River Rehabilitation: Preference Factors and Public Participation Implications

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
ISSN: 0964-0568 (Print) 1360-0559 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20
River rehabilitation: preference factors and public

participation implications
Xavier Garcia, Marta Benages-Albert, Matthias Buchecker & Pere Vall-Casas
To cite this article: Xavier Garcia, Marta Benages-Albert, Matthias Buchecker & Pere Vall-Casas
(2019): River rehabilitation: preference factors and public participation implications, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2019.1680353
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1680353
Published online: 05 Nov 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 4
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjep20
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1680353
REVIEW ARTICLE
River rehabilitation: preference factors and public
participation implications
Xavier Garciaa,b, Marta Benages-Alberta, Matthias Bucheckerc and Pere Vall-Casasa
a
School of Architecture, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain;
b
Institute of Regional and Metropolitan Studies of Barcelona, Autonomous University of
Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Valles, Spain; cEconomics and Social Sciences Research Unit,
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
(Received 7 December 2017; Revised 26 July 2019; final version received 10 October 2019)
Human activities have caused the degradation of rivers and streams, and
consequently, the disruption of the provision of valuable services. Therefore, the
rehabilitation of these ecosystems can provide many benefits that will contribute to
the well-being of society. However, these projects often meet with controversial
public responses because of conflicting interests and expectations. Through a
literature review, this paper identifies and describes the main public preference
factors for river rehabilitation. Understanding the multiple factors that inform the
public’s preference for rehabilitation actions might assist decision-makers in
anticipating conflicts and outline rehabilitation management strategies that can
improve the acceptability of river rehabilitation, thus helping to ensure the
sustainability of these projects. These factors are categorised as: socio-cultural,
perceptual, and physical. Using these findings, we develop a conceptual framework
for understanding how these preference factors and the knowledge about them can
be used to increase the acceptance of river rehabilitation.
Keywords: rivers and streams; rehabilitation; public preference; environmental
changes; public participation
1. Introduction
Unsustainable management and land use has severely impacted on rivers and streams for
decades. These impacts have been driven by urban development, intensive flow regula-
tion, river channelisation, point and non-point sources of water pollution, and other
anthropogenic drivers. As a result of these human alterations in the biodiversity, hydro-
morphology, and physical and chemical characteristics of the water that flows into riv-
ers, their ecological functioning has been severely constrained (Everard and Moggridge
2012). Apart from this deterioration in ecological value, the degradation of riparian land-
scapes also has a negative impact on socio-cultural values and well-being. For instance,
the urban transformation of rural riparian areas jeopardises the public’s sense of connec-
tion to their local rivers, a connection that is normally quite strong in traditional rural
communities (Benages-Albert et al. 2015). As a result of these and other adverse effects,
rivers in many areas have a negative image among authorities and the public due to their
unpleasant appearance, disconnection from the community, and/or the problems they
cause for the population (e.g., mosquitoes, smell, etc.) (Garcia and Pargament 2015).
Corresponding author. Email: xavier.garciaacosta@udg.edu
ß 2019 Newcastle University

2 X. Garcia et al.
In recent years, authorities in charge of rivers and streams have begun to realise
the potential of these degraded ecosystems as a unique opportunity to recover a diverse
and broad suite of ecosystem services (Everard and Moggridge 2012; Lundy and
Wade 2011). In this context, river rehabilitation refers to the significant improvement
in the ecosystem functioning and biodiversity of rivers and streams (Findlay and
Taylor 2006). Despite growing interest, several planning and management issues dis-
courage widespread initiation and implementation of river rehabilitation plans (Zaugg
2002). In addition to the high technical and ecological complexity and the high costs
of such interventions, a major reason for hesitation is that river rehabilitation schemes
can be controversial because of conflicting interests and expectations, often resulting
in a lack of local public support or even resistance (Buijs 2009; Junker, Buchecker,
and M€ uller-B€oker 2007; Vining, Tyler, and Kweon 2000). It is, thus, critical to under-
stand the factors that influence the local public’s acceptance. For instance, information
about the public’s perceptions and preferences regarding changes in sensitive land-
scapes might be very important in meeting demands and improving acceptability
(Casado-Arzuaga, Madariaga, and Onaindia 2013; Ryan 1998). In addition, ensuring
that the preferences of the general public are recognised can encourage the public to
value these changes and thus become watchful caretakers of rehabilitated landscapes
(Grêt-Regamey et al. 2016; Nassauer 2004). For the abovementioned reasons, many
researchers have investigated the factors that can condition public reactions to environ-
mental changes derived from river rehabilitation projects, using case-specific analyses.
By reviewing this literature, this research contributes to identifying and describing the
main preference factors, which we define as the socio-cultural, physical and perceptual
influencing factors on the public’s acceptance of rehabilitation projects. In addition,
this study proposes a conceptual framework for understanding the contribution of these
different types of factors to enhance public acceptance, in particular by supporting
public participation in river rehabilitation. This review of preference factors and their
conceptual contribution to public participation might assist decision-makers in antici-
pating conflicts; inform communication about planned projects, as well as designing
participatory processes. Therefore, this knowledge may serve to outline rehabilitation
management strategies that can improve acceptability and increase the public’s
involvement in the river rehabilitation process.
In the following, the paper presents the methodological procedure for the literature
research, then proposes a logically plausible categorisation and description of the main
preference factors found in the literature. Subsequently, the interconnections between
preference factors are analysed to achieve a better understanding of their complex
interdependencies. Based on these findings, the paper elaborates a conceptual frame-
work for understanding the contribution of these different types of factors to support-
ing public participation in river rehabilitation. Finally, some conclusions, observations
and management guidelines are presented regarding how to improve river rehabilitation
sustainability.
2. Methods
To understand the multiple factors that influence public preferences for the rehabilita-
tion of rivers and streams, and their contribution to supporting river rehabilitation deci-
sion-making, a systematic literature review was conducted. This review focussed on
published scientific research that studied the public’s perceptions of river environments
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 3
and their changes. It included a systematic selection of the literature, an analysis of the
findings and a synthesis.
The study selection was iterative and included three steps pursuing systematic and
purposive approaches. In a first step, we first conducted a computerised search of con-
tributions in the ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar. We used combinations of
the search terms: (“river” OR “stream” OR “riparian”) AND (“restoration” OR
“rehabilitation” OR “regeneration”) AND (“perception” OR “acceptability” OR
“acceptance” OR “preference” OR “attractiveness”). To ensure the trustworthiness of
the synthesis, only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were selected for fur-
ther analysis. In a second step, further relevant contributions were retrieved using their
reference lists. Studies initially identified by using these search criteria totalled 157. In
a third step, the studies providing relevant findings were selected. Out of the identified
studies, 41 papers became the subject of our analysis, because they included explicit
qualitative or quantitative evaluation of factors affecting the public’s preference for
riparian landscapes (Appendix Table A1 [online supplemental material]).
The next step consisted of a thematic synthesis (Thomas and Harden 2008) of the
full-text of the selected contributions to identify, analyse, and report variables that
influence the public’s perception or preference. A line-by-line reading of all the
selected papers allowed the identification and codification of the variables organised
into descriptive themes. During subsequent readings, evidence of relationships between
the variables and particular theories or specific constructs supporting each approach
were also detected and noted as narratives accompanying the text. After this initial
descriptive phase, we conducted a more analytical and interpretative phase to define
the final rehabilitation preference factors and their influence on decision-making. In
this second phase, an iterative reading of the codified segments referring to the identi-
fied variables allowed their critical categorisation in different groups by logically
plausible interpretation of their similarity and/or interrelationships. Each group was
assigned a synthetic thematic heading which corresponded to each final rehabilitation
factor. Finally, on the basis of the theoretical ground provided by the seminal works,
we developed a conceptual framework for understanding the contribution of these dif-
ferent types of factors to supporting public participation in river rehabilitation.
3. Rehabilitation preference factors

