Are all rivers equal? The role of education in attitudes towards temporary and perennial rivers

1 . Temporary rivers (TRs) are prevalent, biodiverse ecosystems yet often overlooked and underprotected. This may be because inadequate understanding of their eco system services leaves them undervalued by society. However, evidence of nega tive attitudes towards TRs is scant. 2 . We investigated the strength and extent of negative attitudes by surveying un dergraduate students from Australia, UK, and USA on their agreement (positive attitude) or disagreement (negative attitude) with statements about the ecosys tem services, moral consideration, and protection


| INTRODUC TI ON
Temporary streams and rivers are waterways that stop flowing at some point in space and time. Found on every continent, these ecosystems range from small headwater streams to large lowland rivers and stop flowing on their surface for geological, climatic, and/or human-induced reasons (Costigan et al., 2017).
A wide variety of terms for temporary rivers (TRs) has evolved, the most common relating to the duration and predictability of flow, with seasonal and intermittent referring to rivers that stop flowing predictably, and episodic and ephemeral to those that flow less predictably, for example, in response to rare local rainfall (Uys & O'Keeffe, 1997;Williams, 2006). Other terms are more local, for example, arroyo (USA), rambla (Spain), wadi (northern Africa), and winterbourne (UK), reflecting the long-standing connection between humans and rivers manifest through language (Steward, Schiller, Tockner, Marshall, & Bunn, 2012). Here, we use the term TRs, to refer collectively to all these systems, and perennial rivers (PRs) for those with continuous surface flow.
The ecological study of TRs dates from at least the early 20th century yet, despite being the most widespread type of river on Earth and an ongoing surge in interest, TRs have received less scientific attention than their perennial counterparts . Furthermore, they are becoming more prevalent in many regions in response to drying climates and growing human demand for water (Chiu, Leigh, Mazor, Cid, & Resh, 2017;Döll & Schmied, 2012;Tooth, 2000). However, TRs are among the most underprotected and poorly managed of all freshwater ecosystems (Acuña et al., 2014;Leigh et al., 2016;Marshall et al., 2018). This lack of management and protection is concerning because TRs provide habitat not only for aquatic biota, but also for terrestrial biota as their riverbeds fluctuate between wet and dry phases. Ecological research is also revealing that these ecosystems support several unique, endemic, and/or locally rare species, thereby contributing to regional biodiversity and meriting their inclusion in conservation plans (Bogan, Boersma, & Lytle, 2013;Sánchez-Fernández et al., 2008).
Underprotection and poor management of TRs may transpire because society holds these ecosystems in low esteem and as indicators of environmental degradation (Acuña, Hunter, & Ruhí, 2017), in contrast to the perceived higher value of PRs, which flow all year round (Armstrong, Stedman, Bishop, & Sullivan, 2012). Notably, Armstrong et al. (2012) found that flow permanence positively influenced the attitudes of landowners towards the streams on their properties, and their concern over water quality. In addition, understanding of the ecosystem attributes and services provided by TRs, including their biodiversity, recreational opportunities, and their aesthetic value, is limited and has only recently been addressed from scientific and management perspectives Steward, Negus, Marshall, Clifford, & Dent, 2018). Limited understanding may have hindered scientific and, by extension, public appreciation of such attributes and services, creating a negative feedback cycle wherein TRs have been understudied hence undervalued, and undervalued hence understudied. The undervaluation of TRs is often cited as the reason for their limited protection (e.g. Acuña et al., 2017;Koundouri, Boulton, Datry, & Souliotis, 2017); however, empirical evidence that TRs are underappreciated is scant (Armstrong et al., 2012). Furthermore, public concern for and attitudes towards TRs may be expected to vary by region.
Positive impressions may be more likely to occur in regions where TRs are common, such as in Mediterranean and arid climate zones (Steward et al., 2012), and undervalued in regions where such rivers are less common or less noticeable components of the landscape, such as in oceanic-temperate zones (Stubbington et al., 2018).
Here, we aimed to investigate the nature and extent of attitudes towards PRs and TRs, including the latter when they have stopped flowing, and more specifically the role that education can play in attitudes towards rivers. Our objective was to surmise what might drive positive change in attitudes, which may provide insight on strategies to improve river management. We surveyed undergraduate students in different regions of Australia, the UK, and USA, to ascertain the potential role that education can play in forming and changing attitudes, and we considered their attitudes as positive or negative evaluations of PRs and TRs, following Dietz, Fitzgerald, and Shwom (2005). We hypothesized that attitudes towards PR would be the most positive and attitudes towards TRs when not flowing the least positive. Furthermore, we hypothesized that attitudes towards TRs would improve and become more similar to those towards PRs following courses of environmental education by the participants.
Our study contributes novel empirical evidence towards attitudes towards TRs, which heretofore have generally been assumed but rarely evidenced.

