Revisiting the River Skerne: The long-term social benefits of river rehabilitation

Landscape and Urban Planning 113 (2013) 94–103

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Research paper

Revisiting the River Skerne: The long-term social benefits of river rehabilitation E. Ulrika Åberg a,∗ , Sue Tapsell b a b

School of Geography, University of Leeds, United Kingdom Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, United Kingdom

h i g h l i g h t s     

This pre-, post- and long-term perception survey of river rehabilitation demonstrates enhanced social values and benefits over time. Better science/social science collaboration will improve rehabilitation outcomes. Common vision building is vital for sustainable environmental management. People’s aesthetic preferences are strongly related to ecological quality and access. A good balance between high and low-use river areas increases both social and ecosystem values.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 13 March 2012 Received in revised form 18 January 2013 Accepted 25 January 2013 Available online 1 March 2013 Keywords: Urban riverscapes Nature restoration Environmental design Public engagement Perception surveys Amenity value

a b s t r a c t This article compares the results from three public perception surveys concerning the rehabilitation of the River Skerne in Darlington, NE England. It discusses people’s perception over time, from prerehabilitation expectations to initial impression of the rehabilitation to their opinions of the matured project in a longer term perspective. It is one of the few studies in the UK to include pre-, post- and long-term assessments for the same area. The green environments riverscapes provide, especially in urban spaces, have positive effects on people’s well-being and are appreciated as areas for relaxation and recreation. However, the over exploitation of riverscapes has dramatically decreased their function, the ecosystem services they provide and the connection between people and nature. Results from our surveys indicate that with careful design considering both social and ecosystem values, and wider collaboration between science and social science, river rehabilitation works can re-establish riverscapes that provide attractive recreational spaces without losing their possibilities to sustain healthy ecosystems. Ecosystem recovery is a long and time consuming process, but this research shows that it also takes time for people to build up a caring and emotional connection to their local riverscapes. This process can be aided by common vision building and attending to features providing possibilities for recreation and access, and attractive greenery. We conclude that by applying a transparent process for rehabilitation schemes, with a clear social and environmental focus, we increase our chances of providing long-term benefits and receiving public support for enhancing the state of our rivers. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Water is one of the most vital substances for life on earth, and utilisation of its resources has been an essential ingredient for the growth of human civilisation and economic development. The modern management of water and waterways has been dominated by a scientific and engineering viewpoint and exploited for water abstraction, waste disposal, to obtain energy and as transport systems. This dominating viewpoint has caused a fundamental separation between the natural realm of waterways and

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)7809616221. E-mail addresses: u.aberg@cranfield.ac.uk (E.U. Åberg), [email protected] (S. Tapsell). 0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.009

the social contexts within which they have been used, and has severed people’s cultural and physical connections with riverscapes. River networks have been impeded, constrained, re-routed and culverted to such an extent that natural river systems today are a rarity. All these stress elements have had a major degrading effect on rivers and the ecosystem services they provide, particularly in urban environments. The 1970s and 1980s saw a wave of environmental awareness and concern, forming a new way of thinking about sustainable resource usage and the value of preserving natural environments (Evans, 1997). This attentiveness triggered the first major attempts to recreate the ecological and recreational values of rivers in the UK. This paper reports the results from public perception research of a rehabilitation scheme on the urban River Skerne in Darlington, UK. Three consecutive perception surveys provided a unique

E.U. Åberg, S. Tapsell / Landscape and Urban Planning 113 (2013) 94–103

opportunity to carry out a long-term assessment of the social benefits of river rehabilitation, and the paper aims to demonstrate the change in people’s perception and attitudes of rehabilitation over time. We focus specifically on three key types of social benefits: aesthetics, wildlife and recreation and conclude with some issues to be considered to improve the public success of future urban rehabilitation schemes. 1.1. Policy background The historical development of water policy differs between cultures, and underlies the way people and authorities in different countries view and relate to river rehabilitation. The first measure for addressing degraded river systems was to turn to the issue of chemical water quality, which gradually improved in the 1970s and 1980s (Brewin & Martin, 1988). However, an increasing concern and knowledge of species extinction due to human induced habitat destruction drove many influential environmental Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to also fight for improved physical conditions. Due to their increasing power and large landownership, these organisations have been effective actors in the formulation and implementation of environmental legislation in the UK (Bell & Mcgillivray, 2008; Evans, 1997). Enhancement works on degraded river channels were initiated partly through campaigns and international agreements on biodiversity conservation (Nienhuis, Leuven, & Ragas, 1998), and a globally increasing pressure to acknowledge environmental issues forced governments to take further action. The National Rivers Authority (NRA – the forerunner to the Environment Agency) was formed in 1989, and given an increased responsibility for environmental administration (Evans, 1997; Newson, 2009). At this time, thinking began to move towards more holistic catchment management, which integrated rehabilitation concepts (Brookes & Shields, 1996; Calow & Petts, 1992) and guided the NRA in its approaches to river management. Building on the increasing understanding of fluvial ecosystem function and ecosystem theories, such as the river continuum (Vannote, Minshall, Cummins, Sedell, & Cushing, 1980) and flood pulses concepts (Junk, Bayley, & Sparks, 1989; Tockner, Malard, & Ward, 2000), it is now largely agreed that freshwater ecosystems can be improved by the restoration of fluvial processes (Lake, Bond, & Reich, 2007), as well as physical habitat heterogeneity (Maddock, 1999). Although river rehabilitation projects continue to be predominantly small scale, it has been argued that they will have a cumulative effect on the total ecology of the catchment (Kondolf et al., 2008). In much of Europe, river rehabilitation has been carried out foremost within the domain of engineering and natural science, focussing on target species but taking little notice of social appeal. However, the benefits of integrating social values and engagement are increasingly seen as the way forward for river rehabilitation (Eden & Tunstall, 2006; Pahl-Wostl, 2006). The EU Water Framework Directive recognises that successful enhancement of rivers partly relies on public involvement, information and consultation (European Commission, 2000), and the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme emphasises how environmental management projects benefit from collaborations between natural and social science (RELU, undated). Public participation is therefore becoming an integral part of almost every environmental design project in the UK. A major step forward for river rehabilitation in the UK came with the establishment of the River Restoration Project (RRP) in the 1990s (today the River Restoration Centre). The first river rehabilitation schemes carried out by the RRP aimed to test state of the art techniques at three demonstration sites: the River Skerne (Yorkshire), the River Cole (Wiltshire) and the Brede River (South

