River rehabilitation: preference factors and public participation implications

References

• Åberg, E. U., and S. Tapsell. 2013. “Revisiting the River Skerne: The Long-Term Social Benefits of River Rehabilitation.” Landscape and Urban Planning 113: 94–103. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2008. “Adaptive Co-Management and the Paradox of Learning.” Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 86–98. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asakawa, S., K. Yoshida, and K. Yabe. 2004. “Perceptions of Urban Stream Corridors within the Greenway System of Sapporo, Japan.” Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2–3): 167–182. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00158-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barak, B., and D. Katz. 2015. “Valuing Instream and Riparian Aspects of Stream Restoration: A Willingness to Tax Approach.” Land Use Policy 45: 204–212. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbier, E. B., S. Baumgärtner, K. Chopra, C. Costello, A. Duraiappah, R. Hassan, and A. P. Kinzig. 2009. “The Valuation of Ecosystem Services: Chapter 18.” In Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective, edited by S. Naeem, D. Bunker, A. Hector, M. Loreau, and C. Perrings, 248–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, N., J. Helgeson, and D. Katz. 2014. “Once There Was a River: A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Rehabilitation of the Jordan River.” Regional Environmental Change 14 (4): 1303–1314. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0578-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benages-Albert, M., A. Di Masso, S. Porcel, E. Pol, and P. Vall-Casas. 2015. “Revisiting the Appropriation of Space in Metropolitan River Corridors.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 42: 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bright, A. D., S. C. Barro, and R. T. Burtz. 2002. “Public Attitudes Toward Ecological Restoration in the Chicago Metropolitan Region.” Society and Natural Resources 15 (9): 763–785. doi:10.1080/08941920290069344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, B., D. D. Perkins, and G. Brown. 2003. “Place Attachment in a Revitalizing Neighborhood: Individual and Block Levels of Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (3): 259–271. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00117-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T. C., and T. C. Daniel. 1991. “Landscape Aesthetics of Riparian Environments: Relationship of Flow Quantity to Scenic Quality along a Wild and Scenic River.” Water Resources Research 27 (8): 1787–1795. doi:10.1029/91WR00975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchecker, M., S. Menzel, and R. Home. 2013. “How Much Does Participatory Flood Management Contribute to Stakeholders’ Social Capacity Building? Empirical Findings Based on a Triangulation of Three Evaluation Approaches.” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 13 (6): 1427–1444. doi:10.5194/nhess-13-1427-2013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchecker, M., D. M. Ogasa, and E. Maidl. 2016. “How Well Do the Wider Public Accept Integrated Flood Risk Management? An Empirical Study in Two Swiss Alpine Valleys.” Environmental Science and Policy 55: 309–317. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buijs, A. E. 2009. “Public Support for River Restoration. A Mixed-Method Study into Local Residents’ Support for and Framing of River Management and Ecological Restoration in the Dutch Floodplains.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (8): 2680–2689. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.02.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canter, L. W., D. Nelson, and J. Everett. 1992. “Public Perception of Water Quality Risks: Influencing Factors and Enhancement Opportunities.” Journal of Environmental Systems 22 (2): 163–163. doi:10.2190/93D9-JF0N-EEF8-W4PW.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casado-Arzuaga, I., I. Madariaga, and M. Onaindia. 2013. “Perception, Demand and User Contribution to Ecosystem Services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt.” Journal of Environmental Management 129: 33–43. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chawla, L. 1992. “Childhood Place Attachments.” In Place Attachment, edited by I. Altman and S. Low, 63–86. New York: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Clewell, A. F., and J. Aronson. 2006. “Motivations for the Restoration of Ecosystems.” Conservation Biology 20 (2): 420–428. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00340.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cockerill, K., and W. P. Anderson. 2014. “Creating False Images: Stream Restoration in an Urban Setting.” JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 50 (2): 468–482. doi:10.1111/jawr.12131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connelly, N. A., B. A. Knuth, and D. L. Kay. 2002. “Public Support for Ecosystem Restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA.” Environmental Management 29 (4): 467–476. doi:10.1007/s00267-001-0033-Z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cottet, M., H. Piégay, and G. Bornette. 