Cited by 203Hydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFish Ecology and Management StudiesFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology

River restoration success: a question of perception

Jähnig, S. C., Lorenz, A. W., Hering, D., Antons, C., Sundermann, A., Jedicke, E., Haase, P.·2011·Ecological Applications

Abstract

What defines success and failure of river restoration measures is a strongly debated topic in restoration science, but standardized approaches to evaluate either are still not available. The debate is usually centered on measurable parameters, which adhere to scientific objectivity. More subjective aspects, such as landscape aesthetics or recreational value, are usually left out, although they play an important role in the perception and communication of restoration success. In this paper, we show that different perceptions of restoration success exist by analyzing data from 26 river restoration measures in Germany. We addressed both objective parameters, such as hydromorphological changes and changes in fish and benthic invertebrate assemblages, from field investigations, and subjective parameters, such as opinions and perceptions, from water managers via an online survey. With regard to the objective hydromorphological and biotic parameters, our results agree with many studies that have reported improvements in the hydromorphology following restoration; however, there is no similar agreement between results concerning changes in the benthic invertebrate and fish assemblages. The objective results do not correspond to the subjective parameters because self-evaluation of the restoration projects by water managers was overly positive. Indeed, 40% of the respondents admitted that their evaluation was based on gut feeling, and only 45% of the restoration measures were monitored…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/10-0618.1

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Evaluating aquatic ecosystem change is not well suited to conventional experimental approaches because replicates of large ecosystems are not available.

    “Like other research problems with attributes that vary between landscapes (e.g., planning climate adaptation for food supply), evaluating aquatic ecosystem change is not well suited to conventional experimental approaches because replicates of large ecosystems are not available; although case studies can provide insight, more formal evaluative and predictive methods are needed to provide”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Jähnig et al. 2011

  • 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 Jähnig et al. 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jähnig, S. C., Lorenz, A. W., Hering, D., Antons, C., Sundermann, A., Jedicke, E., & Haase, P.
Affiliations
  • Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (DE)
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Corresponding author
Jähnig, S. C.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-09
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
2007-2015
ISSN
1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112006331
Cited by
203
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 4
FWCI
11.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Keywords
river restoration, restoration success, restoration evaluation, hydromorphology, benthic invertebrates, fish assemblages, landscape aesthetics, recreational value, restoration monitoring, restoration targets
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Data Collection, Germany, Surveys and Questionnaires, Ecosystem, 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