95

Jutland, Denmark). In 1995 the River Skerne rehabilitation centred on enhancing the biophysical and aesthetic state of a suburban river. The Skerne site was the focus of ‘before’ and ‘after’ public perception surveys in connection with the river rehabilitation scheme (RRP, 1995; Tapsell, Tunstall, & Eden, 1997), and a long-term followup survey 13 years later (Åberg, 2010). 1.2. Rehabilitation and social benefits Large sums are now being spent on river rehabilitation, but funding is rarely available for post assessments (Bernhardt et al., 2005). Little is therefore known about either long-term ecosystem or social benefits. Assessing social outcomes of river rehabilitation projects is acknowledged by several authors (Palmer et al., 2005; Wohl et al., 2005), but is often seen as secondary to biophysical monitoring (Eden & Tunstall, 2006). However, as the perception of and demand for river rehabilitation schemes as socioenvironmental projects increases (Nassauer, Kosek, & Corry, 2001; Pahl-Wostl, 2006; Wohl et al., 2005) so does the need for social monitoring and evaluation. Urban regeneration and greening is often focused around riverscapes as the last space available to bring nature back into the cities (Yokohari & Amati, 2005). However, an urban river also needs to be designed to fit into the many restrictions existing in a built up environment. For a river rehabilitation project to be supported it also needs to provide value to the community such as recreational space and accessible nature experiences (Asakawa, Yoshida, & Yabe, 2004; Nassauer et al., 2001; Petts, 2007; Steinwender, Gundacker, & Wittmann, 2008). That is not to say that urban river rehabilitation is purely aesthetic and cannot have ecological relevance. Fulfilling both social and environmental criteria is increasingly acknowledged as the key to effective and successful river rehabilitation (Palmer et al., 2005; Petts & Gray, 2006; Reichert et al., 2007), and essential for projects to not only be socially accepted, but also desired and cared for (Gobster, Nassauer, Daniel, & Fry, 2007; McDonald, Lane, Haycock, & Chalk, 2004). Local people’s attitudes (and attitude changes) are a powerful instrument in urban river rehabilitation. Drastic changes to familiar surroundings, especially in combination with public exclusion, can generate long lasting public discontent (Åberg & Tapsell, 2012). When social values are acknowledged and benefits provided such as enhanced aesthetics, access, recreational space and attractive greenery and wildlife, an emotional, caring feeling is often created which helps to reconnect people with nature (Asakawa et al., 2004; Eden & Tunstall, 2006; Nassauer, 1995; Newson & Chalk, 2004). The Sustainable Development of Urban Rivers and Floodplains (SMURF) project was one of the first examples in the UK of successful public engagement in the design and implementation of an urban river restoration project (Petts & Gray, 2006). Other projects, such as the Wise Use of Floodplains (Cuff, 2001) and Upper Wharfedale Best Practice Project (Newson & Chalk, 2004), have also shown how an early, continuing, and effective public engagement process further enhances social benefits and increases the meaning of the local environment. 1.3. Sensory, social values and river rehabilitation The visual impression that river rehabilitation schemes give is an important factor to assess as most people make decisions based upon what they see and perceive in the landscape (Nassauer, 1995). A positive visual impression can increase the cultural value of the riverscape, which might result in changed attitudes and actions in favour of the natural environment. Here we discuss findings from the surveys which focus on the perception of the key issues of: attractiveness/aesthetics, wildlife, visits and recreation.

96

E.U. Åberg, S. Tapsell / Landscape and Urban Planning 113 (2013) 94–103

There is a substantial amount of research on the influences of the senses on perception of the environment. Sensory values can contribute to a place’s aesthetic significance (O’Connor, 2008). Aesthetic value can be multi-sensory in that it encompasses all the senses: sight, sound, smell, taste and touch (Australia ICOMOS, 2000). Schafer (1977) argued that just as visual features can contribute to a sense of place, so too can sound. O’Connor (2008) further suggests that people’s emotional responses to the environment can be negatively affected by inappropriate noise and smells. Several studies have compared different types of natural settings with urban landscapes and concluded that the most preferred sounds are those of nature such as birdsong and water (e.g. Carles, Barrio, & de Lucio, 1999); Waitt and Cook’s (2007) ‘nature as performance’. Both ‘acoustic ecology’ and ‘landscape preference research’ demonstrate the strong connections between the sense of place and sound (O’Connor, 2008). Sensory values can also be suggested to increase the social value of places. Where sensory perceptions are increased, such as through river rehabilitation, so too can the values and benefits experienced. Guidance from Australia includes aesthetic associations under the criterion of social value (Heritage Council of Western Australia, undated). Waitt and Cook (2007) talk of ‘social eco-spaces’ and cite the importance of ‘affective place relationships’: how effective responses from visiting a river can affect relationships to place. Open access that enables visits and recreation along a rehabilitated river also creates positive emotions, feelings of well-being (Chiesura, 2004) and provides an attractive place for social activities and interaction (Coley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1997). The attractiveness of a river is intimately related to perceived naturalness and the presence of lovable wildlife, flowers and greenery (Steinwender et al., 2008). River rehabilitation projects could thus increase the social value of places, re-establish preferred nature sounds as well as allowing people to get ‘up close and personal’ to animals and plants, providing opportunities for personalised encounters (Waitt & Cook, 2007). This could provide a felt and sensed world of experiences that challenge, renew or support ideas about the ‘natural’. 2. The study site The River Skerne is a tributary of the River Tees in north-eastern England. The 1 km long rehabilitation reach between Haughton Road Bridge and Five Arches Bridge lies in a sub-urban area on the northern outskirts of the town of Darlington. Here the river flows through an open green space lined by houses and industrial estates, as shown in Fig. 1. During the last 150 years, the River Skerne has been heavily modified as a result of industrialisation and urbanisation. The straightened river and the riverscape provided little opportunity for either recreational or ecological quality. The rehabilitation of this degraded river reach was initiated by

Fig. 1. Location and plan of the rehabilitated reach of the River Skerne in Darlington.

the RRP in July 1995 to demonstrate how a variety of degradation issues in an urban riverscape could be successfully addressed. The particular site was chosen as it met the necessary ecological and ‘urban’ criteria and also because it only involved one landowner, the local council, which greatly facilitated the negotiation process. The background and accomplishment of the River Skerne rehabilitation scheme has been described in detail elsewhere (see Holmes & Nielsen, 1998). Upstream of the rehabilitation site (right in Fig. 1) the river is surrounded by an open green public space on one side, and farmland on the other. This straightened reach – without designated footpaths, and fairly rich in riparian vegetation – was used in the 2008 survey to compare public opinions about a “high use” river reach (the rehabilitated) with a wilder, less accessible “low use” reach (the upstream).

