River classification: theory, practice, politics

Abstract

The classification of river forms and processes has emerged as a major site for interdisciplinary cooperation and application of environmental science. Geomorphologists, ecologists, planners, and others have made concerted efforts to develop theoretical and empirical frameworks with which to classify rivers and their component parts for multiple, diverse applications. As the breadth and depth of classification logics continue to swell, this article takes stock of recent developments through three analytical lenses. First, the theoretical underpinnings of river classification are explored and summarized to provide a framework within which to situate and compare different classification approaches. Second, four emerging frameworks for river classification are described and compared to assess their epistemological, institutional, and governance implications. Different epistemic communities produce different kinds of classifications, which reveal different ‘realities’ of rivers to be acted upon by human agents. Third, by emphasizing how river classification practices are productive of environmental governance regimes and rationalities, the roles, responsibilities, and possibilities for environmental science are clarified and expanded. Rather than thinking about classification purely as a realist scientific project, attention needs to be paid to the ways in which ‘classifying mindsets’ relate to the production of social and environmental outcomes. WIREs Water 2014, 1:349–367. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1026 This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems

Towards a sociogeomorphology of rivers

“…There is wide discussion about the roles and methods by which geomorphologists may intervene, the importance of establishing generalised theory and scientific basis for restoration (Wohl et al, 2005;Bennett et al, 2011), and acknowledgement that outcomes are also driven by community goals and decisions (McDonald et al, 2004;Bennett et al, 2011;Pasternak, 2013). But seldom has the position, intention and the nature of the intervention of geomorphologists (and other actors) been explicitly considered such that we can see how geomorphology is integrated into the hybrid co-production of riverscapes in deciding locations, need and nature of such interventions or "management" actions, and in analyzing and categorising river type and function (Tadaki et al, 2014b). This requires a substantial shift in stance and philosophy.…”

“…Tadaki et al (2014b) argue that the design and adoption of particular river classification schemes is part of this process which has an important role in framing management practices . Classification schemes are "more-than-scientific" constructions that act on rivers in particular ways.…”

“…Collateral material results for the riverscape will differ depending on the scheme adopted and its role and influence in the restoration process. In this way, classification activities and politics have direct outcomes for the river depending directly on geomorphological conceptions of rivers which are decision-making rationalities rather than strict "truths of nature" (Tadaki et al, 2014b). Bouleau (2013) argues from an analysis of the history of interventions and plans in the Rhône and Seine Rivers that particular scientific conceptions and representations of the rivers have direct material outcomes for the appearance and trajectory of the river morphology, environment and policy.…”

“…Particular waterscapes do not interest all river scientists in the same way and this changes the river materially and conceptually (Bouleau, 2013). Therefore, particular disciplines or groups of scientists have a framing effect on the problems, and the solutions, with direct consequences for the river form, function and future (and see Tadaki et al, 2014b).…”

“…Tadaki et al (2014b) make essentially this point with respect to the role of river classification systems in river management practices. One consequence is that these processes play out in different ways and with different consequences in different places, for reasons that are only partly related to the…”