After reviewing and analysing the selected literature, we found three main categories
according to the prevalent influence of three dimensions (socio-cultural, perceptual,
and physical) in the acceptance of rehabilitation projects. Each category includes sev-
eral preference factors:
Socio-cultural (distance and length of residence, socio-demographic, knowledge,

beliefs and values, and place attachment): factors related to the individual’s
social and cultural background;
Perceptual (naturalness, risk and safety, and care and cleanliness): factors linked
to the individual’s perceptual and psychological aspects;
Physical (landscape biophysical characteristics, and design and functional fea-
tures): factors associated with the elemental, structural (design), and functional
characteristics of riparian landscapes.
4 X. Garcia et al.
At risk of oversimplification, the grouping of factors into large categories high-

lights the main research topics identified through the literature review; specifically,
how the socio-cultural and perceptual characteristics of individuals and social groups
and the physical characteristics of the riparian landscapes, influence public preferences
for the rehabilitation of rivers and streams. Under this rationale, the first group (socio-
cultural) includes the factors that shape our personal/collective views towards the tan-
gible world. The third group (physical) defines the characteristics of the tangible world
with which we interact. And the second (perceptual), are the interpretations of the
physical world according to our personal/collective views. In addition, the simple
grouping of factors presented above intends to establish a baseline for the research on
this topic. Finally, the present study acknowledges and analyses the interconnections
between preference factors, as described in Section 4.
3.1. Socio-cultural factors

The importance of natural environments to human well-being is common worldwide,
independent of socio-cultural background. Nevertheless, people with different socio-
cultural backgrounds can differ significantly in how they use and perceive natural
landscapes (Matsuoka and Kaplan 2008). For this reason, socio-cultural backgrounds
of the landscape’s perceiver are just as important as the biophysical characteristics of
the landscape itself in defining people’s preferences for river rehabilitation (Westling
et al. 2014). Socio-cultural factors were classified into specific sub-groups of factors:
distance and length of residence, socio-demographic, knowledge, beliefs and values,
and place attachment.
3.1.1. Distance and length of residence

