River rehabilitation: preference factors and public participation implications

Garcia, Xavier; Benages-Albert, Marta; Buchecker, Matthias; Vall-Casas, Pere

doi:10.1080/09640568.2019.1680353

Cited by 20 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our assumption that personal FLOOD EXPERIENCE leads to a rejection of high amounts of LW was confirmed by our analysis. This finding is supported by a review of Garcia et al (2019) documenting that flood experience can influence the acceptance of river restorations. However, a Spanish study detected only small differences among residential populations in regions that were either recently affected by flooding or that were spared.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

“…Of course, the transferability of our results to river landscapes in hilly or mountainous areas or diverging‐sized rivers is limited by our focus on medium‐sized lowland rivers. The comparison of different river types must consider several parameters such as different landscape characteristics, human characteristics, and preferences, as well as the interactions between these parameters (Garcia et al, 2019). For instance, Zhao, Luo, Wang, and Cai (2012) found a high degree of correlation regarding preferred landscape characteristics in 23 different riverine landscapes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…UR was implemented in the CE as a text attribute. Both LU and UR are considered to be highly relevant for the evaluation of river restorations (Garcia et al, 2019) and the recreational quality of rivers (Posthumus et al, 2010). To avoid direct and sometimes offensive questions on willingness to pay (WTP), we defined the cost attribute (CO) as a change in property tax (Cerda et al, 2012).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The success of these initiatives depends on the acceptance of restoration measures among the residents and stakeholders. To achieve acceptance, enabling stakeholder's participation and considering their preferences for landscape development are vital (Garcia, Benages‐Albert, Buchecker, & Vall‐Casas, 2019; Hernández‐Morcillo, Plieninger, & Bieling, 2013). It is well documented that people prefer watercourses that they consider to be natural (Junker & Buchecker, 2008; Mutz et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is well documented that people prefer watercourses that they consider to be natural (Junker & Buchecker, 2008; Mutz et al, 2006). Additionally, Garcia et al (2019) summarize that people prefer river landscapes that exhibit care and cleanliness, create a feeling of safety, and satisfy human needs such as the demand for outdoor recreation. Moreover, they documented that biophysical properties such as river structure and biodiversity affect these preferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Why people like or dislike large wood in rivers—a representative survey of the general public in Germany

Gapinski

Hermes

Haaren

2020

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the restoration of medium and small rivers, the reintroduction of large wood (LW) is crucial. Despite the wide communication of the ecological key functions of LW, residents rejected its reintroduction in a restoration project at the river Mulde (Dessau‐Roßlau, Germany). To determine whether this is a local or widespread phenomenon in Germany, we investigated (a) the German population's attitude toward LW, (b) preferred quantities of LW introduction, and (c) the effects of flood experiences and other sociodemographic characteristics on these preferences. We conducted a nationwide and representative online survey (n = 2,100), including rating‐scale statements and a choice experiment (CE). Regarding the rating statements, we found that a majority of respondents (57–67%) is convinced of the advantages of LW reintroduction. However, 47–60% considered LW to be dangerous for canoeists or during floods. For the CE (n = 743), we defined an LW attribute and added information on possible effects. Conditional logit models showed a strong preference for the highest amount of LW, with an odds ratio 5.47 times higher than for the status quo without LW. We also found that personal flood experiences reduce the preferred LW quantities. In contrast, females, higher educational levels, the youngest and oldest age groups, and especially frequent river visitors preferred higher LW amounts. Since the commitment of young people to environmental issues is currently increasing, we believe that specific environmental education opportunities for this group located along the river can contribute significantly to increase acceptance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Why people like or dislike large wood in rivers—a representative survey of the general public in Germany

Gapinski

Hermes

Haaren

2020

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Working with wood in rivers in the Western United States

Ockelford,

Wohl,

Ruiz‐Villanueva

et al. 2024

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition of the important physical and ecological roles played by large wood in channels and on floodplains has grown substantially during recent decades. Although large wood continues to be routinely removed from many river corridors worldwide, the practice of wood reintroduction has spread across the United States, the United Kingdom and western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. The state‐of‐science regarding working with wood in rivers was discussed during a workshop held in Colorado, USA, in September 2022 with 40 participants who are scientists and practitioners from across the USA, UK, Europe, and Japan. The objectives of this paper are to present the findings from the workshop; summarize two case studies of wood in river restoration in the western United States; and provide suggestions for advancing the practice of wood in river management. We summarize the workshop results based on participant judgements and recommendations with respect to: (i) limitations and key barriers to using wood, which reflect perceptions and practicalities; (ii) gaps in the use of large wood in river management; (iii) scenarios in which wood is generally used effectively; and (iv) scenarios in which wood is generally not used effectively. The case studies illustrate the importance of the local geomorphic context, the configuration complexity of the wood, and the potential for modification of river corridor morphology to enhance desired benefits. Moving forward, we stress the importance of collaboration across disciplines and across communities of research scientists, practitioners, regulators, and potential stakeholders; accounting for stakeholder perceptions of the use of large wood; and increasing non‐scientist access to the latest state‐of‐science knowledge.

show abstract

The Smart Rivers approach: Spatial quality in flood protection and floodplain restoration projects based on river DNA

Peters¹,

Buuren

Herik³

et al. 2021

WIREs Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many river rehabilitation projects have been implemented in the past 30 years, strengthening the natural dynamics and ecology of river systems, while reconciling the functions of flood protection, navigation, sediment extraction, and cultural identity. Still, the planning and design of floodplain projects is subject to debate on how to best follow the “natural” characteristics of specific river stretches, the “DNA of the river.” Unlike many other approaches of integrated river management, this approach entails a design strategy for spatial quality in river floodplain development projects at local and regional level, where the current discharge characteristics of the upstream river basin are taken as given. Starting point is the landscape ecological basis of the river, defining the characteristic (hydro‐morphological) processes and geomorphological/geological structures in each stretch of the river and floodplain area. An in‐depth characterization of these structures and processes helps design floodplains that can accommodate the various river management and development objectives. Often economically strong functions, like flood protection, can be partnered with weaker ones, such as ecosystem restoration. To safeguard spatial quality and sustainability in these integrated projects, the governance aspect is essential. Therefore the Smart Rivers approach addresses both substantial aspects (the “DNA of the River”) as well as procedural and governance elements (called the “Quality Relay”). The principles of the approach are applicable to project design along regulated rivers in densely populated areas all over the world. This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness

show abstract

River rehabilitation: preference factors and public participation implications

Cited by 20 publications

References 79 publications

Why people like or dislike large wood in rivers—a representative survey of the general public in Germany

Why people like or dislike large wood in rivers—a representative survey of the general public in Germany

Working with wood in rivers in the Western United States

The Smart Rivers approach: Spatial quality in flood protection and floodplain restoration projects based on river DNA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About