CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 199Hydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesEnvironmental and Sediment ControlFish Ecology and Management Studies

How is success or failure in river restoration projects evaluated? Feedback from French restoration projects

Morandi, Bertrand, Piégay, Hervé, Lamouroux, Nicolas, Vaudor, Lise·2014·Journal of Environmental Management
DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Since the 1990s, French operational managers and scientists have been involved in the environmental restoration of rivers. The European Water Framework Directive (2000) highlights the need for feedback from restoration projects and for evidence-based evaluation of success. Based on 44 French pilot projects that included such an evaluation, the present study includes: 1) an introduction to restoration projects based on their general characteristics 2) a description of evaluation strategies and authorities in charge of their implementation, and 3) a focus on the evaluation of results and the links between these results and evaluation strategies. The results show that: 1) the quality of an evaluation strategy often remains too poor to understand well the link between a restoration project and ecological changes; 2) in many cases, the conclusions drawn are contradictory, making it difficult to determine the success or failure of a restoration project; and 3) the projects with the poorest evaluation strategies generally have the most positive conclusions about the effects of restoration. Recommendations are that evaluation strategies should be designed early in the project planning process and be based on clearly-defined objectives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.010

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studying the effects of actions is necessary but it is important to also build understanding about systems' processes, socioeconomic dimensions, and context that influences the system.

    “Studying the effects of actions is necessary but it is important to also build understanding about systems' processes (e.g. Cundill and Fabricius, 2009), socioeconomic dimensions (e.g. Chapman, 2014), and context that influences the system (Morandi et al., 2014)”

    From Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? (2019) · cites this paper as Morandi et al., 2014

  • Despite long-term investments in restoring aquatic ecosystems, it has proven difficult to adequately synthesize and evaluate program outcomes, and no standard method has been adopted.

    “Despite long-term investments in restoring aquatic ecosystems, it has proven difficult to adequately synthesize and evaluate program outcomes, and no standard method has been adopted.”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Morandi et al. 2014

  • The difference between a control and restoration site may be so great that a control-impact design may not reveal information consequential for the restoration trajectory, so incorporation of absolute reference sites in the monitoring design makes scientific evaluation possible.

    “Designs should consider that the difference between a control and restoration site may be so great that a control-impact design may not reveal information that is consequential for the restoration trajectory, so the incorporation of absolute reference sites in the monitoring design makes scientific evaluation possible (Morandi et al. 2014).”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Morandi et al. 2014

  • River restoration and the management of endangered species and ecosystems have been criticized for insufficient monitoring, a lack of standardized approaches for evaluation, and complicated adaptive management plans the requirements of which are rarely fulfilled.

    “River restoration and the management of endangered species and ecosystems have been criticized for insufficient monitoring, a lack of standardized approaches for evaluation, and complicated adaptive management plans the requirements of which are rarely fulfilled (Stankey et al. 2003, Jähnig et al. 2011, Morandi et al. 2014).”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Morandi et al. 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Morandi, B., Piégay, H., Lamouroux, N., & Vaudor, L.
Affiliations
  • École Normale Supérieure de Lyon (FR)
  • Institut National de Recherche en Sciences et Technologies pour l'Environnement et l'Agriculture (FR)
Corresponding author
Morandi, Bertrand
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Environmental Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
137
Pages
178-188
ISSN
0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.010
OpenAlex
W2024759396
Cited by
197
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 3
FWCI
14.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Cemadoc (Cemagref / IRSTEA) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-LABX-0010)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Sediment Control
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
Keywords
river restoration, restoration project evaluation, assessment methods, Water Framework Directive, ecological outcomes, project planning
MeSH terms
Evaluation Studies as Topic, France, Pilot Projects, Rivers, Environmental Restoration and Remediation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review