Riparian vegetation restoration: Does social perception reflect ecological value?

Abstract

Social-ecological contexts are key to the success of ecological restoration projects.The ecological quality of restoration efforts, however, may not be fully evident to stakeholders, particularly if the desired aesthetic experience is not delivered. Aesthetically pleasing landscapes are more highly appreciated and tend to be better protected than less appealing landscapes, regardless of their ecological value. Positive public perception of restoration actions may therefore facilitate stakeholder involvement and catalyse recognition of ecological improvement. Here we aim to contrast aesthetical perception and ecological condition in headwater river reaches restored through passive ecological restoration in study areas in Portugal (Alentejo) and France (Normandy). We recorded structural and functional indicators of riparian vegetation to monitor the ecological condition of study sites along a passive restoration trajectory. Aesthetical perception indicators were assessed through stakeholder inquiries developed under a semantic differential approach. We analysed perception responses to changes in the riparian ecosystems resulting from passive ecological restoration across different geographical contexts and social groups. The analysed social groups comprised stakeholders (environmental managers and landowners) and university students (landscape architecture and geography students). Results indicate that (a) visual preferences often do not reflect changes in ecological condition, (b) perception of the restoration process is strongly context dependent, and (c) experience and cultural background affect perception of ecological condition across the different social groups analysed. Clear identification of relevant stakeholder groups (those interested in or directly affected by restoration), effective communication, and stakeholder engagement are therefore essential for assuring the success of river restoration projects.

Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe: expert perspectives

“…Conflicts often involve the reduction in the supply of provisioning services resulting from restoration actions, and thus they mostly concern impacts of restoration on commercial use of natural resources in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries (Flávio et al 2017; Kärvemo et al 2017; Buitenhuis & Dieperink 2019). Conflicts also reflect disagreements between stakeholders' groups prioritizing a set of ecosystem services that are different from provisioning services (Trabucco et al 2008; Drenthen 2009), and social distress resulting from disservices brought by restoration actions (Lyytimäki et al 2008; Handel 2016; Arsénio et al 2020). Place attachment also plays a key role and thus attitudes to restoration can be shaped by whether or not restoration activities disrupt a community's sense of place, identity, and use (Baker et al 2014).…”

Restoring Riparian Ecosystems During the UN-Decade on Ecosystem Restoration: A Global Perspective

“…Riparian ecosystems today face a serious threat from various development activities around the world (Capon et al 2013;Arsenio et al 2020). It is time to restore them since they support unique biodiversity and since their restoration will help in attaining the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Basak et al 2021).…”

Best Practices for Monitoring and Assessing the Ecological Response to River Restoration

“…Riparian biota, especially vegetation, responds relatively readily to restoration [88,89]. Riparian vegetation has proven a reliable indicator of restoration effectiveness [90], though restoration effects may take some time to manifest [91]. Riparian vegetation can be monitored with a variety of standard techniques that are typically applied to terrestrial vegetation.…”