1. Elaborate restoration attempts are underway worldwide to return human-impacted rivers to more natural conditions. Assessing the outcome of river restoration projects is vital for adaptive management, evaluating project efficiency, optimising future programmes and gaining public acceptance. An important reason why assessment is often omitted is lack of appropriate guidelines. 2. Here we present guidelines for assessing river restoration success. They are based on a total of 49 indicators and 13 specific objectives elaborated for the restoration of low-to midorder rivers in Switzerland. Most of these objectives relate to ecological attributes of rivers, but socio-economic aspects are also considered. 3. A strategy is proposed according to which a set of indicators is selected from the total of 49 indicators to ensure that indicators match restoration objectives and measures, and that the required effort for survey and analysis of indicators is appropriate to the project budget. 4. Indicator values are determined according to methods described in detailed method sheets. Restoration success is evaluated by comparing indicator values before and after restoration measures have been undertaken. To this end, values are first standardised on a dimensionless scale ranging from 0 to 1, then averaged across different indicators for a given project objective, and finally assigned to one of five overall success categories. 5. To illustrate the application of this scheme, a case study on the Thur River, Switzerland, is presented. Seven indicators were selected to meet a total of five project objectives. The project was successful in achieving 'provision of high recreational value', 'lateral connectivity' and 'vertical connectivity' but failed to meet the objectives 'morphological and hydraulic variability' and 'near natural abundance and diversity of fauna'. Results from this assessment allowed us to identify potential deficits and gaps in the restoration project. To gain information on the sensitivity of the assessment scheme would require a set of complementary indicators for each restoration objective.

River rehabilitation decisions, like other decisions in environmental management, are often taken by authorities without sufficient transparency about how different goals, outcomes, and concerns were considered during the decision making process. This can lead to lack of acceptance or even opposition by stakeholders. In this paper, a concept is outlined for the use of techniques of decision analysis to structure scientist and stakeholder involvement in river rehabilitation decisions. The main elements of this structure are (i) an objectives hierarchy that facilitates explicit discussion of goals, (ii) an integrative probability network model for the prediction of the consequences of rehabilitation alternatives, and (iii) a mathematical representation of preferences for possible outcomes elicited from important stakeholders. This structure leads to transparency about expectations of outcomes by scientists and valuations of these outcomes by stakeholders and can be used (i) to analyse synergies and conflict potential between stakeholders, (ii) to analyse the sensitivity of alternative-rankings to uncertainty in prediction and valuation, and (iii) as a basis for communicating the reasons for the decision. These analyses can be expected to stimulate the creation of alternatives with a greater degree of consensus among stakeholders. The paper concentrates on the overall concept, the objectives hierarchy and the design of the integrative model. More details about the integrative model, the stakeholder involvement process, and the assessment of results will be published separately. Because many decisions in environmental management are characterized by a complex scientific problem and diverse stakeholders, the outlined methodology will be easily transferable to other settings.

No abstract

Stream ecosystem structure and function are strongly influenced by patterns of velocity and depth. Simple methods for predicting the spatial distributions of these two variables, as functions of one-dimensional reach and discharge characteristics, have been recently reported in the literature. These studies have provided valuable insight into the fundamental factors influencing stream behaviour and represent a practical alternative to multi-dimensional hydrodynamic models. However, these previous studies have handled velocity and depth separately, while there is evidence that meso-habitats and stream biota are associated with distinct combinations of the two variables. Therefore, we used survey data from 92 stream reaches in New Zealand to develop a model for the joint distribution of depth and velocity. We found that, for each reach, the bivariate distribution of relative velocity and relative depth could be described by a mixture of two end-member distributions, one bivariate normal and the other bivariate lognormal, each with fixed parameters. The relative contribution of each shape for a particular reach at a particular discharge could then be related to the reach mean Froude number, the reach mean relative roughness, and the ratio of the survey discharge to the mean discharge. As these inputs can be readily estimated for changed channel morphology, our model should provide a useful approach for linking river rehabilitation strategies to hydraulics and ecology.