3. Methodology Public perception of the River Skerne rehabilitation site was assessed through questionnaire surveys by the authors with local residents. The first perception survey was undertaken prior to the construction phase of the scheme in 1995 (RRP, 1995), and was followed by a post-rehabilitation survey in 1997 (Tapsell et al., 1997; see also Tunstall, Tapsell, & Eden, 1999) one year after the completion of the rehabilitation scheme, with a final survey being conducted in 2008 (Åberg, 2010). The “before” survey in 1995 assessed public use of the rehabilitation space, gauged residents’ responses to the proposed scheme and contributed to the public consultation of some minor features of the river rehabilitation design (such as a footpath and the location of a new footbridge). The “after” surveys in 1997 and 2008 aimed to assess the perception of change to the natural environment, as well as existing perception of the site and public attitudes towards the rehabilitation scheme. This type of long-term perception data of river rehabilitation has rarely been generated in the UK. Questionnaire design was similar for the three surveys but, as in many long-term studies, the survey technique differed. Sampling for the 1995 and 1997 surveys was conducted using spatial boundaries, where households within 500 m of the rehabilitated river were drawn by systematic random sampling from the electoral register. The 500 m boundary was chosen as this was thought to represent the main catchment area for river and park users. In the 1995 and 1997 surveys, the questionnaires were administered by an interviewer using a structured interview format. Just over half (52%) of those taking part in the 1997 survey had also taken part in the pre-scheme study in 1995, although an additional sample was drawn to compensate for those 1995 respondents who could no longer take part; these responses were purely based on people’s post-scheme perceptions. In 2008 a new questionnaire survey was carried out but, for budget reasons, was restricted to the roads nearest to the river and questionnaires were posted and completed individually by the respondents. The new survey drew upon the earlier questionnaires and replicated a number of the original core questions to permit comparison, in particular it focused on key issues from the earlier surveys, namely: general satisfaction with the rehabilitation, attractiveness, wildlife, and visits and recreation (Åberg, 2010). In total, 252 responses were received in the 1995 pre-survey; 260 responses in the 1997 post-survey; and 123 responses in the 2008 long-term survey. The questionnaire design used a combination of tick-box and open-ended questions. Several questions in the 2008 survey relied on respondents recalling how the area appeared, or how they used the area, prior to the river being rehabilitated. This was a point of concern as 13 years had passed since the rehabilitation. However, a pilot survey revealed that a high percentage of the local long-term residents could recall the area from

E.U. Åberg, S. Tapsell / Landscape and Urban Planning 113 (2013) 94–103

before the rehabilitation. In all these studies, statistical analyses of the tick-box questions were carried out using SPSS software, while the NVivo software was used for analysis of open ended questions in the final survey.

4. Results The long-term perception survey carried out in 2008 aimed at assessing how residents perceived their local rehabilitated river and, where relevant, how that differed both from expectations prior to the rehabilitation (1995) and from perceptions just after the rehabilitation (1997). Obviously, many factors can have influenced people’s responses in the 2008 survey compared with the earlier studies. The different manner in which the data were gathered is one issue. In addition, new contextual factors will undoubtedly have emerged in the 13 years since the rehabilitation was carried out, such as changes in demographics, area characteristics and personal preferences, all of which make drawing inferences based on the 2008 survey results difficult. This is a problem with long-term comparative studies of which the authors are aware. Therefore, these issues need to be borne in mind when considering the results reported here. Some of these changing contextual factors are suggested in the text which follows but limited resources for the 2008 survey meant that many of these issues could not be further explored. A comparison of the characteristics of the respondents (Table 1) reveals a more even spread among age groups in the 1995 and 1997 surveys than in the 2008 survey, where the majority of respondents (80%) were over 46 years old. The 1995 survey was more successful in achieving a balance in the number of male and female respondents than the 1997 and 2008 surveys. Due to differences in other demographic data collected between the 1995/1997 and 2008 surveys, this paper will focus on collective responses and general frequency data for all respondents, and not report on all the individual associations in detail. Most of the respondents in the 2008 survey (81%) knew about the rehabilitation scheme, 42% had lived there for more than 20 years and 69% had visited the river before the rehabilitation. The ‘number of respondents’ in the tables refers to all respondents answering the question. All direct quotes in the paper derive from open responses of the 2008 questionnaire survey. 4.1. General satisfaction At the River Skerne, the general level of satisfaction with the rehabilitation scheme was initially high, and has increased slightly over the years. The vast majority (90%) of respondents in the 2008 survey were satisfied with the rehabilitation of the river, compared with 82% in 1997. In the 1997 and 2008 surveys (Table 2) half of the respondents were ‘quite satisfied’, and about a third were ‘very satisfied’ with the rehabilitation.

Table 1 Characteristics of the respondents in the 1995, 1997 and 2008 River Skerne public perception surveys. Age group

1995 (%)

1997 (%)

2008 (%)

<30 30–45 46–65 >65 No. of valid cases

12 34 35 19 252

10 33 35 22 259

3 17 53 27 120

Male Female No. of valid cases

51 49 252

41 59 260

47 53 105

97

Table 2 Level of approval/satisfaction of the rehabilitation of the River Skerne, comparing public perceptions in 1997 and 2008. Level of approval/satisfaction

1997 (%)

Strongly approve/very satisfied Mostly approve/quite satisfied Do not really approve/not very satisfied Strongly disapprove/not at all satisfied Don’t know Number of respondents

2008 (%)

30 52 6 2 10

35 55 4 1 5

260

91

A few negative comments were made in both 1997 and 2008 in relation to general satisfaction with the scheme with regard to poor drainage of the floodplain, as well as littering of the area. Residents living on the south side of the river – near to where spoil from the river banks was used for landscaping – also perceived that their private gardens had become boggier. The use of heavy plant [machinery] to create the restoration may have compressed parts of the surrounding land creating boggy areas. Respondent 36 The perception of the ground as being wetter could also be due to decreased drainage caused by the installation of a new gas pipe along the northern side of the river in the early 2000s (Personal communication – Deirdre Murphy, Environment Agency, former liaison officer for the River Skerne rehabilitation project). 4.2. Attractiveness In the 1997 survey the majority of the respondents thought that the river had become more attractive following rehabilitation, while a notable minority were unsure (Table 3). In the 2008 survey only 1% of the respondents were now unsure, and the percentage of respondents perceiving the riverscape as more attractive than before the rehabilitation had increased to 87%, a very positive finding. In 2008 the Skerne riverscape was perceived as more attractive than before the rehabilitation because of new appealing features such as the meanders, increased opportunities for recreation, a more natural ‘feel’ to the river, and the potential for wildlife (especially birds), as illustrated by respondents’ comments. The meanders in river make it more attractive to the eye. Respondent 45 The changes made the landscape more natural. Respondent 5 The creation of mini wildflower meadows is ideal for wildlife. Respondent 36 Negative comments were again made about the amount of litter and dog fouling, but not directly concerning the characteristics of the river. The area could be cleaner e.g. litter, tin cans, broken bottles, plastic bags and overflowing dog bins. Do not make it an attractive nature reserve. Respondent 17

