayson and Rea 1999; Nam et al. 2010; Meng et al. 2017). Awareness can also increase public support for wetland conservation through avenues such as media coverage, direct action, policy, legislation, funding and research (Reddy and Char 2006; Duarte et al. 2008; Boon 2012).

The CEPA program of the Ramsar Convention recognises the important role of public awareness (Finlayson et al. 2011; Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2015). However, there has been an implementation gap in realising CEPA aims and outcomes, as demonstrated in the present case. The 2003 Moulting Lagoon Management Plan has as one of its aims to ‘promote the reserve for ecotourism, interpretation and education’ (Parks and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 23). The plan intends to provide ‘[more] interpretive displays with information on the values, Ramsar listing, appropriate recreational activities and … a bird hide/nature walk at Pelican Rocks… [and] promoting the reserve for ecotourism, interpretation and education’ (Parks and Wildlife Service 2007, p. iv). This plan has been in effect for 18 years, yet, as a consequence of implementation failure (Prahalad and Kriwoken 2010), visitors to the region are largely unaware of or uninterested in visiting the lagoon.

This failure appears to be a common problem in other Ramsar sites. In the study of Polajnar (2008) in Slovenia, 77% of respondents did not know of the Ramsar Convention despite living in a Ramsar site. Ibrahim et al. (2012) reported similar findings in the context of Malaysia’s oldest Ramsar site. Do et al. (2015a, 2015b) also found that having a Ramsar status does not guarantee awareness of and visitation to South Korean Ramsar wetlands. Internet search behaviour indicates that the level of visitation is strongly correlated with mentions in news articles. For example, public interest in wetlands increased following the 10th Conference of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention) in Changwon, South Korea in 2008, as well as after a new wetland area was designated as a Ramsar site. After the Conference had finished, the level of public interest in wetlands decreased significantly, because of reduced media exposure (Do et al. 2015b). These findings, combined with our results, reiterate the ongoing need for the Ramsar CEPA activities to move beyond prescriptions (as listed under Goals 1–9 in the Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2015, pp. 6–9) to funding commitments (e.g. for visitor facilities) and institutional support (e.g. information resources, publicity campaigns). Our assessment of opportunities and orientation (discussed below) provides a set of specific targets and indicators that can be used to measure progress.

In addition to a lack of recognition of Ramsar wetlands, the present study also confirmed a general lack of understanding of wetlands biodiversity and ecosystem services (Fig. 2a). Our participant knowledge of wetland biodiversity largely followed size and relatability attributes, with the ‘charismatic’ vertebrates such as mammals and birds being better known than the more diminutive cryptograms, algae and fungi. Furthermore, responses to our questions asking participants about their interest in learning about wetlands indicated a willingness to know more about birds, followed by mammals, again with relatively lesser interest shown in invertebrates and cryptograms. These findings conform with existing literature on the apparent bias towards larger and more recognisable ‘iconic’ vertebrate animals (Ainsworth et al. 2018; Braby 2018; Eisenhauer et al. 2019), reiterating the need to improve awareness of invertebrates and cryptograms (Hart and Sumner 2020).

Among ecosystem services, this study showed that participants were least knowledgeable about the role of wetlands as carbon sinks, fish nurseries, cultural sites and flood buffers (Fig. 2b). As the consequences and causes of global warming, and their relationships to wetlands, become more apparent (e.g. Conifer 2015), we expected that there would be some awareness of the role of wetlands play as ‘blue carbon’ sinks. However, our participants, apart from the older demographic (age >65 years), were least knowledgeable on this topic. In addition, despite the increasing recognition of the need to sustain our wild-catch fisheries and research documenting the importance of seagrass and saltmarsh wetland habitats (Whitfield 2017), fish nursery service was reported as the second least-well-known ecosystem service across all demographics. The relatively higher awareness we documented of the coastal protection and water quality services is reflected in other studies (e.g. Dias and Belcher 2015) and is likely explained by popular media coverage of these issues (e.g. extreme weather events and the role of coastal wetlands; urban wetlands for filtering storm water).

