Public Perception as a Barrier to Introducing Wood in Rivers for Restoration Purposes

Abstract

Reintroduction of wood in rivers for restoration purposes is now recognized in a positive way by scientists. Nevertheless, the perception of wood in riverscapes is strongly affected by the socio-cultural environment. This cultural influence might explain why wood reintroduction is accepted and promoted in some regions of the world but not in others, despite the demonstrated ecological benefits. From an extensive student perception survey, we show that most of the groups from nine countries in the world considered riverscapes with wood to be less aesthetic, more dangerous, and needing more improvement than riverscapes without wood. By contrast, this way of thinking was not observed in Germany, Sweden, and Oregon (USA), where the first instances of wood reintroduction occurred.

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

“…Although some have contended that wood levels were historically low or wood was not ecologically important in some watersheds (Piégay et al 2005), this is not supported by the literature. The preceding review shows that although wood levels vary among regions and stream reaches within a region, wood was and remains an important component of most river systems (Gurnell 2003;Montgomery et al 2003).…”

“…This may have contributed to the public perception that simplified channels with little wood are the norm and are healthy or in better condition (Piégay et al 2005). Wood and other habitat structures such as boulders have also been removed from rivers in many parts of the world to facilitate log drives or because they were thought to inhibit fish migration (Herget 2000;Nilsson et al 2005;Sedell and Luchessa 1982).…”

“…This view is not limited to those with little knowledge of ecology. A survey of graduate and undergraduate students in the US and Europe found that even ecology students in some countries view stream channels with wood as less desirable than neatly "cleaned" channels (Piégay et al 2005). Given the long history of wood removal and rivers, it is not surprising that many members of the public would hold a negative view of wood placement or retention in channels.…”

“…Landowners, the whitewater rafting, and boating communities have argued that logs, wood, and other obstructions in streams pose a threat to life and property. Some private land owners will not allow placement of wood into channels on their land for fear of liability and property damage (Piégay et al 2005). This fear is not unfounded, as either natural or placed wood can redirect flow and lead to scour or channel avulsion, eroding of stream banks and adjacent land (Florsheim et al 2008;Montgomery 1997;Seo et al 2010).…”

Factors influencing wood mobilization in streams

“…Similarly, the processes by which wood becomes buried and unburied in streams merit further study [Hassan et al, 2005;Latterell and Naiman, 2007]. Perhaps the most important area for study is the sociological reasons for intentional wood removal by humans [Gregory and Davis, 1993;Piegay et al, 2005;Chin et al, 2008;Wyzga et al, 2009;Merten and Decker-Fritz, 2010].…”