A study conducted in the River Raisin in southeastern Michigan (USA), (Ryan 1998)
observed that local residents valued the river positively even if they did not live close
to it (based on map-based distance). They concluded that the extent to which local res-
idents valued the attributes of the river corridor was not associated with the distance
between their house or town and the river (Ryan 1998). However, they also found that
residents living closer to the river were more aware of water quality problems because
the impact of pollution was more noticeable (Ryan 1998). Similarly, in a case study of
the Thur River (Switzerland), it was also found that locals living in different locations
(more or less distant) did not reflect different levels of acceptance of a river restoration
project. Still, differences in the independent variables that were significant in predict-
ing acceptance for the various locations showed that rationales behind the public’s
acceptance of restoration differed between these different locations (Seidl and
Stauffacher 2013). Finally, Ryan (1998) also discovered that respondents’ length of
residence in their present home was inversely related to their preference for a rehabili-
tated river corridor. Relative newcomers had the highest preference. Those moving to
rural areas were attracted to the natural amenities and this was expressed in the value
they attributed to natural areas – instead of farmland – along the rivers (Ryan 1998).
In sum, literature on the effects of distance between residence and rivers on
rehabilitation acceptability suggests that this is probably not a relevant factor per se.
Although individuals living physically closer to rivers can be more supportive of
rehabilitation because they perceive the environmental issues in the river with greater
intensity, those who live far from the river might also express support for these proj-
ects for other reasons. Regarding length of residence, newcomers tend to better appre-
ciate the amenity values of rivers and support actions that improve these values.
3.1.2. Socio-demographic
Despite some exceptions (van Marwijk et al. 2012), socio-demographic variables (such
as age, income, or educational level) usually have a substantial influence on how the
general public evaluates the attractiveness of landscapes. In the Hudson River Valley
(New York, USA) higher income and education levels were positively associated with
higher willingness-to-pay (WTP) for rehabilitation actions (Connelly, Knuth, and Kay
2002). Since WTP depends greatly on human preference (Barbier et al. 2009) it can
be considered another robust indicator of preference concerning rehabilitation project
alternatives (Connelly, Knuth, and Kay 2002; Vollmer et al. 2015). In another study
assessing WTP for a riparian rehabilitation, conducted for the Little Tennessee River
(Georgia, USA), having a college degree was found to be a positive and significant
determinant, but income was not (Holmes et al. 2004). The influence of age has also
been widely investigated. Generally, older people show a lower acceptance, especially
if actions counter traditional practices (Schaich 2009). In addition, older groups will be
more prone to support actions that are initially perceived to “control” the wilderness of
the riparian landscape (de Groot and de Groot 2009).
Disagreement over landscape preferences between inhabitants of rural or urban
areas is a common phenomenon (Kaplan and Herbert 1987; Yu 1995). Often, farmers
express stronger preferences for agricultural activities and urban development over wil-
derness and non-intensively managed landscapes (Ryan 1998; Schaich 2009).
Assessing public preferences for different environmental configurations of stream buf-
fers in peri-urban areas in Champaign County (Illinois, USA), Sullivan, Anderson, and
Lovell (2004) found that no buffer scenario approval was stronger among farmers than
urban residents. The opposite was true when assessing the extensive buffer configur-
ation (less crop land and more habitat) (Sullivan, Anderson, and Lovell 2004). Despite
this fact, the farmers’ approval of basic buffer configurations was less predictable,
which might stem from their ability to look beyond the cost of conservation practices
and appreciate some of the value of these buffer areas (Sullivan, Anderson, and Lovell
2004). Uncertainty was also detected in another study conducted in Illinois, where
rural and suburban respondents showed similar preferences for a tree buffer configur-
ation over a no buffer option (Kenwick, Shammin, and Sullivan 2009).
In conclusion, there exists some evidence that socio-demographic characteristics of
individuals within a community shape their preferences for rehabilitating the river.
Those who are highly educated and wealthier often show higher acceptance. On the
contrary, older individuals and rural inhabitants tend to reject river rehabilitation
actions, unless they are perceived to control the wilderness of the landscape or provide
some beneficial outcomes.
3.1.3. Knowledge
Knowledge and cognitive processes can shape perceptions and individuals’ intentions
to modify the landscape (Gobster et al. 2007). For instance, people with knowledge of
how some ecosystems function or people who have attitudes and values in favour of
6 X. Garcia et al.
nature conservation may see beauty, whereas other people may see an unattractive
landscape (Nassauer 2004). In urban natural areas along the Huron River in Ann
Arbor (Michigan, USA), active park users (i.e., walkers, bikers, and joggers) and
neighbours were more optimistic than staff and volunteers about taking action in the
landscape to refine it (e.g., mowing grass along paths and pruning shrubs along trails)
(Ryan 2005). Natural-areas knowledge was related to an increase in the preference for
management options that tried to eliminate non-native plants, thus environmental
knowledge or expertise proved to influence landscape preferences (Ryan 2005). This
was also confirmed by Gobster and Westphal (2004) who found that although commu-
nity members were aware of the ecological quality brought about by improvements in
the context of the Chicago River Project (Illinois, USA), resource experts tended to
better appreciate recent improvements. In a survey conducted with practitioners and
students from different disciplines, those who claimed to have knowledge of ecology
were more capable of identifying trophic status in a riverine wetland’s water as related
to ecological health (Cottet, Piegay, and Bornette 2013).
In this regard, other authors argue that preferences for landscape features are nei-
ther superficial nor highly malleable constructions (Parsons and Daniel 2002), and thus
the simple fact of having access to this knowledge might not immediately influence
preferences. This was confirmed in a study conducted in the Dwingelderveld National
Park (the Netherlands). In this case, information provided to the respondents before
completing the survey did not significantly influence the results of the restoration pref-
erence assessment (van Marwijk et al. 2012).
According to the literature, individuals with a wider knowledge and understanding
of river ecology would be more in favour of rehabilitation actions that improve river
ecology; simply being exposed to information in that regard may not influ-
ence preference.
3.1.4. Beliefs and values

Individual beliefs regarding society, politics or nature, are frequently more explicative
factors than socio-demographic characteristics (Bright, Barro, and Burtz 2002;
Connelly, Knuth, and Kay 2002; Schaich 2009). For instance, in the case of a flood-
plain restoration project in the Syr Valley (Luxembourg), Schaich (2009) discovered
that self-reported “modern” lifestyle individuals had a more positive attitude towards
restoration actions than “pre-modern” lifestyle groups, with the “modern” lifestyle con-
cept defined by “a preference for values such as participation, freedom of opinion and
self-realisation in society, … (p. 23)”. In the Thur River case study, the authors found
that groups oriented toward nature conservation showed a more positive connection to
the ecological restoration options; meanwhile, human-focussed orientation groups were
significantly opposed to actions that would change “traditional” land uses (Seidl and
Stauffacher 2013). In the case of the river flow augmentation plan for the Jordan River
(Jordan, Israel and Palestine), it was found that Israeli individuals who belonged to an
environmental organisation reported a significantly higher willingness-to-pay for the
project (Becker, Helgeson, and Katz 2014).
Against these results, a recent study conducted in the floodplain of the River Waal
(The Netherlands) evaluated the public’s attitude toward “room for river” oriented
measures. This study found that those groups with a more ecocentric vision of the
human-nature relationship reported a more negative opinion toward these measures.
Although “room for river” measures are conceived of as an eco-friendly option for
flood management, specific measures were perceived as impacting on natural elements
(e.g., removal of trees or side channel creation) (de Groot and de Groot 2009). In fact,
this is not the first time that researchers have found that people’s attitudes towards spe-
cific rehabilitation actions fall short of their general support for rehabilitation objec-
tives (Connelly, Knuth, and Kay 2002; Junker, Buchecker, and M€uller-B€oker 2007).
Therefore, the reviewed literature suggests that people whose personal beliefs or
values may reflect a modern or ecocentric view tend to better appreciate river rehabili-
tation schemes if the specific rehabilitation measures are not perceived as harmful to
the river’s integrity.
3.1.5. Place attachment