Despite a lack of wetland knowledge, participants had considerable interest in learning more about wetland attributes. More than 20% of participants were even interested in the less charismatic insects, spiders, algae and fungi (Table 4). This finding suggests a receptive audience for outreach and engagement activities that focus on these life forms. There was also considerable interest in learning more about the broad spectrum of wetland ecosystem services, especially about water quality, coastal protection, carbon sink and cultural services (Tables 3, 4). Participants were particularly interested in cultural interpretation of wetlands, a service that is now increasingly being recognised as important (e.g. Yorta Yorta Traditional Owner Land Management Board 2020) and sought after by visitors to our study area. These findings reiterate the need for ongoing education on the ecosystem services provided by wetlands, including their cultural services (Clarke et al. 2021), starting at the school level, and more broadly across the community (Finlayson et al. 2013; Ibrahim et al. 2012; Goals 6 and 8, Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2015, pp. 8–9).

The high level of interest we found in trail walking, photography, camping and cultural interpretation contrasted with a considerable lack of interest in duck hunting (Fig. 3a). Duck hunting at Moulting Lagoon has a long history of controversy, leading to the area being designated as a ‘game reserve’ in 1988 (Parks and Wildlife Service 2007). Duck hunting season runs from March until early June each year in Tasmania and is met with regular protests from animal welfare groups and activists (Drummond 2017; Zhou 2019). Supporters of duck hunting often argue that it is a tradition that dates to early European settlement, and the Moulting Lagoon Management Plan even suggested that any actions restricting hunting must be ‘carefully considered and implemented in consultation with the [local] residents’ (Parks and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 19). Our study found that most of the respondents are not interested in or are hostile to duck hunting (Fig. 3a). Considering this finding, the current designation of the Lagoon as a game reserve may indeed signify a limited and narrow use for the area, thereby restricting its potential to attract a broader range of visitors. In practical terms, promoting the preferred trail walking and photography activities during the duck hunting season is obviously undesirable for safety reasons.

The Ramsar Conference of the Parties has acknowledged in their 2012 resolution that, in addition to recognising the opportunities for sustainable tourism in Ramsar wetlands, without appropriate regulations and infrastructure, tourism in wetlands sites could have detrimental effects (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2012). The need to balance sustainable tourism in wetland areas with ecological conservation has been considered for several wetlands (e.g. Kairu 2001; Khoshkam et al. 2014). In this context, the preference of our participants for non-extractive and non-commodified recreational activities over extractive uses such as fishing, duck hunting and commodified activities such as boat cruises and guided tours (Fig. 3a) has relevance. There is a potential for creating place-based opportunities for connecting with nature in wetlands, by shooting with cameras rather than guns (Crusz 1973) and by not having to pay for ‘adventures’ (Cloke and Perkins 2002). The strong preference for trail walking was also evident in our participants rating walking tracks and viewing platforms as being the two most important on-site facilities (Fig. 3b). Walking trails and viewing platforms not only provide visitors with access to wetland sites (Bacon 1987), but they can also guarantee the security of visitors, as well as ensure ecological protection (Lu et al. 2009). In this context, the Association of State Wetland Managers from the US has suggested that physical threats to wetlands from ecotourism can be minimised because tourists ‘rarely venture into wetlands except on trails or boardwalks due to dense vegetation, surface water, deep organic soils, and a fear of snakes and other animals’ (Kusler 2006, p. 3). This infrastructure can also be effectively combined with basic services related to visitors’ interests, such as information panels and guidance for photography (Pan et al. 2010).

The high demand of participants for information panels and an information centre (Fig. 3b) further demonstrates a desire to learn more about wetlands. In particular, visitors who did not know much about wetlands had a higher level of demand for on-site facilities, such as information centre, vehicle tracks, water refill stations and rubbish bins (Table 3), highlighting the importance of a visitor centre for engaging this demographic. The lower desire for the construction of on-site facilities from people who know more about wetlands may be due to their desire to keep Moulting Lagoon and other wetlands in their natural state (Zhang and Lei 2012). Comments left by participants in the survey included:

Ensure that biodiversity is relatively unaffected by tourist interaction.

All ability to visit must be of low impact on the wetland.

Though I have selected ‘tracks’ etc., they should also be minimal to confine disturbance.

With these concerns expressed by many of our survey participants, further impact assessment studies are required to balance the need to expand wetland CEPA activities and on-site facilities with consideration of ecological and social values.