2013. “Does Human Perception of Wetland Aesthetics and Healthiness Relate to Ecological Functioning?” Journal of Environmental Management 128: 1012–1022. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden, S., and S. Tunstall. 2006. “Ecological Versus Social Restoration? How Urban River Restoration Challenges but Also Fails to Challenge the Science-Policy Nexus in the United Kingdom.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24 (5): 661–680. doi:10.1068/c0608j.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everard, M., and H.L. Moggridge. 2012. “Rediscovering the Value of Urban Rivers.” Urban Ecosystems 15 (2): 293–314. doi:10.1007/s11252-011-0174-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Findlay, S.J., and M.P. Taylor. 2006. “Why Rehabilitate Urban River Systems?” Area 38 (3): 312–325. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00696.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, X., and D. Pargament. 2015. “Rehabilitating Rivers and Enhancing Ecosystem Services in a Water-Scarcity Context: The Yarqon River.” International Journal of Water Resources Development 31 (1): 73–87. doi:10.1080/07900627.2014.911147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasteyer, S., and C.B. Flora. 2000. “Measuring Ppm with Tennis Shoes: Science and Locally Meaningful Indicators of Environmental Quality.” Society and Natural Resources 13 (6): 589–597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gobster, P. H., J. I. Nassauer, T. C. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. “The Shared Landscape: What Does Aesthetics Have to Do with Ecology?” Landscape Ecology 22 (7): 959–972. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gobster, P. H. 1994. “The Urban Savanna Reuniting Ecological Preference and Function.” Ecological Restoration 12 (1): 64–71. doi:10.3368/er.12.1.64.
   Google Scholar
• Gobster, P. H., and L. M. Westphal. 2004. “The Human Dimensions of Urban Greenways: Planning for Recreation and Related Experiences.” Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2–3): 147–165. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00162-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grêt-Regamey, A., B. Weibel, D. Vollmer, P. Burlando, and C. Girot. 2016. “River Rehabilitation as an Opportunity for Ecological Landscape Design.” Sustainable Cities and Society 20: 142–146. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot, M., and W. T. de Groot. 2009. “‘Room for River’ Measures and Public Visions in the Netherlands: A Survey on River Perceptions Among Riverside Residents.” Water Resources Research 45 (W07403).doi:10.1029/2008WR007339.
   Google Scholar
• Hands, D. E., and R. D. Brown. 2002. “Enhancing Visual Preference of Ecological Rehabilitation Sites.” Landscape and Urban Planning 58 (1): 57–70. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00240-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, T. P., J. C. Bergstrom, E. Huszar, S. B. Kask, and F. Orr. 2004. “Contingent Valuation, Net Marginal Benefits, and the Scale of Riparian Ecosystem Restoration.” Ecological Economics 49 (1): 19–30. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junker, B., and M. Buchecker. 2008. “Aesthetic Preferences Versus Ecological Objectives in River Restorations.” Landscape and Urban Planning 85 (3–4): 141–154. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junker, B., M. Buchecker, and U. Müller-Böker. 2007. “Objectives of Public Participation: Which Actors Should Be Involved in the Decision Making for River Restorations?” Water Resources Research 43 (W10438). doi:10.1029/2006WR005584.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaplan, R., and E. J. Herbert. 1987. “Cultural and Sub-Cultural Comparisons in Preferences for Natural Settings.” Landscape and Urban Planning 14: 281–293. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(87)90040-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. Ryan. 1998. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. 1983. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrich’s.
   Google Scholar
• Kenwick, R. A., M. R. Shammin, and W. C. Sullivan. 2009. “Preferences for Riparian Buffers.” Landscape and Urban Planning 91 (2): 88–96. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo, F. E., and W. C. Sullivan. 2001. “Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?” Environment and Behavior 33 (3): 343–367. doi:10.1177/00139160121973025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Lay, Y. F., H. Piégay, and A. Rivière-Honegger. 2013. “Perception of Braided River Landscapes: Implications for Public Participation and Sustainable Management.” Journal of Environmental Management 119: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundy, L., and R. Wade. 2011. “Integrating Sciences to Sustain Urban Ecosystem Services.” Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 35 (5): 653–669. doi:10.1177/0309133311422464.