Place attachment is the positive emotional bond that individuals develop towards their
environment (Moore and Graefe 1994; Williams et al. 1992). It is a construct deter-
mined by the complex biophysical features of the place itself, the type and intensity of
the public’s experience with a place, and the meanings attributed to the place in gen-
eral (Ryan 2005). Riparian cultural landscapes created over time by human interactions
with nature evoke memories and trigger the identities of riparian communities (Sabate
and Schuster 2001). In this context, the reduction of place attachment as a result of an
unfamiliar river landscape may be a source of public resistance to rehabilitation
schemes (Buijs 2009). In fact, water-related landscapes produce stronger attachments
compared to other types of landscapes (Ryan 2005), which makes them more vulner-
able to attachment conflicts. Consequently, careful understanding of place attachment
can provide a better appreciation of social acceptability towards environmental changes
(Brown, Perkins, and Brown 2003; Chawla 1992; Manzo and Perkins 2006). In flood-
plains located along the main branches of the Rhine (The Netherlands), Buijs (2009)
studied the local framing of river restoration projects. One reported frame of floodplain
restoration was the “attachment frame,” characterised by the importance attributed to
personal attachment, safeguarding cultural heritage, and accessibility to natural areas.
People adhering to this frame showed a fairly high level of opposition to restoration
plans, especially before their implementation.
However, the role of place attachment in accepting environmental enhancements
seems to depend on the inhabitants’ social integration (Westling et al. 2014). In
Nurmij€arvi, a municipality located close to the Helsinki Metropolitan Area in southern
Finland, Soini, Vaarala, and Pouta (2012) discovered that newcomers based their place
attachment on the quality of the environment, while long-term residents based it on
their social bonds related to the place. Social groups for whom place attachment was
primarily focussed on environmental quality had a significantly higher appreciation of
the natural landscapes and were more prone to reject changes that might affect their
integrity. In contrast, social groups for whom the place attachment was primarily
focussed on social bonds had a relatively low appreciation of the landscape and were
more prone to accept development (Soini, Vaarala, and Pouta 2012). Similarly, in a
small rural community in Skjåk (Norway), attitudes toward a proposal for a major
hydropower development that would have an important impact on recreational use of
the area were examined in relation to place attachment (Vorkinn and Riese 2001). The
results of that study reported that those inhabitants with stronger attachments to the
affected areas were strongly opposed to the hydropower project. However, those
8 X. Garcia et al.
inhabitants reporting stronger attachment to the community were significantly less

opposed to the proposed plan. Finally, in a study conducted in the Caldes Stream
(Spain), it was found that those community members who reported a stronger attach-
ment to the stream landscape were strongly committed to the conservation and
rehabilitation of the stream (Benages-Albert et al. 2015).
In sum, these studies have often reported a negative relationship between place
attachment and acceptance of river rehabilitation, although sometimes this is ambigu-
ous and depends significantly on the attachment dimension that predominates within
the community.
3.2. Perceptual factors

These factors describe various perceptual and psychological dimensions that were
found to influence rehabilitation preferences. In the river rehabilitation literature, natur-
alness, risk and safety and care and cleanliness were the perceptual dimensions most
often analysed to explore the public’s river landscape preferences.
3.2.1. Naturalness
Naturalness is the quality or state of being natural, that is, not altered by humans. The
relationship between the perceived naturalness of a landscape and preference or attract-
iveness is probably the most widely tested in the literature. Bearing in mind the prem-
ise that aesthetically pleasing landscapes are more likely to be appreciated and
protected by the public, many scholars have analysed whether an improvement in land-
scapes’ naturalness goes hand-in-hand with an increase in the public’s aesthetic appre-
ciation or with rejection and possible protest. Generally, the lay public has clearly
shown a positive preference for what they consider to be more natural landscapes
(Asakawa, Yoshida, and Yabe 2004; Gobster et al. 2007; Schauman and Salisbury
1998; Seidl and Stauffacher 2013). In turn, the lay public has tended to prefer land-
scapes that have been previously assessed by experts as natural or near natural (Junker
and Buchecker 2008; McCormick, Fisher, and Brierley 2015; Yang et al. 2014). For
instance, in a nationwide study conducted in Switzerland, aesthetic preferences
appeared to be positively related to eco-morphological quality in rivers, which was
measured using photo-visualised scenarios developed together with experts (Junker and
Buchecker 2008). However, aesthetic preference found to be associated with perceived
naturalness was even stronger than preference associated with objectively measured
naturalness, evidencing that the perception of naturalness significantly mediates this
relationship (Junker and Buchecker 2008).
The non-visual nature of ecological integrity might make the public perceive
degraded ecosystems as natural. Still, people have a greater capacity to assess the nat-
uralness of a landscape than to identify the biophysical factors that contribute to that
naturalness (McCormick, Fisher, and Brierley 2015). This demonstrates the relevance
of emotional responses to aesthetic evaluations of landscapes, which might also be sig-
nificantly determined by both personal and contextual characteristics (Sevenant and
Antrop 2009). In the face of such complexity, the public may often contradictorily
evaluate ecologically healthy landscapes as aesthetically unpleasant. This incongruence
between ecological quality and aesthetic preferences might appear regularly in land-
scapes with the highest levels of ecological quality (Gobster 1994; Hands and Brown
2002). Wetlands, especially bogs or swamps, are classic examples of landscapes with
high ecological value that are judged as aesthetically unpleasant (Nassauer 2004;
Gobster et al. 2007). In contrast, the public may often aesthetically appreciate rehabili-
tated landscapes that have allegedly improved ecological health. In some urban reaches
of Boone Creek (North Carolina, USA) (Cockerill and Anderson 2014), rehabilitation
actions were implemented and aesthetic expectations were met, reinforced by the pro-
ject developers’ expressed purpose of improving the creek’s ecological integrity.
However, biophysical data demonstrated no significant improvement in the creek’s
ecological integrity.
In conclusion, the explored literature points to a strong relationship between object-
ively measured naturalness and landscape preference. This relationship is, however,
heavily mediated by the way in which individuals perceive naturalness, to the extent
that, in some contexts, this relationship is no longer evident.
3.2.2. Risk and safety