| The survey, experimental design, and participant demographics
Surveys can provide a consistent way of measuring attitudes across individuals, countries, and time (before/after an intervention; for example, Lovelace & Brickman, 2013). Our surveys comprised 10 statements (Table 1)  when the river bed may be completely dry or contain isolated pools of water), except for Statements 1, 3, and 4, which were made in relation to PRs and TRs only (totalling 27 statements per survey; Table 1). All surveys contained a glossary of terms (Table 2). We did not supply further information, for example photographs, on the different river types and flow states to limit introduction of bias beyond the participants' own mental reference points, such as the appearance of rivers when not flowing, which can range from large pools of surface water to completely dry riverbeds (Table 2).
Participants were enrolled in undergraduate degrees in biology, ecology, environmental sciences, environmental management, and/ Taking water from this type of river is an environmental concern PR, TR, TRNF 6 Using this type of river for human activities is an environmental concern PR, TR, TRNF Conservation involves specific management actions and/or policies that aim to protect species, habitats, and/or ecosystems from degradation Degradation Deterioration of an environment or habitat through depletion or pollution of resources such as air, water, and soil; damage to or the destruction of ecosystems and the loss of species; a reduction in the capacity to produce ecosystem services

Ecosystem services
Benefits that humans derive from ecosystems. They include 'provisioning services' such as water and food, 'regulating services' such as water purification, soil-erosion control and nutrient cycling, and 'cultural services' including spiritual and scenic benefits

Perennial rivers
Rivers that flow all year round, every year

Recreational amenity
Something that has recreational amenity can be used, or provides opportunities, for recreation Restoration A practice that aims to assist the recovery of ecosystems from disturbance by restoring degraded biodiversity, habitats, and/ or ecosystems to a target level through specific management actions and/or policies River A natural channel in the landscape that conveys water from upstream to downstream. Rivers come in all shapes and sizes and are known by many names, e.g. streams, brooks, creeks, etc.

Temporary rivers
Rivers that stop flowing for a period of time. This means at times the river is flowing but at other times the riverbed can be dry, sometimes with pools of surface water in between sections of dry riverbed. When a temporary river starts flowing again, the riverbed becomes wet and flowing water reconnects pools. TR can remain dry (with or without pools) for days, months, or years in between times of flow, which also vary in duration TA B L E 3 Country, region, and main climate class associated with where surveys were conducted, teaching units in which participants were enrolled along with the number of surveys completed and the respective teaching-unit response rates and degree years, with participant demographics shown as percentages or geography at tertiary education institutions in Australia (one in southeast Queensland), the USA (one in California and one in Kentucky), and the UK (two in central England) and were at various stages of degree completion (Table 3). The different countries and regions within them covered a range of temporary river prevalence and climate classes (Table 3): highly prevalent and/or conspicuous TRs in arid to subtropical Australia and Mediterranean-climate California, and less prevalent or conspicuous TRs of oceanic-temperate UK and humid subtropical Kentucky, USA (Poff, 1996;Kennard et al., 2010;Stubbington, England, Wood, & Sefton, 2017). Participants were surveyed twice: once at the start of a teaching unit (i.e. a credit-bearing unit of taught content, equivalent to a 'module' in the UK, and a 'course' in Australia and the USA; Survey 1), and again at the end of the unit (Survey 2). Although the units varied in topics covered and were delivered by different instructors (Table 3; Supplementary Information S1), our broad hypothesis was that attitudes towards TRs would become more similar to those of PRs following courses of environmental education (i.e. we did not a priori stipulate the specific subjects taught or their mode of delivery). Survey 2 was not conducted at the end of the biostatistics unit in California; this unit did not have a strong environmental focus (Supplementary Information S1).
Participants enrolled in more than one unit at any of the institutions were only surveyed in one of those units. Participant demographics were characterized by an additional set of survey questions (Table 3).
All participants remained anonymous and surveys were conducted following human-research ethical standards (see Acknowledgements for details of ethical clearances).
Out of 142 surveys distributed in Survey 1, 109 were returned completed (77% response rate overall, with a teaching-unit mean of 81 ± 22% per unit; Table 3). Survey 2 had a higher response rate, with 88 of the 107 distributed surveys returned completed (82% overall, with a teaching-unit mean of 85 ± 15%; Table 3). In both cases, the response rate was higher than that considered suitable for survey inference (60%; Johnson & Wislar, 2012). Two participants surveyed in the biostatistics unit (California) and one in the river management unit (Kentucky) did not understand Statement 5 for TRNF, and one participant in the freshwater ecosystems unit (UK) did not respond to Statement 10 for TRNF.