   Google Scholar
• Manzo, L. C., and D. D. Perkins. 2006. “Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature 20 (4): 335–350. doi:10.1177/0885412205286160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, M. 1997. “Democratising Nature? The Political Morality of Wilderness Preservationists.” Environmental Values 6 (3): 281–306. doi:10.3197/096327197776679086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez-Paz, J., F. Pellicer-Martínez, and J. Colino. 2014. “A Probabilistic Approach for the Socioeconomic Assessment of Urban River Rehabilitation Projects.” Land Use Policy 36: 468–477. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.09.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuoka, R. H., and R. Kaplan. 2008. “People Needs in the Urban Landscape: Analysis of Landscape and Urban Planning Contributions.” Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormick, A., K. Fisher, and G. Brierley. 2015. “Quantitative Assessment of the Relationships Among Ecological, Morphological and Aesthetic Values in a River Rehabilitation Initiative.” Journal of Environmental Management 153: 60–67. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menzel, S., M. Buchecker, and T. Schulz. 2013. “Forming Social Capital: Does Participatory Planning Foster Trust in Institutions?” Journal of Environmental Management 131: 351–362. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.10.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. 1994. “Attachments to Recreation Settings: The Case of Rail-Trail Users.” Leisure Sciences 16 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1080/01490409409513214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Münch, A., S. P. P. Nielsen, V. J. Racz, and A. M. Hjalager. 2016. “Towards Multifunctionality of Rural Natural Environments? An Economic Valuation of the Extended Buffer Zones along Danish Rivers, Streams and Lakes.” Land Use Policy 50: 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muro, M., and P. Jeffrey. 2008. “A Critical Review of the Theory and Application of Social Learning in Participatory Natural Resource Management Processes.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (3): 325–344. doi:10.1080/09640560801977190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nassauer, J., and C. Faust. 1997. Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nassauer, J. I. 1995. “Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames.” Landscape Journal 14 (2): 161–170. doi:10.3368/lj.14.2.161.
   Google Scholar
• Nassauer, J. I. 2004. “Monitoring the Success of Metropolitan Wetland Restorations: Cultural Sustainability and Ecological Function.” Wetlands 24 (4): 756–765. doi:10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0756:MTSOMW.2.0.CO;2]
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özgüner, H., Ş. Eraslan and S. Yilmaz. 2012. “Public Perception of Landscape Restoration along a Degraded Urban Streamside.” Land Degradation and Development 23 (1): 24–33. doi:10.1002/ldr.1043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, P. S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, et al. 2005. “Standards for Ecologically Successful River Restoration.” Journal of Applied Ecology 42 (2): 208–217. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons, R., and T. C. Daniel. 2002. “Good Looking: In Defense of Scenic Landscape Aesthetics.” Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (1): 43–56. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00051-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahl-Wostl, C., M. Craps, A. Dewulf, E. Mostert, D. Tabara, and T. Taillieu. 2007. “Social Learning and Water Resources Management.” Ecology and Society 12 (2): 5. doi:10.5751/ES-02037-120205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pflüger, Y., A. Rackham, and S. Larned. 2010. “The Aesthetic Value of River Flows: An Assessment of Flow Preferences for Large and Small Rivers.” Landscape and Urban Planning 95 (1–2): 68–78. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickup, M., A. Sayers, R. Knopff, and K. Archer. 2004. “Social Capital and Civic Community in Alberta.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 617–645. doi:10.1017/S000842390402058X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piégay, H., K. J. Gregory, V. Bondarev, A. Chin, N. Dahlstrom, A. Elosegi, S. V. Gregory, et al. 2005. “Public Perception as a Barrier to Introducing Wood in Rivers for Restoration Purposes.” Environmental Management 36 (5): 665–674. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0092-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. L. 2005. “Exploring the Effects of Environmental Experience on Attachment to Urban Natural Areas.” Environment and Behavior 37 (1): 3–42. doi:10.1177/0013916504264147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. L. 1998. “Local Perceptions and Values for a Midwestern River Corridor.” Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (2–4): 225–237. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00089-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabaté, J., and J. M. Schuster. 2001. Designing the Llobregat Corridor. Cultural Landscape and Regional Development. Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Schaich, H. 2009. “Local Residents’ Perceptions of Floodplain Restoration Measures in Luxembourg’s Syr Valley.” Landscape and Urban Planning 93 (1): 20–30. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schauman, S., and S. Salisbury. 1998. “Restoring Nature in the City: Puget Sound Experiences.” Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (2–4): 287–295. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00093-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidl, R., and M. Stauffacher. 2013. “Evaluation of River Restoration by Local Residents.” Water Resources Research 49 (10): 7077–7087. doi:10.1002/2013WR013988.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sevenant, M., and M. Antrop. 2009. “Cognitive Attributes and Aesthetic Preferences in Assessment and Differentiation of Landscapes.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (9): 2889–2899. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soini, K., H. Vaarala, and E. Pouta. 2012. “Residents’ Sense of Place and Landscape Perceptions at the Rural-Urban Interface.” Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (1): 124–134. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spink, A., M. Hillman, K. Fryirs, G. Brierley, and K. Lloyd. 2010. “Has River Rehabilitation Begun? Social Perspectives from the Upper Hunter Catchment, New South Wales, Australia.” Geoforum 41 (3): 399–409. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinitz, C. 1990. “Toward a Sustainable Landscape with High Visual Preference and High Ecological Integrity: The Loop Road in Acadia National Park, USA.” Landscape and Urban Planning 19 (3): 213–250. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(90)90023-U.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, W. C., O. M. Anderson, and S. T. Lovell. 2004. “Agricultural Buffers at the Rural-Urban Fringe: An Examination of Approval by Farmers, Residents, and Academics in the Midwestern United States.” Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (2–3): 299–313. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, J., and A. Harden. 2008. “Methods for the Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research in Systematic Reviews.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 8 (1): 45. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Marwijk, R., B. H. Elands, J. K. Kampen, S. Terlouw, D. G. Pitt, and P. Opdam. 2012. “Public Perceptions of the Attractiveness of Restored Nature.” Restoration Ecology 20 (6): 773–780. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00813.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vining, J. 1992. “Environmental Emotions and Decisions: A Comparison of the Responses and Expectations of Forest Managers, an Environmental Group, and the Public.” Environmental Behaviour 24 (1): 3–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vining, J., E. Tyler, and B. S. Kweon. 2000. “Public Values, Opinions, and Emotions in Restoration Controversies.” In Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities, edited by P. H. Gobster and R. B. Hull, 143–161. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vollmer, D., M. F. Prescott, R. Padawangi, C. Girot, and A. Grêt-Regamey. 2015. “Understanding the Value of Urban Riparian Corridors: Considerations in Planning for Cultural Services along an Indonesian River.” Landscape and Urban Planning 138: 144–154. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vorkinn, M., and H. Riese. 2001. “Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance of Place Attachment.” Environment and Behavior 33 (2): 249–263. doi:10.1177/00139160121972972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, M. A., and P. L. Ringold. 2015. “Priority River Metrics for Residents of an Urbanized Arid Watershed.” Landscape and Urban Planning 133: 37–52. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westling, E. L., B. W. Surridge, L. Sharp, and D. N. Lerner. 2014. “Making Sense of Landscape Change: Long-Term Perceptions among Local Residents following River Restoration.” Journal of Hydrology 519: 2613–2623. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, D. R., M. E. Patterson, J. W. Roggenbuck, and A. E. Watson. 1992. “Beyond the Commodity Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place.” Leisure Sciences 14 (1): 29–46. doi:10.1080/01490409209513155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, D., T. Luo, T. Lin, Q. Qiu, and Y. Luo. 2014. “Combining Aesthetic with Ecological Values for Landscape Sustainability.” PLoS One 9 (7): e102437. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, K. 1995. “Cultural Variations in Landscape Preference: Comparisons among Chinese Sub-Groups and Western Design Experts.” Landscape and Urban Planning 32 (2): 107–126. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaugg, M. 2002. “More Space for Running Waters: Negotiating Institutional Change in the Swiss Flood Protection Regime.” GeoJournal 58 (4): 275–284. doi:10.1023/B:GEJO.0000017958.01882.77.
   Google Scholar
• Zedler, J. B., and M. K. Leach. 1998. “Managing Urban Wetlands for Multiple Use: Research, Restoration, and Recreation.” Urban Ecosystems 2 (4): 189–204.
   Google Scholar