Even though the public is capable of perceiving potential trade-offs between nature
conservation and safety measures that supposedly impact naturalness (e.g., flood pro-
tection) (Gobster and Westphal 2004; Seidl and Stauffacher 2013) risk and safety per-
ceptions significantly moderate support for rehabilitation (Buijs 2009). For instance,
wood in rivers and streams is considered to improve habitat services. However, wood
in the river is often viewed as a risk factor for floods, bank erosion, and damage to
infrastructure (Piegay et al. 2005). Along with naturalness, this dimension is also often
perceived to be at odds with the aesthetics of urban green corridors (Gobster and
Westphal 2004). Flood risk perception has been demonstrated to condition river
rehabilitation assessment (Ryan 1998; Seidl and Stauffacher 2013; Weber and Ringold
2015). In a study conducted at a section of the Swiss Thur River, farmers (compared
to non-farmers) reported being especially concerned about flood risks and wanted
more support for flood protection (Seidl and Stauffacher 2013). In this and another
Swiss study conducted in the L€otschen and Kander Valleys, it was found that previous
experience with floods increased the extent to which perception of the effects of flood
protection was a determinant of acceptance (Buchecker, Ogasa, and Maidl 2016).
Because it is perceived as a risk factor for public health, water quality influences
environmental preferences related to rivers and streams. In the River Raisin
Watershed, one of the most relevant problems with the river, as perceived by the pub-
lic, had to do with its water quality, followed by floods and insects. Regarding quality,
those living closer to the river were more aware of quality issues and, thus, distance to
the river directly determined water quality concerns (Ryan 1998). In the Ciliwung
River rehabilitation case study (Indonesia), the public strongly prioritised improvement
in the river’s water quality over the development of a river park that would enhance
recreational and aesthetic values (Vollmer et al. 2015). Similarly, in the Hudson River
Valley, restoration actions aiming at meliorating the water quality in the river were the
most preferred by the public (Connelly, Knuth, and Kay 2002). Moreover, Ryan
(1998) reported mosquito issues as driving a negative perception of rivers.
In the Minnesota wetlands case study, it was found that perceived safety or seeing
a place as good for children is only significantly related to attractiveness for neigh-
bours and not for visitors (Nassauer 2004). Also, in the Chicago River Project case
study (Gobster and Westphal 2004), it was reported that increasing vegetation in urban
10 X. Garcia et al.
parks could trigger a reduction in crime and increased perceptions of safety. The
authors argued that appropriate landscaping could reduce crime by increasing the psy-
chologically restorative benefits of green parks (Kuo and Sullivan 2001).
In summary, the most important drivers of risk perception are flooding, water qual-
ity, insects and crime. A number of studies suggest that environmental changes in riv-
ers, usually focussed on increasing naturalness, are better accepted if they are
associated with a reduction in risk or perceived danger, or at least with maintenance of
current risk levels.
3.2.3. Care and cleanliness

Care is determined by the feeling of ownership towards a place felt by a particular
community or individual. The place relates to the owner’s pride, work ethic, or wealth,
as well as to the owner’s involvement in the future of that landscape (Nassauer 1995).
Almost all landscapes are judged and enjoyed according to the extent to which they
reflect care. Therefore, a landscape that does not reflect care might be perceived as
messy or abandoned and become vulnerable to misleading alteration, development or
degradation (Nassauer and Faust 1997). Especially in urban riparian landscapes, care is
reflected by cleanliness (Westling et al. 2014). In fact, care or cleanliness is also
known to be complementary to perceptions of naturalness, as landscapes free of trash,
concrete and other overt signs of human activity are often identified as “natural”
(Steinitz 1990). In this sense, unintentional care can frequently spoil the landscape’s
integrity, as is the case with some urban or agricultural landscapes where care has not
been aligned with ecological concerns, despite apparent good intentions (Nassauer and
Faust 1997).
Although the integrity of natural landscapes is highly valued, people often prefer to
be surrounded by evidence of care, especially in urban river contexts (Ozg€ € uner,
Eraslan, and Yilmaz 2012). This was the case for the restored urban stream corridor in
Sparta (Turkey), where the public had a negative perception of unmaintained natural
vegetation and also perceived this aspect as unsafe (Ozg€ € uner, Eraslan, and Yilmaz
2012). In the study conducted by Kenwick, Shammin, and Sullivan (2009) in the
northern Illinois River Corridors (USA), it was showed that respondents had a negative
perception of rivers and streams with trash, weeds, bugs and natural vegetation having
“poor maintenance.” Similarly, in the stream corridors of Sapporo (Japan), litter and
water pollution were among the most significant factors that determined perceptions of
poor maintenance and rejection of the landscapes (Asakawa, Yoshida, and Yabe 2004).
Summarizing, the literature shows that riparian landscapes that convey a sense of
care and cleanliness are preferred; thus, river rehabilitation scenarios focussed on these
attributes are likely to be supported by the public.
3.3. Physical factors

This category includes all the rehabilitation factors that consider the relationship
between elemental, structural (design), and functional characteristics of riparian land-
scapes and public preferences. These are classified as: landscape biophysical character-
istics, and design and functional features.
3.3.1. Landscape biophysical characteristics

