Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are consistently recognized but not yet adequately defined or integrated within the ES framework. A substantial body of models, methods, and data relevant to cultural services has been developed within the social and behavioral sciences before and outside of the ES approach. A selective review of work in landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models, consistent with the larger set of ES. Such models explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders and enabling economic, multicriterion, deliberative evaluation and other methods that can clarify tradeoffs and synergies involving cultural ES. Based on this approach, a common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches. This perspective provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.natural capital | scenic beauty | cultural landscapes | tourism | spiritual value

1. River–floodplain systems are among the most diverse and complex ecosystems. The lack of detailed information about functional relationships and processes at the landscape and catchment scale currently hampers assessment of their ecological status. 2. Intensive use and alteration of riverine landscapes by humans have led to severe degradation of river–floodplain systems, especially in highly industrialised countries. Recent water‐related regulations and legislation focussing on high standards of ecological integrity back efforts to restore or rehabilitate these systems. 3. Most restoration projects in the past have suffered from a range of deficits, which pertain to project design, the planning process, the integration of associated disciplines, scaling issues and monitoring. 4. The so‐called `Leitbild' (i.e. a target vision) assumes a key role in river restoration and the assessment of ecological integrity in general. The development of such a Leitbild requires a multistep approach. Including explicitly the first step that defines the natural, type‐specific reference condition (i.e. a visionary as opposed to an operational Leitbild), has great practical advantages for restoration efforts, primarily because it provides an objective benchmark, as is required by the European Water Framework Directive and other legal documents. 5. Clearly defined assessment criteria are crucial for evaluating ecological integrity, especially in the pre‐ and postrestoration monitoring phases. Criteria that reflect processes and functions should play a primary role in future assessments, so as to preserve and restore functional integrity as a fundamental component of ecological integrity. 6. Case studies on the Kissimmee River (U.S.A.), the Rhine River (Netherlands and Germany), and the Drau River (Austria) are used to illustrate the fundamental principles underlying successful restoration projects of river–floodplain systems.

Summary 1.Wood is increasingly used in restoration projects to improve the hydromorphological and ecological status of streams and rivers. However, despite their growing importance, only a few of these projects are described in the open literature. To aid practitioners, we conducted a postal mail survey to summarize the experiences gained in central Europe and compile data on 50 projects. 2. Our results indicated the potential for improvement from an ecological point of view, as the number and total wood volume, and the median volume of single wood structures placed in the streams per project, were low compared with the potential natural state. Moreover, many wood structures were placed nearly parallel to the water flow, reducing their beneficial effect on stream hydraulics and morphology. Synthesis and applications.Large wood has been used successfully in several projects in central Europe, predominantly to increase the general structural complexity using fixed wood structures. Our results recommend the use of less costly soft engineering techniques (non-fixed wood structures), higher amounts of wood, larger wood structures and improved monitoring programmes for future restoration projects comparable with those in this study. We recommend the use of 'passive restoration' methods (restoring the process of wood recruitment on large scales) rather than 'active restoration' (placement of wood structures on a reach scale), as passive restoration avoids the risk of non-natural amounts or diversity of wood loading developing within streams. Local, active placement of wood structures must be considered as an interim measure until passive restoration methods have increased recruitment sufficiently.

1. Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. 2. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream nonrestored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land-water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. 3. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. 4. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. 5.When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. 6. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects.

No abstract