The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
River restoration success: a question of perception
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…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology
Jongman, R. H. G., ter Braak, C. J. F., & van Tongeren, O. F. R. (1995) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511525575 · Cited by 4,530
PC‐ORD: Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data
(1998) · Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America · doi:10.2307/20168234 · Cited by 3,874
Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts
Bernhardt, E. S., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm, C., Follstad-Shah, J., et al. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1109769 · Cited by 1,903
Stream biodiversity: The ghost of land use past
Harding, J. S., Benfield, E. F., Bolstad, P. V., Helfman, G. S., & Jones, E. B. D. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.25.14843 · Cited by 1,040
River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice?
Palmer, M. A., Menninger, H., & Bernhardt, E. S. (2010) · Freshwater Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x · Cited by 977
Roni, P., Hanson, K. M., & Beechie, T. J. (2008) · North American Journal of Fisheries Management · doi:10.1577/m06-169.1 · Cited by 619
The Myths of Restoration Ecology
Hilderbrand, R. H., Watts, A. C., & Randle, A. M. (2005) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-01277-100119 · Cited by 555
Restoration of Ecosystem Services for Environmental Markets
Palmer, M. A., & Filoso, S. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1172976 · Cited by 312
Bond, N. R., & Lake, P. S. (2003) · Ecological Management & Restoration · doi:10.1046/j.1442-8903.2003.00156.x · Cited by 305
Miller, S. W., Budy, P. E., & Schmidt, J. C. (2009) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1526-100x.2009.00605.x · Cited by 281
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–203 of 203
Schütz, R., Friedrichs‐Manthey, M., Macher, T., Beermann, A. J., Arle, J., Koschorreck, J., & Leese, F. (2026) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2026.115447 · Cited by 2
Castelain, L., Carpentier, C., Fraudin, C., Peeters, A., Verniers, G., Mercier, E., Houbrechts, G., & Kestemont, P. (2026) · Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology · doi:10.1016/j.ecohyd.2026.100818
Seddon, E. L. (2013) · Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University)
Metadata
- 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 › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Earth-Surface Processes › 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