Water bodies have been demonstrated to have a strong positive attraction effect on
humans (Kaplan and Kaplan 1983; Kaplan, Kaplan, and Ryan 1998), but not all water
bodies are equally attractive. The configuration of the biophysical elements that form
riparian landscapes (riverbanks, channels, water, biodiversity, etc.) might determine
preferences (Kaplan, Kaplan, and Ryan 1998). However, empirical evidence that con-
firms the relationship between biophysical elements of the riverscape and aesthetic
appreciation is still limited, but is highly valuable for river management (Pfl€uger,
Rackham, and Larned 2010).
Humans’ aesthetic preference for aquatic landscapes is not only influenced by the
presence of water itself but by the natural structures surrounding it, such as the type of
vegetation. This was confirmed by the Dwingelderveld National Park visitors’ survey,
where the presence of water was assessed as the most remarkable, but not the only
relevant element contributing to the attractiveness of landscapes (van Marwijk et al.
2012). Moreover, openness and distribution of coniferous and deciduous trees were
also found to be very important; mature large trees are a commonly preferred type of
vegetation (Gobster 1994; Weber and Ringold 2015). Comparatively, the presence of
ground layer vegetation and flowers did not contribute to explaining the attractiveness
of the landscape (van Marwijk et al. 2012). In riparian landscapes of the Regional
Natural Park of Montemarcello-Magra (Italy), vegetation was found to be a significant
predictor of aesthetic appreciation, but it was water and sediment that appeared to be
the most relevant landscape elements (Le Lay, Piegay, and Riviere-Honegger 2013).
The area covered by water in the channel was positively related to aesthetic appreci-
ation and perceived benefits of the landscape. Additionally, it was negatively corre-
lated with management needs (Le Lay, Piegay, and Riviere-Honegger 2013). Because
the presence of wood in the river channel contributes to enhancing habitat services,
other studies have analysed its effect on people’s preferences. In an international sur-
vey of students from several nations and disciplines, participants considered rivers
with wood as less aesthetic, more natural, more dangerous and requiring more
improvement than rivers without wood (Piegay et al. 2005). However, among repre-
sentatives of nations with extensive forests and forestry culture, wood in the river was
considered more aesthetic (Piegay et al. 2005). In a study conducted in the Puget
Sound region (Washington, USA), the most preferred stream scenes were those with
natural logjams and natural vegetation. However, the presence of these elements was
perceived negatively if the stream was in a more urbanised context and lacked stream
vegetation (Schauman and Salisbury 1998).
Regarding the rate of flow in the channel, a study of the Poudre River (Colorado,
USA) assessed the variation in scenic beauty as related to this factor (Brown and
Daniel 1991). The results identified the optimal instream flow rate in terms of scenic
beauty, which decreased during the high and low flow periods (Brown and Daniel
1991). In an online survey conducted in New Zealand among experts representing dif-
ferent backgrounds and interests, it was found that preference is strongest when flows
are 60% of the mean; consequently, it was again suggested that there might be an opti-
mal flow in terms of aesthetic preference (Pfl€uger, Rackham, and Larned 2010). The
quantity of flowing water, which is also related to the proportions of wet and dry
channels, was the respondents’ most considered feature when assessing aesthetic qual-
ity. Most respondents preferred the highest flows depicted in small rivers. Also, people
with recreational interests (kayakers, canoeists, fishermen and jet boaters) indicated a
12 X. Garcia et al.
stronger preference for high flows (Pfl€uger, Rackham, and Larned 2010). Regarding
the shape of the channel, respondents to the survey conducted in northern Illinois
approved significantly more meandering waterways compared to straight ones
(Kenwick, Shammin, and Sullivan 2009).
The quality of the water also influences its perceived attractiveness. Clarity is a
common indicator people use to refer to water quality (Canter, Nelson, and Everett
1992; Gasteyer and Flora 2000). In the case of wetlands located along the Ain River
(France), trophic wetlands with floating vegetation were aesthetically appreciated much
less than nutrient-poor wetlands with submerged vegetation (Cottet, Piegay, and
Bornette 2013). The higher the trophic status of the water, the lower the aesthetic
appreciation. Moreover, it was evidenced that sediment deposits with no vegetation
were also not appreciated (Cottet, Piegay, and Bornette 2013).
Biodiversity, inherently linked to the concept of naturalness, is another relevant
element of the landscape that may attract the public. In the Minneapolis-St. Paul
metropolitan area (Minnesota, USA), six urban and peri-urban wetlands were assessed
for perceived attractiveness (Nassauer 2004). A high correlation was found between
perceived wildlife and bird or plant species richness and attractiveness. In turn, bird
species richness was significantly related to perceptions of the attractiveness of wet-
lands. The public associated seeing birds with naturalness. However, plant species rich-
ness was not significantly related to attractiveness. The authors concluded that
restoration designs should focus on enhancing habitat services, because songbirds and
waterfowl would positively contribute to improving perceived attractiveness (Canter,
Nelson, and Everett 1992; Nassauer 2004).
In short, evidence in the literature demonstrates that specific biophysical elements
and their characteristics may become relevant preference factors in rehabilitation proj-
ects. These are principally water quantity and quality, channel shape, type of vegeta-
tion and biodiversity.
3.3.2. Design and functional features

On the functional level of landscape use, a rewarding environmental experience is
related to the presence of infrastructure for recreation and leisure or to visual and
physical access to the area, such us access nodes with reception facilities or the
arrangement of paths to provide attractive and safe pedestrian mobility (M€unch et al.
2016; Zedler and Leach 1998). Therefore, the extent to which a given river rehabilita-
tion is perceived to promote its social use by providing this infrastructure may posi-
tively affect preferences (Martınez-Paz, Pellicer-Martınez, and Colino 2014; Barak and
Katz 2015). Interestingly, the presence of infrastructures that contribute to fulfilling
human environmental needs appears to be perceived more positively if naturalness is
perceived as low (Junker and Buchecker 2008).
Landscape management aimed at meeting ecological goals should also be designed
to address the desire for positive aesthetic experiences. Some authors propose the use
of “cues to care” in these situations where the restoration of naturalness is perceived
as aesthetically unpleasant and may arouse rejection (Nassauer 1995; Nassauer and
Faust 1997; McCormick, Fisher, and Brierley 2015). Cues to care are management
practices that have the objective of labelling the landscape as attractive in a familiar
and easily perceivable way, using cultural momentum (Nassauer and Faust 1997). For
instance, in the Minnesota peri-urban wetlands case study, it was observed that the
presence of cues to care seemed to strongly influence the aesthetic perception of wet-
lands (Nassauer 2004). Rehabilitation planning strategies that mimic the appearance of
familiar cultural cues to landscapes’ aesthetic values (e.g., highly visible mown areas),
with structures that improve visitors’ visual access and that use signs to help people
understand the ecological value of such landscapes, all might contribute to making
people appreciate ecological improvements after rehabilitation (Nassauer 2004).
Therefore, if aesthetic experiences that the public already value are aligned with
aspects of ecological health that society is not yet able to understand, ecological struc-
tures can be built into the landscape while constructing new cultural expectations of
ecological integrity (Nassauer and Faust 1997).
Conversely, the basic recognition by the public of the need to integrate the various
views and preferences nested in the river landscape becomes a general preference fac-
tor; and therefore, the design of a well-structured system of areas with diverse charac-
ters and purposes will be crucial for increasing public acceptance. In an urban section
of the River Skerne (England), Åberg and Tapsell (2013) argued that a combination of
both less accessible, wilder areas with higher ecological value and fewer man-made
features, and aesthetically oriented areas with perceived naturalness and high accessi-
bility, resulted in a successful model for rehabilitation. In the context of the Chicago
River Project, (Gobster and Westphal 2004) concluded that different levels of develop-
ment are appropriate for different types of settings along rivers. It was suggested that
the physical characteristics of the place and the expectations of the public should
inform development solutions (e.g., greenway trails, water edge treatments, vegetation
management, etc.) (Gobster and Westphal 2004). In the case of Sapporo River
Corridors, Asakawa, Yoshida, and Yabe (2004) found it very appropriate to avoid con-
flicts between nature preservation and recreational objectives, separating spaces with
different characteristics of naturalness and intensive use.
In conclusion, the analysed studies indicate that the provision of anthropogenic
assets that contribute to fulfilling human environmental needs, the introduction of cues
to care, and the clear delimitation of specialised areas for developing efficient eco-
logical, recreational and productive river functions are particularly appropriate for
increasing public appreciation of river landscapes.
4. Interconnections among preference factors