Table 3 Perceived effect on changes in attractiveness after the rehabilitation of the River Skerne. Results from the 1997 and 2008 surveys. Percent giving effect as More attractive No change Less attractive Don’t know Number of respondents

1997 (%)

2008 (%)

63 14 4 19

87 11 1 1

259

94

98

E.U. Åberg, S. Tapsell / Landscape and Urban Planning 113 (2013) 94–103

Table 4 Perceived effect on changes in wildlife after the rehabilitation of the River Skerne. Results from the 1995, 1997 and 2008 surveys.

Increase in wildlife No change Loss in wildlife Don’t know Number of respondents

1995 (%)

1997 (%)

1995 1995 , n = 231

2008 (%)

79 12 4 5

70 12 3 15

72 12 2 14

251

259

92

1997 1997 , n = 242

40% Respondents i Respondents

Percent giving effect as

50%

2008 , n = 122 2008

30% 20% 10%

Smells and sounds around the river also influenced the perceived attractiveness of the riverscape. Some respondents gave negative comments regarding bad smell and noise from motorbikes and a nearby factory, while others pointed out the attractiveness of silence and ‘nature sounds’ further upstream (see Section 4.4) in the riverscape. There is a factory on the other side of the river that is very noisy and put out a lot of air pollution, dust. When the wind is to the north the noise and pollution gets very bad for the people who live there. Respondent 5 We think the wildlife has been affected by the factory on Albert Hill and also motor bikes that illegally drive through the reserve. Respondent 26 The upstream area is nice because it’s quieter. Respondent 6

0% Daily

Several times a week

Weekly Fortnightly Monthly 2-3 times Less often a year

Fig. 2. Frequency of visits by local residents to the Skerne riverscape in 1995, 1997 and 2008.

Visits to the river appeared to have increased significantly between the 1997 and the 2008 surveys and there was a large increase in the percentage of respondents who said that they visited the river more frequently than before the rehabilitation (Table 5). Fig. 2 shows the difference in frequency of visits to the River Skerne in 1995, 1997 and 2008. The 2008 data show a clear increase

in respondents visiting the river ‘daily’, but also ‘several times a week’ and ‘weekly’, and a general decrease in people visiting less frequently. There was no major change in daily visit frequency between the 1995 pre-survey and the 1997 post-survey, although a slight increase in people visiting ‘several times a week’ and ‘weekly’. Of the respondents visiting less frequently, there was a slight decrease in people visiting ‘fortnightly’ and ‘monthly’, but on the other hand an increase in people visiting ‘2–3 times a year’ and ‘less often’. Other contextual issues may also be relevant here. The respondents who visited the river less frequently in the 2008 survey commented that this was mainly because they no longer had small children or a dog – which had previously given them more reasons for visiting the river – hence people’s decrease in visits may not have been a result of the rehabilitation measures. Conversely, some respondents may have had more time to visit the river in 2008 compared to the earlier surveys, for example some people may have retired and therefore have more time on their hands. An important reason for the rise in visits to the river was given as the increased recreation opportunities that the riverscape now offers after the rehabilitation. The perceived change in recreation opportunities at the River Skerne are shown in Table 6. In the 1995 pre-survey at the river, 64% of the local residents thought that the recreation opportunities would increase with the rehabilitation scheme. However, in 1997, only 40% of the respondents thought that the recreation opportunities had actually increased and a higher percentage were unsure. In 2008, the number had again risen to almost 60% perceiving that the recreation opportunities had increased compared to before the river rehabilitation. The reported increase in visits to the River Skerne after the rehabilitation rose from 16% in 1997 to 43% in 2008, with a notable increase in daily visits. The changes in purpose behind visits between 1995, 1997 and 2008 are shown in Fig. 3. The most notable change in purpose of visits to the river before the rehabilitation (1995) compared with after (1997, 2008) was the increase in visits to watch wildlife. Between the 1997 and the 2008 surveys – during which period the new footpath was added – there was also a notable increase in visits for recreational activities such

Table 5 Perceived effect on changes in visit frequency after the rehabilitation of the River Skerne. Results from the 1997 and 2008 surveys.

Table 6 Perceived effect on recreation opportunities after the rehabilitation of the River Skerne. Results from the 1995, 1997 and 2008 surveys.

4.3. Wildlife Increase in wildlife was seen as one of the most positive aspects of the rehabilitation scheme on the River Skerne. The questionnaire data on perception of change in wildlife on the river after the rehabilitation show a very high similarity between the 1997 and the 2008 surveys, where the majority of the respondents thought that the wildlife had increased; the data from the 1995 pre-survey was also fairly similar (Table 4). Interestingly, in 2008 a similar percentage as in 1997 said that they did not know if wildlife had increased. It could be that these respondents visit the river infrequently or for reasons other than the wildlife. In the 2008 survey, the highest increase in wildlife was thought to be among aquatic birds such as ducks, geese, and swans, and half of the respondents (51%) who thought that there had been an increase in wildlife thought that fish numbers had increased. River now attracts migratory birds e.g. swans, Canada geese. Respondent 19 No water voles seen for several years [. . .] although more species of water fowl present. Respondent 17 4.4. Visits and recreation

Percent giving effect as Visit more frequently No change Visit less frequently Don’t know Number of respondents

2008 (%)

Percent giving effect as:

16 71 12 1

43 51 5 1

Increased recreation No change Reduced recreation Don’t know

244

92

Number of respondents

1997 (%)

1995 (%)

1997 (%)

2008 (%)

