Science plays a large role when dealing with facts, values and beliefs. Milbrath (1989) emphasized that the scientific method has become the honored way to observe and come to know facts. Facts are not absolutes; they are beliefs that we hold more or less strongly. Beliefs also relate to values in that we tend to believe things that we value and disbelieve things that we do not value. The scientific method facilitates agreement about physically based facts; therefore it is easier to agree about facts than to agree about values.

Within the context of wetlands it should be noted that structure and functions are fact based but values and management are value based. Further, if science attempts to be value free it will serve the values of those who rule the establishment

Minnesota’s Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 chose to amend the often used phrase of “no net loss” to “no net loss of values”. In doing so we were led to examine the whole concept of values. Further, within the act and rules the phrase “at least equal public value” is often used. The question inherent here is who determines “public value” and what is it? This act put increased pressure on defining wetland values (the process of defining them) and set the stage for the work that follows and is reported herein.

What determines our perception of wetlands is controlled by different paradigms that are partially determined by the media. Are the various written media sources presenting one or multiple paradigms when it comes to wetland values? (Are we what we read and read what we are?) Are the public perceptions of values the same or different from academic, state agency and county technical personnel and what is the level of homogeneity between each of these categories to each other?

Obviously the above questions present a huge challenge that cannot be answered or understood by a few studies. It requires a joint effort of wetland scientists, public policy-management experts and media-communication people. Utilizing students in my wetlands classes from 1990 thru 1999, I have attempted to take an initial look at the above challenge. In order to accomplish this goal the following tasks were conducted.

The first chapter will present a model of the context of wetland values and the role of perception. The second chapter will look at the results of our perception in the written media paradigm study and the third will present the results of the perception-values surveys.

The context of values in wetland policy continues to be an issue in the 21st century. Values must be defined, understood and supported by perception before proper and broadly accepted regulations can be implemented to manage wetland ecosystems. Incorporating perceptions into wetland policy is difficult because of the diversity of wetland values and because human perceptions are scale related. There are many wetland values, however a single wetland does not hold all of them. The values are often in the eye of the beholder (perception) that can differ from person to person and area to area. Further, as wetland science expands our knowledge of structure and function our perceptions and values will also change.

The purpose of the above is to address the extremely complex issue of wetland perception-values in South Central Minnesota. Like it or not, Pandora’s Box has been opened with the Federal, Status and Trends component of the National Wetlands inventory and the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act, both of which emphasize and require values assigned to different wetland types.