As can be expected, the classified groups of preference factors are not mutually inde-
pendent. On the contrary, they may be interconnected, and sometimes even influence
each other. To highlight this, in the following, it is discussed how some of these dif-
ferent factors are inherently interrelated, as evidenced by the literature review con-
ducted. The detected interrelationships, can be internal (within the same factor
category) or external (between factor categories), and imply two or more factors at the
same time. Mostly, the identified interrelationships involved at least one perceptual
factor. Therefore, the presentation of interrelationships has been structured in accord-
ance with the three types of perceptual factors (naturalness, risk and safety, and care
and cleanness).
Ecologically oriented restorations, aimed at improving the biophysical characteris-
tics of the river, often enhance perceptions of naturalness and thus acceptability
(Schauman and Salisbury 1998; Asakawa, Yoshida, and Yabe 2004; Seidl and
Stauffacher 2013), especially if the original ecological quality of the river is perceived
14 X. Garcia et al.
as low (Junker and Buchecker 2008). Changes in the landscape biophysical characteris-
tics such as water quality and quantity, trophic status, type of vegetation, or the pres-
ence of fauna have significant influence on perceptions of naturalness (Nassauer 2004;
Pfl€
uger, Rackham, and Larned 2010; van Marwijk et al. 2012; Cottet, Piegay, and
Bornette 2013). Knowledge mediates the relationship between landscape biophysical
characteristics and perceptions of naturalness. Individuals with wider knowledge and
understanding of a river’s ecology prefer rehabilitation measures aimed at improving
the river’s integrity (Ryan 2005; Cottet, Piegay, and Bornette 2013). Furthermore,
those individuals who consider themselves as having a “modern” lifestyle or an eco-
centric vision regarding nature-human relationships (presumably related groups) tend
to support rehabilitation measures, as long as these are not perceived as harmful to the
perceived naturalness (de Groot and de Groot 2009). In contrast, people basing their
nature-human relationship on an anthropocentric vision, tend to oppose rehabilitation
measures, especially if they perceive them as a threat to their livelihood and their
social identity (Buijs 2009; Junker, Buchecker, and M€uller-B€oker 2007). This may
explain why, in peri-urban areas, people with a traditional rural background, and in
particular older generations, tend to oppose this type of rehabilitation actions, in con-
trast to newcomers (Ryan 1998).
Perceiving restoration measures as a threat, especially in terms of flood risk, also
plays a critical role in their support. In that regard, whereas wood in the river or nat-
ural vegetation are often perceived as biophysical elements that contribute to percep-
tions of naturalness and aesthetic preferences (Piegay et al. 2005), these are, at the
same time, often viewed as risk factors, especially in urban areas (Schauman and
Salisbury 1998). Perceiving rehabilitation as a risk is also common among farmers,
who are frequently more supportive of flood control actions than ecologically oriented
restorations (Seidl and Stauffacher 2013). Conversely, those living close to the river
tend to favour river rehabilitation if water quality issues are addressed because they
are more concerned about the health risks of non-natural rivers (Ryan 1998; Vollmer
et al. 2015).
Similarly, care and cleanliness perceptions mainly play a relevant role in influenc-
ing rehabilitation preferences in certain contexts. Especially in urban environments,
addressing the “poor maintenance” of urban river landscapes, understood as the pres-
ence of trash, weeds or poor water quality, is likely to positively influence the accept-
ance of rehabilitation efforts (Asakawa, Yoshida, and Yabe 2004; Kenwick, Shammin,
and Sullivan 2009). In fact, a well maintained or cared-for landscape is often perceived
as more “natural,” and thus, attractive according to our cultural ideals. This explains
why the use of “cues to care” in ecologically oriented restorations may also increase
landscape attractiveness (Nassauer and Faust 1997). Addressing care and cleanliness
may also influence people’s risk and safety perceptions because poor maintenance of
€ uner,
urban river landscapes is often associated with lack of safety (Nassauer 2004; Ozg€
Eraslan, and Yilmaz 2012).
5. River rehabilitation preference factors: implications for public participation

and social acceptance
Involving the public in river rehabilitation is considered a critical strategy not just for
local acceptance but also for local appropriation of, or identification, with the project
(Buchecker, Menzel, and Home 2013; Menzel, Buchecker, and Schulz 2013). Interfering
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for understanding the use of the different types of preference
factors to supporting public participation in river rehabilitation projects.
in people’s living spaces without local involvement may lead them to feel alienated as
well as less responsible for the changes in their environment (Pickup et al. 2004).
Accordingly, it is argued that the public’s negative emotions and opposition to rehabilita-
tion often express a “sense of alienation” resulting from not having been directly
involved in the decision-making process (Vining, Tyler, and Kweon 2000) which made
locals connote rehabilitation with outsiders’ interests. Public participation can thus be
seen as an effective strategy for making people feel co-responsible for managing “their”
areas (Clewell and Aronson 2006). For instance, in the framework of a restoration pro-
ject on the River Flaz/Inn (Switzerland) Junker, Buchecker, and M€uller-B€oker (2007)
found that wider involvement of the public was a main reason for the observed increase
in public support for rehabilitation actions, especially for people initially opposing the
project. Furthermore, quasi experimental evaluations of six participatory river rehabilita-
tion projects in Switzerland revealed that local involvement increased support and
reduced conflict potential (Buchecker, Menzel, and Home 2013). Similarly, in the Brent
restoration project (England), a more participatory approach explained wider support for
decanalising the river (Eden and Tunstall 2006).
Given the relevance of public participation in ensuring the rehabilitation project’s social
sustainability, a conceptual framework aimed at understanding how the different types of
preference factors can be instrumentalised to support public participation and enhance pub-
lic support for river rehabilitation projects is presented above (Figure 1). Based on this, it
can first be argued that all groups of factors can be used to predict and/or influence the river
rehabilitation acceptability, and for this reason they all (socio-cultural, perceptual, and
physical) should be considered in the public participation process.
According to our framework (Figure 1), public participation is more likely to gen-
erate public support for the eventual outcomes of the rehabilitation decision-making
process if: 1) it seeks, through different preference evaluation methods, a thorough
16 X. Garcia et al.
understanding of how rehabilitation measures are perceived by different social groups,