64 23 8 6

40 37 5 19

59 27 1 13

251

260

93

E.U. Åberg, S. Tapsell / Landscape and Urban Planning 113 (2013) 94–103

100% 1995, n = 235 1995

Respondents i

80%

1997, n = 241 1997 2008, n = 122 2008

60%

40%

20%

W W alki n al ki g ng A do cc W g es st ild o els life ew he Cy re cli ng J Pl ogg ay i in ng g/ ga m Fi es V sh ol in un g ta ry Sit /co tin g ns e Sc rva ho tio n ol vi sit s W or k O th er

0%

Fig. 3. The purpose of visits to the River Skerne in 1995, 1997 and 2008.

as walking, cycling, jogging and playing/games. Such activities are also good for people’s health and increased well-being, about which there is likely to have been more awareness in 2008. An additional footpath was constructed as part of Darlington being nominated as one of England’s three ‘cycling demonstration towns’, which has led to a further increase in bicycle users. Another important factor contributing to visits to the rehabilitated river could be a general increase in interest for wildlife and the environment taking place over recent decades (Macnaghten, 2003). The time period from 1997 to 2008 also allowed the rehabilitation to mature and for more wildlife to become established in the area. The increase in popular nature and wildlife television programmes in recent years, such as the BBC’s ‘Spring Watch’, may also have increased people’s interest and encouraged them to visit the river more often. Fig. 4 shows respondent membership of different organisations. The data suggest that there has been a large increase in the percentage of residents at the River Skerne becoming members of NGOs such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), as well as local trusts. This level of engagement in environmental organisations is slightly higher than that recorded as the national average in 2003 (Office for National Statistics, 2003). Whether there is a link between the rehabilitation scheme and the number of people involved in environmental organisations is difficult to confirm. However, in the 2008 questionnaire survey,

50% 1995, n = 235 1995

i Respondents

40%

1997, n = 241 1997 2008, n = 122 2008

30% 20% 10% N/A

th er O

oc iet y or tS

Table 7 Perceived attractiveness of the rehabilitated section compared to a nonrehabilitated upstream section on the River Skerne in the 2008 survey. Showing responses with respect to residency. Area of residence Percent giving effect as

Rehabilitated (%)

Upstream (%)

Total (%)

Upstream area more attractive No difference Rehabilitated area more attractive Don’t know

8 20 49 23

12 34 40 14

9 25 46 20

Number of respondents

65

35

100

almost one-third of the respondents (30%) said that the rehabilitation scheme had made them more interested or involved in environmental or wildlife conservation work. A larger public interest in the environment and the state of the local area, and the high level of satisfaction of the River Skerne rehabilitation scheme might help to drive and promote further rehabilitation in the future. However, at the moment there is no active local interest group to drive further enhancements in the area. As discussed previously, respondents thought that the Skerne riverscape had become more interesting with the introduction of the meanders and that it had a more natural ‘feel’. Interestingly, the footpaths and the additional footbridge constructed in connection with the rehabilitation scheme were seen as some of the most important features for enjoying the riverscape, as they had increased opportunities for recreation and access to the river. Between the 1997 and the 2008 surveys, a further new concrete footpath was added on the north side of the river. The two footbridges and the footpaths on either side now make a circular route possible, highly appreciated by many residents. Since the new footbridge was built near the Five Arches railway bridge it makes a nice circular walk both sides of the river using both bridges. Respondent 21 Creating a circular “hard” path has encouraged more walkers and cyclists. The grassed hillside, when covered in snow, is a magnet for children and their sledges. Respondent 36 Given disabled people more opportunity to enjoy. Respondent 45 Local residents living along the rehabilitated site and residents living along an upstream non-rehabilitated section bordered by a public green space (see Fig. 1) were asked which section of the river they found more attractive. Although the most common answer was that the rehabilitated reach was more attractive than the upstream reach, a considerable percentage thought that there was no difference in attractiveness between the two sections (Table 7). Many respondents liked features at both sites, and responses disagreed somewhat on whether the solitude and lack of footpaths in the upstream area was something positive or negative, and whether it was the upstream or the rehabilitated riverscape that was the most natural. Both have their own charm. The restored reach has a more interesting river. The upstream reach is quieter as there are no footpaths. Respondent 116 The restored reach is more attractive because it’s more natural now. In the restored reach there are now (after restoration) much trees, and it looks more natural than upstream. Respondent 5 The upstream reach is a lovely attractive area for walking and not spoilt by footpaths, have noticed kingfishers by the river. Respondent 41

Sp

ric al S

ist o

ity H

un Co m m

A

ng

lin g

So

ru st/ N ca lt

So ci ety

ci ety

GO

O G na lN Lo

ati o ter )n (In

oc ie ty

N/A

0%

99

Fig. 4. Organisation membership in 1995, 1997 and 2008 at the River Skerne. ‘Local trusts’ and ‘angling society’ were not included as options in the 1995 survey.

5. Discussion This is one of a few public perception surveys to include pre-, post- and long term studies carried out in the UK, showing how

100

E.U. Åberg, S. Tapsell / Landscape and Urban Planning 113 (2013) 94–103

Fig. 5. Photos showing the contrast in bareness and access to the water of the River Skerne before (left) and after (right) the river rehabilitation implementation. Photo: The River Restoration Centre (1994, left) and the Environment Agency (1996, right).

the perception of a rehabilitated riverscape (and the benefits it can bring) changes over time. In 1995, before the rehabilitation was carried out, many respondents at the River Skerne were positive that the river rehabilitation would increase wildlife and increase recreation opportunities, and very few respondents felt unsure about how the rehabilitation would affect these issues. In 1997, one year after completion of the rehabilitation scheme, respondents felt less positive that it had actually increased recreation and wildlife, and compared to the 1995 survey, there was instead a large increase in the proportion of respondents who felt unsure if the scheme had delivered on expectations regarding these aspects. Thirteen years later, in the 2008 survey, the percentage of respondents feeling positive that the scheme had increased wildlife and recreation at the River Skerne had returned to the 1995 expectation levels, and the percentage of respondents feeling unsure had decreased. In questions that were only included in the 1997 and 2008 post surveys (on attractiveness and visit frequency) the same trend was found, with people being less positive and more unsure in 1997, and people being more positive and less unsure in 2008. The 1997 survey was carried out only one year after the completion of the rehabilitation and many respondents thought it was then too early to judge whether the changes had been successful. The ‘dip’ in positive ratings in 1997 could to a large extent be explained by the physical appearance of the river at that time. During construction the river banks had been stripped of vegetation and the spoil removed, and when the 1997 survey was carried out, in February, the area still looked very bare (Fig. 5, right). The open appearance with bare banks made the river appear less attractive than people had expected. By 2008, new bank vegetation had long since been re-established and the river and its surroundings had lush vegetation with trees, bushes and flowers all along the channel, and plenty of birds. This largely contributed to the considerable increase in respondents (from 63% in 1997 to 87% in 2008) perceiving the area as more attractive than before the rehabilitation. These results suggest that the presence of attractive bank vegetation has an important positive effect on people’s