Reid et al. (2008) found that people often lack awareness of recreational opportunities that protected areas can offer due to difficulties in navigating parks information systems. We have shown that our participants were very interested in visiting wetlands, but a lack of easy access to information is preventing people from even knowing that there is a destination there in the first place. The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service provides a brief summary of the lagoon and the management plan on their official website, but no photographs are provided of the site (Parks and Wildlife Service 2008). The website provides a bird checklist for birdwatchers but does not offer detailed information for other recreational activities. Even the newly renovated and highly popular visitor centre for Freycinet NP lacks information relating to Moulting Lagoon. More generally, other popular tourist websites mention the lagoon and its bird watching potential briefly (Discover Tasmania 2021), but no detailed information is provided about how to access the site. In effect, the recreational and environmental values of this Ramsar site are largely unknown to people other than small groups of hunters, fishers and birdwatchers (Prahalad 2017).

In an effort to bridge this information gap, we have quantified the preferred information (or orientation) sources regarding recreational opportunities and knowledge of wetlands (Fig. 4). The overwhelming preference for web-based communication reaffirms previous findings. The effectiveness of Internet- and social media-focused marketing strategies for ecotourism has been well researched in the past (Lai and Shafer 2005; Luo et al. 2005; Donohoe and Needham 2008; Reid et al. 2008; Sangpikul 2010; Cheng et al. 2017). For example, Luo et al. (2005) and Sangpikul (2010) found that the Internet is a major travel planning and marketing tool. Reid et al. (2008) found official protected area websites, brochures and Internet advertising to be the most popular and effective communication tools. However, Weaver and Lawton (2011), in their study of source of visitors awareness of a low-profile forest, found that word of mouth, brochures and highway signs were more useful than the Internet, indicating the importance of a range of information sources.

Brochures were also popular among our participants. Currently there are no accessible printed brochures to inform visitors about Moulting Lagoon and its recreational opportunities, such as bird watching and camping. One recent brochure designed by the local Glamorgan Spring Bay Council is not well circulated and is unavailable from the Freycinet Visitor Centre. This brochure provides information on birds and plants found in Moulting Lagoon, and briefly talks about the Ramsar Convention and the Aboriginal heritage values of the Lagoon (Glamorgan Spring Bay Council 2016). Given that brochures have been both widely recommended for increasing orientation towards wetlands (Dunmire 1994; Polajnar 2008), are inexpensive to produce and are popular among our participants, they could be made more available and accessible to visitors to Tasmania and Freycinet NP and be distributed in popular tourist destinations, such as visitor centres, as well as in entry points, such as airports (e.g. Magical Places – 40 Wetlands to Visit in New Zealand brochure, Department of Conservation (New Zealand Government) 2012).

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands has been striving to increase the public profile of wetlands and their conservation for 50 years now. Yet, as we have documented in this paper, there remains a large implementation gap in realising the CEPA objectives, as illustrated by the case of Moulting Lagoon Ramsar site. Ongoing efforts to conserve wetlands require both opportunities to have place-based experiences in these environments and effective communication of these opportunities. The fact that there is very little sociodemographic variation in preferences for on-site activities, infrastructure and communication mode is of interest both to the Tasmanian stakeholders and their global counterparts, as is the nature of the few differences. Visitors’ strong preferences for treading lightly, their interest in learning more about wetlands, including the invertebrates and cryptograms, and their interest in Aboriginal cultural interpretation all point to rich and diverse opportunities to provide place-based experiences in these under-recognised ecosystems. In addition, the low costs associated with the preferred communication media of Internet and brochures indicate the likely ease with which the necessary orientation towards wetlands can be achieved.

Conception, design and framing of the study: V. Prahalad, X. Wang, J. B. Kirkpatrick; acquisition of approvals: X. Wang, V. Prahalad; data collection: X. Wang; data curation, analysis, visualisation and interpretation: X. Wang, J. B. Kirkpatrick, V. Prahalad; Writing, first draft: X. Wang; writing, revisions: V. Prahalad, J. B. Kirkpatrick; project supervision: V. Prahalad; approval of the final version of the manuscript: X. Wang, V. Prahalad, J. B. Kirkpatrick.

Data can be made available upon request.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

This research did not receive any specific funding.