| Data analysis
We tested whether responses to statements from Survey 1, which encompassed all eight units, differed depending on the river type to which the statements referred (PR, TR, or TRNF) using nonpara-

| Differences between PRs and TRs, units, and countries (Survey 1)
In general, there was broad agreement that TRs are valuable and deserving of protection; with most statements engendering agreement or strong agreement (i.e. response values ranging from 4-5, indicative of positive attitudes), regardless of river type, unit, or country (Figures 1 and 2). Disagreement and strong disagreement with statements were rare (15% for TRNF, 5% for TR, 3% for PR in total across all statements; Figure 2). Most of the statistically significant differences in response values between river types, when they occurred, were for Statements 7-10 (aesthetic value, biodiversity importance, ecosystem services, recreational amenity), and 7 and 10 in particular, for which there was stronger agreement with statements (

| Differences between survey rounds (Survey 1 vs 2)
Regardless of river type, agreement with all statements together was consistently more common in Survey 2 than in Survey 1 (%  Figure 2). For individual units, the greatest number of statistically significant changes in response values between surveys occurred in the West Midlands F I G U R E 1 Response values on a Likert-scale reflecting strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5) with statements 1-10 about rivers from participants surveyed at the start of a teaching unit in Australia, UK, or USA (Survey 1). Statements 1-10 are described in Table  1. Units were on topics of biostatistics (BS), community ecology (CE), ecology (E), freshwater ecosystems (FE), river ecosystems (RE), or river management (RM). Different lower-case letters indicate statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between responses to statements about perennial rivers (PR) versus temporary rivers (TR), PR versus TR specifically when not flowing (TRNF), and/or TR versus TRNF of England. Three statements engendered significant change in the river management unit (PR: statements 5 and 6, about taking water and using rivers; TR: 10, about recreational amenity) as did six statements in the river ecosystems unit (PR: 1 and 7-9, about moral obligations, aesthetic value, biodiversity importance, and ecosystem services in general; TR: 1 and 7, about moral obligations and aesthetic value). In each case, response values increased significantly from Survey 1 to Survey 2 (p < 0.05; Table S1) indicating that attitudes towards both PRs and TRs were more positive in Survey 2. However, there were no statistical differences in response values between surveys for either unit in Australia or for the ecology unit in Kentucky (p > 0.05 for each statement, whether about PRs, TRs or TRNF; Table S1).