perception of the riverscape – a similar finding to previous studies (Asakawa et al., 2004; Petts, 2007; Steinwender et al., 2008). Over this 13 year period, people had also had time to warm to the area and become comfortable and familiar with aesthetical changes made by the rehabilitation, factors that Gobster et al. (2007) also argue largely affect how the landscape is perceived. In 1995, 64% of the survey respondents at the River Skerne thought that the rehabilitation project would increase recreational opportunities along the river. However, opportunities for visits and recreation along the river had been reduced during the construction phase as, for over a year, the riverscape was a muddy building site with limited access (Fig. 6). Hence, in the 1997 survey only 40% thought recreation opportunities had increased. This stresses the argument that time and the process of construction, including the initial unattractive appearance of the rehabilitated river, could affect local residents’ perceptions rather negatively for some time. A vast majority of respondents had a positive attitude towards the rehabilitation and were generally satisfied with the scheme both initially in 1997 (82%) and even more so 13 years on in 2008 (90%). However, to avoid disappointments over initial appearance of the river rehabilitation site it is vital that a common vision is created and the long-term benefits of rehabilitation communicated. The use of a local liaison officer as a mediator between rehabilitation practitioners and the community throughout the scheme implementation has previously been recognised as helping the successful integration with the local residents (McDonald et al., 2004; Tunstall, Penning-Rowsell, Tapsell, & Eden, 2000). The use of people as a link to informally share learning between practitioners and the community was also successfully used within the SMURF project, where participants representing different interests were recruited as so called ‘gate keepers’ (Petts, 2007). Engaging people to participate in rehabilitation planning is essential, and in both the Skerne and the SMURF projects a physical contribution, such as planting, has shown to enhance interest and connection with the site. The riverscape at the River Skerne has, through the rehabilitation, transformed from a disused inhospitable area to a meaningful

Fig. 6. Left: River Skerne during construction in 1995 (photo: RRC). Right: the same site in 2007 (photo: Ulrika Åberg).

E.U. Åberg, S. Tapsell / Landscape and Urban Planning 113 (2013) 94–103

environment, engaging residents to build closer relationships with both nature and the local community. The riverscape was considered to have become an important high-quality green space for recreation, relaxation and socialising. These outcomes fit well with Matsuoka and Kaplan’s review of 90 empirical human-nature interaction studies, where they conclude that “[u]rban residents worldwide express a desire for contact with nature and each other, attractive environments, places in which to recreate and play, privacy, a more active role in the design of their community, and a sense of community identity” (Matsuoka & Kaplan, 2008:7). The rehabilitation of the River Skerne has undoubtedly been beneficial to the local community by providing an area that is considered very attractive, and is well used for recreation and relaxation. Junker and Buchecker (2008) also suggest that the aesthetic outcomes of even small efforts to restore rivers are viewed positively by the public. Likable aspects of the River Skerne rehabilitated area include ‘interesting features’, ‘countryside feeling’, ‘greenery’ and a sense that the river is being ‘well maintained’. The increased use of the area has created a welcoming space for social interaction. Nassauer (1997) has argued that an area that is enjoyed and appreciated is more likely to be cared for. The rehabilitation has clearly increased interest in the area and vandalism following the scheme was reported as being low (Personal communication Deirdre Murphy). Connecting with nature has been found to be difficult without the presence of some cultural aspects to relate to (Waitt & Cook, 2007). The presence of both livelier areas with increased access and attractive features, and quieter areas with more limited access and higher ecological integrity, was highly appreciated among local residents around the Skerne rehabilitation site. This spatial diversity aids people with different interests and needs to connect with nature, both through recreational or leisure activities, as well as providing the possibility to interact with nature in less disturbed surroundings. Integrating both ecological and recreational features and characteristics was also found within the SMURF project to be important public criteria for successful urban river rehabilitation (Petts, 2007). The appreciation for both ‘low use’ and ‘high use’ areas along the river provides the possibility for rehabilitation design to create a balance between areas of high ecological integrity and areas of high recreational value (Manning, 1997). Several respondents at the River Skerne commented that they enjoyed the characteristics of both riverscapes, meaning upstream for having a ‘country-side feeling’ without footpaths (and thus receiving less visitors), and the rehabilitated reach for being livelier, more interesting and for having footpaths. In fact, some of the most appreciated features of the rehabilitated reach were the footpaths and circular routes. Providing features that increase access to the riverscape promotes visits and familiarity with the area, which in turn can cultivate a feeling of belonging and care (Chiesura, 2004; Eden & Tunstall, 2006; Nassauer, 1997). Increased access can also provide possibilities for a larger audience to enjoy the rehabilitated riverscape. However, too much pressure from visitors can be disadvantageous for the aims of ecological rehabilitation (Manning, 1997), and may result in noise and littering, which is unfavourable to the local residents; such tendencies were noted at the River Skerne. Both footpaths and other characteristics not directly related to the rehabilitation, such as lack of benches, litter or dog fouling strongly influenced people’s perceptions of the overall riverscape. This suggests that the impression of the total riverscape is more important to local residents than the purely natural (or semi-natural) features of the river itself. Junker and Buchecker (2008) found that the public’s aesthetic preferences in Switzerland were primarily influenced by the perceived naturalness of restored rivers. The perceived naturalness of the rehabilitated River Skerne was closely linked to appealing

