There are even more words in English to describe such areas - Swamp, Marsh, Bog - and, yes "Wetland" itself. Many will be used interchangeably in ordinary conversation but "Swamp" generally implies trees, deeper water (at least when it is present - a place may be a "swamp" sometimes but not at others) and warmer areas (but not always - I see the word used in relation to some of Finland's wetland areas) whereas "Marsh" implies grasses/reeds and possibly less deep (and possibly more permanent?) water. Generally though it might be expected that to be easier to walk "across a marsh" than "through a swamp" (note the difference in preposition!). A "Bog" is a type of "Marsh" but with the emphasis placed on the soil with its accumulated decaying vegetation - which may be present in a "marsh" but isn't implied by use of the word. I suspect that many WHS to which we might assign such a connections include both "Swampy" and "Marshy" areas. "Mangroves" (for which we also have a Connection!) can be in "Swamps" or "Forests" - but never in "Marshes". But, when they said to be in "forests", the emphasis is being placed on them as plants rather than on the type of land they are situated in (always "Wet", often "tidal" or "brackish"?)

"Wetlands" of course could include Swamps and Marshes but, where "tidal" (e.g Wadden Sea) can include areas which are totally submerged to which neither "Swamp" or "Marsh" would be applied. The Wadden Sea certainly includes "Marshlands" however - albeit that they are all going to be "Salt Marshes"! If you are going to extend the "Swamps" connection to include "Marshes" are you going to include Salt Marshes....?

I suspect we haven't been totally rigorous in our assignments even using the current wording of the connection . e.g I note also that currently we don't have the Laponian Area connected under "swamp" but it certainly has "marshes" (as I suspect do many "forests" especially those of "Taiga" type) and this this Natura 200 Web site says of the Laponian Area "Pristine pine and fir forests cover approximately 1 000 km2 of the Laponian area, and a variety of swamp types cover another 1 000 km2. These swamps make up the largest untouched mire complex in western Europe." (my bold). But how much "marsh" "swamp" or "bog....etc does a site have to possess to be connected to Marsh/Swamp a significant amount or just a couple of hectares. I would suggest that we limit such connections to sites where the word appears in the Nomination File and/or AB evaluation?

In Dutch, these all are covered by just 1 word - "moeras". The Wadden Sea doesn't become a moeras at tidal changes, it's a "drasland" (= wetland). The difference is explained as "A wetland differs from a swamp, which usually only involves extremely swampy ground, while a wetland can be an alternation of dry and wet."


This reflects the idea I had about the sites in this connection: they contain areas where it would be hard to walk through all the time.

Maybe we could limit the connection to swamps and marshes that contain vegetation and are never dry, and explain the differences in the explanations of the connected sites. But Jurre has opened a can of worms by bringing up this subject....
Everglades for example is already tricky: https://www.forest-monitor.com/en/everglades-is-not-swamp/

English also has "Morass" and "Mire" and "Moor"...... but i avoided going there!!

I was asking because I was reading the Nomination file for Getbol, and the tidal flats have salt marshes, but I was hesitant if they would fit under the "Swamp" connection, because the salt marshes have no tree vegation.


That would be a solution that brings some clarity, but it doesn't resolve my Getbol question if the salt marshes also could fit under the Swamp connection, which is why I asked the question in the first place.

We have "Peat" as a Connection too - I see that High Coast is there with this quote "lakes evolve from bays and develop into marshes and peat fens ". So if not a "Swamp" would also be a "Marsh".

The same as my Wadden Sea "question" above

If we make the connection "Swamp and Marsh" (or vv) that alone will add a fair number of sites even if we didn't include Salt Marshes,
I would suggest that, pro tem, we include ALL marshes (both fresh and salt) and see what we get. It follows the logic for "Swamp" where we are not differentiating between fresh or salt swamp. A look at Peat and Mangroves might also provide a few extra for "Swamp and Marsh".

Depending on what we get in a few months - how many and with what duplication and overlap we can decide if some other subdivision is worthwhile?

The definition should make it clear what "words" are "acceptable"/"relevant" under this Connection and ask that the quote provided describes the type of Marsh, Mire, Fen, Swamp, Saltmarsh etc etc

Indeed, salt marshes are marshes, but do "marshes" also fall under swamps or not? The Swamp connection does include marsh areas. So that's the main question.

It doesn't help that different languages have more or fewer words for these wetland types and that the translations are not always a pure one-on-one equivalent.

I will try to include swamps & marshes + a text fragment from the AB ev. Give me a day or so.

My original question had to do with this remark. It wasn't 100% clear to me what the defining characteristic of the Swamp connection was, as it also includes areas which are more marshlike by definition. Also the definition I found about the tree vegetation was not the one I read in the introduction of the Swamp connection.

So the intent of my question was to come to a more correct categorisation: by being more rigorous (by applying a stricter definition) or broader (by including marshes).

As I said, it came from my reading of the Getbol Nom file, where salt marshes are mentioned. But these salt marshes, as those in the Wadden Sea, are definitely not Swamps, yet I was left wondering if they would fall under the category since other marshlike habitats had already been included (e.g. Everglades or Colchic Rainforest).


For clarity, I would include this condition: the word "swamp" or "marsh" (or related words like "bog" or "mire") need to be mentioned in the official description (OUV) or the AB Evaluation. Do we also include the Nomination file?


I would also include the salt marshes, as we do not differentiate between freshwater and salt water swamps either.


I'm sorry to have been that person. :-D

But I wanted some more clarity for myself, especially since I'm not an expert on the matter. That's why I think the mention of the words in the official description or the AB Ev might be a good way to determine which WHS fall under this category.

In any case, it brought about an interesting conversation. :-)

I've altered the connection a bit: https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Swamps+and+Marshes

The occurrence of one of these terms in the AB ev is not so frequent. I am hesitant to use the nom files as well though, as only the newer sites have them and not everything in there is substantiated.

Ahwar of Southern Iraq
-> much of the marshland around the ancient cities is now dried up, but still enough left for natural criteria and "marsh" in the OUV

Colchic Rainforests and Wetlands
- > Seems to be mainly peat bogs. "Swamp" occurs once in the AB ev, but only in a general sense. Propose to remove

Everglades
-> Both freshwater and saltwater marshes

Okavango Delta
-> "permanent swamps"

Pantanal
-> Not so strong, no permanent swamps?

Sundarbans National Park
-> Not in AB ev. It is mainly mangrove in inter-tidal zones

The Sundarbans
-> Here it is named, though also not prominently

Laponian Area
-> added, "a variety of swamp types"

Via a search at the UNESCO website, I see a lot more candidates: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/?search=swamp&order=country
Will look into them.

Don't know, it is labeled as the largest wetland area in the world and the name itself means "morass" 😬
Interesting, the Po delta is also in this list. It is a wetland indeed, even if I would not have been so sure as to call it swamp, hmmm

the swamps have been drained here to make the area suitable for agriculture and towns

Is this just for natural sites, as there are a fair few cultural sites that would take some OUV from being built on/over marshes.

Venice, Amsterdam, St Petersburg (Pile Dwellings?) spring to mind there will be many more though. In the case of Venice I assume would still be part of the OUV as the whole lagoon is included.

the swamp should be still there, in my opinion