| D ISCUSS I ON
We found that surveyed participants held positive attitudes towards both TRs and PRs. Across all surveys, agreement with statements about each of these river types was high (up to 83% and 89%, respectively), although noticeably lower for statements about TRNF (up to 64%). This suggests that the participants may value and consider TRs and PRs similarly, at least when TRs are flowing. Surveyed participants were enrolled in undergraduate degrees in biology, ecology, environmental sciences, environmental management, and/ or geography at tertiary education institutions and were thus relatively well educated; however, demographics varied between institutions, with many participants receiving their first formal education on freshwater ecosystems at the time of survey participation. The influence of environmental education, and particularly field-based education, on pro-environmental attitudes is well documented (e.g. Goldman, Assaraf, & Shaharabani, 2013;O'riordan, 1981;Volk & Cheak, 2003). Our study therefore provides evidence that environmental education can positively affect how students feel about PRs and TRs, irrespective of whether those ecosystems are covered explicitly in the material delivered. This is important because student's attitudes towards rivers may affect their future work in environmental science and management across public, private, and third sectors. Educational programmes that recognize both PRs and TRs as ecosystems that support high biodiversity and imperilled species (e.g. Bogan, Hwan, & Carlson, 2015;Wigington et al., 2006), and that deliver services from which people benefit Stubbington et al., 2018), are thus also likely to deepen understanding and further improve attitudes to better inform and positively influence the protection and management of these ecosystems (Koundouri et al., 2017). These findings support our first hypothesis that attitudes towards PRs would be more positive than those towards TRs, especially when not flowing. The most obvious deviation from this finding was for the river ecosystems unit in Australia (Survey 1), where responses to statements about PRs, TRs, and TRNF did not differ in value. A high proportion of rivers in Australia are temporary, including in the region where those surveys were conducted (Kennard et al., 2010), and the commonness of and familiarity with such systems may be why responses were no different among river types, even for non-flowing TR. The cultural importance and recreational amenity of dry TRs in many parts of Australia is well-documented (Steward et al., 2012). However, responses in the community ecology unit in Australia did depend on river type, following the general trend of most to least positive for statements on PRs to TRNF, even though the participants in this unit had similar demographics to those in the river ecosystems unit and both units were delivered in the same F I G U R E 2 Proportion of all statements with which participants strongly disagreed, disagreed, neither agreed nor disagreed (neutral), agreed or strongly agreed, on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, in Survey 1 and Survey 2 for perennial rivers (PR), temporary rivers (TR), or TR when not flowing (TRNF) geographical region (southeast Queensland). This suggests that attitudes towards PRs and TRs can differ amongst groups of individuals despite those groups having similar demographics, and that the more specific the subject of environmental education (e.g. river ecosystems as opposed to more general community ecology) the more specific the attitudes to different ecosystems may become.
Response values were often higher at the end of teaching units, supporting our second hypothesis that attitudes would improve following environmental coursework. For TRs this was particularly so in the UK. TRs are common and widespread in countries with oceanic climates, such as the UK, but are less well known and conspicuous than their counterparts in arid and Mediterranean-climate regions (Snelder et al., 2013;Steward et al., 2012;Stubbington et al., 2018Stubbington et al., ,2017. This highlights the importance of providing opportunities to visit such systems and to learn about the environment and ecology, in general and specifically in relation to TRs, particularly in regions where they are scarce, cryptic, and/or projected to increase in prevalence due to climate change and/or increasing freshwater demands (Döll & Schmied, 2012;Stubbington et al., 2017 Differences in attitudes towards PRs and TRs and the perceived benefits of these systems to society are understandable given the relatively limited public discourse on TRs. As more rivers transition from perennial to temporary, we may see a natural increase in their valuation as they become more conspicuous, common, or familiar components of the landscape. However, the opposite may also be true. We suspect that TRs may be viewed as signs of environmental degradation (e.g. a river once perennial, which through misuse has stopped flowing) instead of natural features of the landscape.
The awareness of TRs, their origins and ecological significance can be increased not only through public education programs but also through media outlets. This could include production of high-profile scientific outputs (e.g. editorials and perspectives such as Creed et al., 2017;Marshall et al., 2018) and/or the use of social media to improve communication between scientists, the public, management agencies, and decision makers (Bik & Goldstein, 2013).
Our study provides new insight on attitudes towards TRs and the role that education can play in changing attitudes. By necessity, we

CO N FLI C T O F I NTE R E S T
Nothing to declare.

ACK N OWLED G EM ENTS
Human research ethics approvals were granted to each author to conduct the surveys described herein, to share data with each other archiving and distribution of the raw data are prohibited. We thank our colleagues who provided us with the opportunity to distribute surveys at the start and end of units.

AUTH O R S ' CO NTR I B UTI O N S
C.L. conceived the original idea and design, which was developed and implemented by all authors. All authors collected the data and C.L. conducted the data analysis. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.