101

greenery, and an important factor contributing to a sense of liking and attractiveness. The increase in riparian vegetation was seen as being particularly valuable for supporting local wildlife. Residents had perceived an increase in wildlife since the rehabilitation, especially among terrestrial and aquatic birds. Birds benefit from the increased riparian vegetation and are also easily observed. Several respondents referred to birds as indicators for riverscape quality, where high quality was identified by for example kingfishers, but also other fauna that have received special media attention, such as water voles. The use of attractive plants or wildlife habitats in river rehabilitation can thus increase preferences for more natural ecosystems, which support Nassauer’s (1995) research that such intentional features – called ‘cues to care’ – increase social acceptance for landscape designs with higher ecosystem integrity. Although the public primarily evaluated the naturalness of the rehabilitated areas by their visual appearance, this study has also shown that smell and sound can influence the perception of riverscapes. In the 1995 pre-rehabilitation study several respondents complained about the bad smell from the river at times, which may have added to a negative perception, as suggested by O’Connor (2008). In 1997 and 2008 respondents complained about the smell and noise from factories and noise from motor bikes used on the footpaths, which spoilt the attractiveness and their enjoyment of visiting the river. Others spoke of liking the quietness of the river environment. The sound of the ripples of the water in the river and the birdsong could now add to people’s positive sensory experiences (Carles et al., 1999). Long-term data of both public perception and biophysical condition provided the opportunity to compare before-after conditions of the rehabilitated reach of the River Skerne. The before, after and long-term data showed a marked increase both in public preference and ecological integrity after the rehabilitation compared with before, especially in the long-term perspective (Åberg, 2010). It has been recognised by numerous authors that ecosystem recovery after rehabilitation works might take several years (Niemi et al., 1990; Tockner, Schiemer, & Ward, 1998). However, this research has shown that social benefits might also take some time to build up, something to be highlighted to residents for future projects. There is therefore a need for clear communication between rehabilitation managers and local residents to contribute to increased understanding and appreciation of the outcomes of rehabilitation. 6. Conclusions The paper demonstrates clear long-term social benefits from river rehabilitation. As in the SMURF project (Petts & Gray, 2006) it also indicates that the inclusion of a social science component, through encouraging public engagement in river rehabilitation design, management and execution, can further improve the benefits of such schemes and increase the support for similar work in the future. The public perception surveys at the River Skerne showed that the rehabilitation efforts were well supported by the local community. Comparing the three public perception surveys carried out before and after the rehabilitation clearly showed the importance of the visual aesthetic appearance of the river. Local residents had high expectations on the outcomes of the rehabilitation scheme. These hopes were partly clouded by the long construction time and the bare appearance of the river after the rehabilitation. But with time – as vegetation matured, wildlife increased and people became familiar with the changes to the river – both the perceived attractiveness and the affection for the area grew. After 13 years, outcomes of the rehabilitation were valued even higher than initially expected in 1995. From this we can note the importance of appropriate public communication and engagement.

102

E.U. Åberg, S. Tapsell / Landscape and Urban Planning 113 (2013) 94–103

To have a clear vision for the river rehabilitation and how it will progress is not only helpful to rehabilitation practitioners, but also important in order for local residents to facilitate understanding and commitment. The need of having a common vision sits well within the foresight for river rehabilitation, as it has been recognised both as an important criteria for over-all success (Palmer et al., 2005) and shown to aid planning and implementation of rehabilitation projects (Gregory & Brierley, 2010). To achieve support and a common vision requires an increased effort from rehabilitation planners to collaborate with social scientists with the expertise to engage people in understanding the scientific objectives and in clearly communicating the multiple benefits of river rehabilitation, including a realistic timescale of when these are likely to be achieved (Tunstall et al., 2000). Changes take time to get used to, and to obtain a fair picture of public perception of rehabilitated rivers it is argued here that the time span between project completion and evaluation surveys will influence the responses to the project. The timing of one-off evaluation surveys following rehabilitation schemes therefore need to be carefully considered to reflect an accurate base for adaptive management. This research has shown that people’s aesthetic preferences are strongly related to the ecological quality of the rehabilitated river reach. However, people have a preference for what appears natural to them, which might not always be in accordance with expert opinions on what provides ecological quality (Gobster et al., 2007; Nassauer et al., 2001). It is therefore important to incorporate socially and culturally valued plants and features as, to cite Nassauer (1995:167) “a means of adapting cultural expectations to recognise new landscape forms that include greater biodiversity” within ecosystem management and river rehabilitation. At the River Skerne, major visual enhancements were made to a non-appreciated, largely featureless, straight channel. The river rehabilitation was perceived as being very beneficial to the local community, creating a high quality green space for people to enjoy, relax and interact. The rehabilitated area has provided a well used recreational space where accessibility, appealing greenery and wildlife largely contributed to the high attractiveness scores. It is therefore suggested that to deliver both social and ecosystem benefits, urban river rehabilitation project plans must go beyond the river channel and consider elements of the wider riverscape and land use. The presence of footpaths and circular routes has a large effect on usage of the riverscape, providing convenient access to nature. Increased usage of safe and high quality green space has positive effects on people’s well-being and provides the opportunity to socialise with family, friends and neighbours. This research has found that providing leisure features, such as footpaths or benches, increase social value of the rehabilitation site over time. This case study assessment has shown that people appreciate a combination of aesthetically pleasing areas with perceived naturalness and high accessibility, and more ‘wild’ areas with higher ecological value and fewer man-made features. We argue that this is a preferable approach to future sustainable urban river rehabilitation design. To maintain a balance between high use and low use areas is important both for people’s cultural and physical connection to their local riverscapes, and for the riverscape’s potential to sustain high ecosystem integrity. By restoring people’s cultural and emotional connection to their local rivers, these fragile ecosystems stand a much better chance against future unsustainable exploitation.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the RRP and Economic and Social Research Council for funding the initial studies in 1995 and 1997. Appreciation is also due to staff and associates at the RRP/RRC

and the Environment Agency for their assistance in all three studies, and to all the people at the River Skerne who answered our questionnaires. Particular thanks go to Sylvia Tunstall and Sally Eden for their invaluable contribution to the earlier two studies. Thanks to the University of Leeds and the School of Geography for funding the long-term study, and thanks also to Joseph Holden and Paul Waley for their support during this research.

References Åberg, E. U. (2010). At the confluence of people, environment and ecology: Assessing river rehabilitation in Japan and the UK (p. 306). Ph.D. Thesis. Leeds: School of Geography, University of Leeds. Åberg, E. U., & Tapsell, S. (2012). Rehabilitation of the River Skerne and the River Cole, England: A long-term public perspective. In P. Boon, & P. Raven (Eds.), River conservation and management (pp. 249–260). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Asakawa, S., Yoshida, K., & Yabe, K. (2004). Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2-3), 167–182. Australia ICOMOS. (2000). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for place of cultural significance 1999. Canberra: Australia ICOMOS Inc. Bell, S., & Mcgillivray, D. (2008). Environmental law (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bernhardt, E. S., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., et al. (2005). Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science, 308(5722), 636–637. Brewin, D. J., & Martin, J. R. (1988). Water quality management: A regional perspective – The severn-trent area. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 2(3), 257–275. Brookes, A., & Shields, F. D. (1996). River channel restoration: Guiding principles for sustainable projects. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Calow, P., & Petts, G. E. (1992). The rivers handbook: Hydrological and ecological principles. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Carles, J. L., Barrio, I. L., & de Lucio, J. V. (1999). Sound influence on landscape values. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43(4), 191–200. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138. Coley, R. L., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 468–494. Cuff, J. (2001). Participatory processes: A tool to assist the wise use of catchments. A guide based on experience. Wise use of floodplains. Brussels: EU LIFE-Environment Project. Eden, S., & Tunstall, S. (2006). Ecological versus social restoration? How urban river restoration challenges but also fails to challenge the science-policy nexus in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C, 24(5), 661–680. European Commission. (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L 327, 1–72. Evans, D. (1997). A history of nature conservation in Britain (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959–972. Gregory, C. E., & Brierley, G. J. (2010). Development and application of vision statements in river rehabilitation: The experience of Project Twin Streams, New Zealand. Area, 42(4), 468–478. Heritage Council of Western Australia. (undated). Criteria of cultural heritage significance for assessment of places for entry into the register of heritage places. Perth: Heritage Council of Western Australia. Holmes, N. T. H., & Nielsen, M. B. (1998). Restoration of the rivers Brede, Cole and Skerne: A joint Danish and British EU-LIFE demonstration project, I – Setting up and delivery of the project. Aquatic Conservation, 8(1), 185–196. Junk, W. J., Bayley, P. B., & Sparks, R. E. (1989). The flood pulse concept in riverfloodplain systems. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 106, 110–127. Junker, B., & Buchecker, M. (2008). Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(3–4), 141–154. Kondolf, G. M., Angermeier, P. L., Cummins, K., Dunne, T., Healey, M., Kimmerer, W., et al. (2008). Projecting cumulative benefits of multiple river restoration projects: An example from the Sacramento–San Joaquin river system in California. Environmental Management, 42(6), 933–945. Lake, P. S., Bond, N., & Reich, P. (2007). Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biology, 52(4), 597–615. Macnaghten, P. (2003). Embodying the environment in everyday life practices. Sociological Review, 51(1), 63–84. Maddock, I. (1999). The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology, 41(2), 373–391. Manning, O. D. (1997). Design imperatives for river landscapes. Landscape Research, 22(1), 67–94. Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of Landscape and Urban Planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(1), 7–19.

E.U. Åberg, S. Tapsell / Landscape and Urban Planning 113 (2013) 94–103 McDonald, A., Lane, S. N., Haycock, N. E., & Chalk, E. A. (2004). Rivers of dreams: On the gulf between theoretical and practical aspects of an upland river restoration. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29(3), 257–281. Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14(2), 161–170. Nassauer, J. I. (1997). Placing nature: Culture and landscape ecology. Washington: Island Press. Nassauer, J. I., Kosek, S. E., & Corry, R. C. (2001). Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37(6), 1439–1443. Newson, M. (2009). Land, water and development: Sustainable and adaptive management of rivers (3rd ed.). Oxon: Routledge. Newson, M., & Chalk, L. (2004). Environmental capital: An information core to public participation in strategic and operational decisions - the example of river ‘Best Practice’ projects. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(6), 899–920. Niemi, G. J., Devore, P., Detenbeck, N., Taylor, D., Lima, A., Pastor, J., et al. (1990). Overview of case-studies on recovery of aquatic systems from disturbance. Environmental Management, 14(5), 571–587. Nienhuis, P. H., Leuven, R. S. E. W., & Ragas, A. M. J. (1998). New concepts for sustainable management of river basins. Leiden: Backhuys Publishers. O’Connor, P. (2008). The sound of silence: Valuing acoustics in heritage conservation. Geographical Research, 46(3), 361–373. Office for National Statistics. (2003). In C. Summerfield, & P. Babb (Eds.), Social trends No. 33. London: The Stationery Office. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2006). The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society, 11(1.). Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Allan, J. D., Lake, P. S., Alexander, G., Brooks, S., et al. (2005). Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2), 208–217. Petts, J. (2007). Learning about learning: Lessons from public engagement and deliberation on urban river restoration. Geographical Journal, 173(4), 300–311. Petts, J., & Gray, A. J. (2006). SMURF and the public: Engagement and learning. Report of EU Life Project – LIFE02 ENV/UK/000144 Environment Agency, Bristol.

103

Reichert, P., Borsuk, M., Hostmann, M., Schweizer, S., Sporri, C., Tockner, K., et al. (2007). Concepts of decision support for river rehabilitation. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(2), 188–201. RELU. (undated). Rural economy and land use programme – Stakeholder engagement. http://relu.data-archive.ac.uk/explore-methods/engagement Accessed 08.03.12. RRP. (1995). River Skerne public perception survey: Stage two. Enfield: Flood Hazard Research Centre. Schafer, R. M. (1977). The tuning of the world. New York: Knopf. Steinwender, A., Gundacker, C., & Wittmann, K. J. (2008). Objective versus subjective assessments of environmental quality of standing and running waters in a large city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(2), 116–126. Tapsell, S. M., Tunstall, S. M., & Eden, S. (1997). Public responses to river restoration: The River Skerne and the River Cole. Enfield: Flood Hazard Research Centre. Tockner, K., Malard, F., & Ward, J. V. (2000). An extension of the flood pulse concept. Hydrological Processes, 14(16–17), 2861–2883. Tockner, K., Schiemer, F., & Ward, J. V. (1998). Conservation by restoration: The management concept for a river-floodplain system on the Danube River in Austria. Aquatic Conservation, 8(1), 71–86. Tunstall, S. M., Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Tapsell, S. M., & Eden, S. E. (2000). River restoration: Public attitudes and expectations. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 14(5), 363–370. Tunstall, S. M., Tapsell, S. M., & Eden, S. (1999). How stable are public responses to changing local environments? A ‘Before’ and ‘After’ case study of river restoration. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(4), 527–547. Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R., & Cushing, C. E. (1980). River continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37(1), 130–137. Waitt, G., & Cook, L. (2007). Leaving nothing but ripples on the water: Performing ecotourism natures. Social & Cultural Geography, 8(4), 535–550. Wohl, E., Angermeier, P. L., Bledsoe, B., Kondolf, G. M., MacDonnell, L., Merritt, D. M., et al. (2005). River restoration. Water Resources Research, 41(10.) Yokohari, M., & Amati, M. (2005). Nature in the city, city in the nature: Case studies of the restoration of urban nature in Tokyo, Japan and Toronto, Canada. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, V1(1), 53–59.