especially by those who oppose the project; and, on the basis of this process, 2) it con-
ducts a “co-design” of rehabilitation actions that facilitates the achievement of a
broader social agreement by means of considering all these views. Thereby, these two
public participation objectives will contribute to social learning. In this sense, social
learning implies group and deliberative learning that is enabled by communication and
interaction in participatory processes, includes recognising each others’ perspectives
and underlying values, leads to the acquisition of factual knowledge, change of cogni-
tions and attitudes, and contributes to shared understanding, mutual agreement and col-
lective action (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007; Muro and Jeffrey 2008; Armitage, Marschke,
and Plummer 2008).
As for the goal of evaluating the preference factors, public participation should seek
to identify the ways in which the public make sense of riparian landscapes and their
transformations (Buijs 2009; Westling et al. 2014), by taking into account the three
main categories of factors and their interrelationships. Through the application of prefer-
ence evaluation techniques (see Appendix Table A1 [online supplemental material] for
examples), socio-cultural factors can be used to describe the characteristics of the public
according to their social acceptance. More specifically, socio-cultural factors can be
employed to characterise those groups of people who oppose an early rehabilitation pro-
ject. At the same time, exploring the relationship between perceptual factors and social
acceptance can shed light on the specific reasons behind the negative responses of some
members of the public towards a rehabilitation project. Finally, by analysing the relation-
ship between the physical factors and social acceptance, we can better clarify which are
the biophysical and functional aspects of the rehabilitation plan that are causing negative
perceptions among those individuals less receptive to such proposals.
Regarding the objective of conducting a co-design of rehabilitation actions, public
participation should seek the integration of all these views towards a “common vision”
(Spink et al. 2010). This is a crucial criterion for the overall success of the planning
and implementation of rehabilitation schemes when seeking to maximise social and
ecological benefits (Palmer et al. 2005; Westling et al. 2014). In this context, a com-
mon argument against public participation is the lack of understanding and the possi-
bility of supporting “erroneous” decisions according to decision-makers views (Vining
1992). People’s appreciation of landscapes is influenced by collective identities and
local discourses, which may cause the local public to have a skewed understanding of
what an ideal river should be, as compared to the view of ecological, scientific or tech-
nical experts (Le Lay, Piegay, and Riviere-Honegger 2013). As a result, the social and
environmental aspects of sustainability may imply conflicting interests, and public
involvement may thus work against ecological improvement (Mason 1997). Given this
situation, employing some design techniques reviewed in this study such as “cues to
care” might contribute to achieve consensus by labelling a landscape with high eco-
logical integrity as aesthetically pleasant (Nassauer 1995; Nassauer and Faust 1997)
and improve support for rehabilitation (Sullivan, Anderson, and Lovell 2004; Kenwick,
Shammin, and Sullivan 2009). Complementarily, and especially in urban areas,
rehabilitation of riparian landscapes might be more appreciated if land-use zoning is
planned with physical gradients of social use and ecological restoration/conservation
purposes (Asakawa, Yoshida, and Yabe 2004; Gobster and Westphal 2004). Therefore,
co-design processes in river rehabilitation should be conducted with the complemen-
tary aim of assessing how optimal biophysical characteristics perform in the context of
the public’s preferences for river landscapes. Based on this information, it should seek
to introduce design and functional features that might contribute to the project’s
social acceptance.
6. Conclusions
Given the current trends, society will increasingly demand better management of
remaining natural areas in order to satisfy their needs for contact with nature. For this
reason, environmental authorities should identify comprehensive solutions aimed at
improving the ecological integrity of rivers and streams. This study has shed some
light on the complexity behind public acceptance building of river rehabilitation, which
needs to be achieved in order to avoid conflicts and ensure the sustainability of
these projects.
Decision-makers have to understand that acceptance of, and support for, rehabilita-
tion alternatives is a multifaceted issue and that the optimal solutions in ecological or
engineering terms may differ substantially compared to the optimal social or cultural
solutions. In the same way, preference for riparian landscapes is largely determined by
different biophysical and design/functional characteristics and will differ according to
the socio-cultural characteristics of a specific context and the perceptual responses. For
this reason, we consider it vital that decision-makers overcome the controversy
attached to preference factors by deliberately applying the strategies reviewed in this
paper, such as: 1) introducing design/functional features (e.g., cues to care) in eco-
logical rehabilitations, in order to align ecological and cultural desires, thus ensuring
greater aesthetic appeal to, and support from, the public; 2) considering ecological cri-
teria while implementing flood risk or other intervention measures in the river to
enhance the “perceived naturalness” of river designs, thus increasing the aesthetic
appeal and the public’s acceptance of the management actions; 3) ensuring compatibil-
ity between the ecological integrity of the river ecosystems and the provision of recre-
ational and other cultural services through the zoning of social and ecological uses; 4)
propelling educational programmes to raise awareness of the inherent value of nature,
to improve people’s appreciation of the link between ecological integrity, the provision
of services, and societal benefits, and to narrow the gap between perceived naturalness
and ecological quality, according to biophysical indicators. The articulation of these
strategies in suitable policies for improving river management requires further research
on the relationship between landscapes’ physical factors and the public’s preferences,
and to develop a deeper understanding of how socio-cultural features and perceptions
mediate this interaction.
Balancing individual preferences and social identities is crucial to achieving gen-
eral acceptance of environmental interventions in rivers, which is strongly determined
by the social context within which these actions take place. For this reason, preference
factors that may influence river rehabilitation acceptance should be better understood
through public participation processes in order to support social learning and reframe
social perspectives on river rehabilitation plans. Eventually, co-design of rehabilitation
actions will ensure that conflicting and/or complementary views of the wider public
are considered. In this way, the participation process could potentially bring benefits,
particularly to those groups that face more difficulties in accessing ecosystem services
and could compensate or reward those who might perceive themselves as disadvan-
taged by rehabilitation and thus try to halt it.
18 X. Garcia et al.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research project received the support of RecerCaixa, a programme of Obra Social “la
Caixa” foundation in collaboration with the Catalan Association of Public Universities (ACUP)
(2015ACUP 00184). It also received the support of the Obra Social “la Caixa”–UIC post-
doctoral grant, promoted by the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, in collaboration with
Obra Social “la Caixa” foundation.
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
References
Åberg, E. U., and S. Tapsell. 2013. “Revisiting the River Skerne: The Long-Term Social
Benefits of River Rehabilitation.” Landscape and Urban Planning 113: 94–103. doi:10.
1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.009.
Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2008. “Adaptive Co-Management and the
Paradox of Learning.” Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 86–98. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2007.07.002.
Asakawa, S., K. Yoshida, and K. Yabe. 2004. “Perceptions of Urban Stream Corridors within
the Greenway System of Sapporo, Japan.” Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2–3):
167–182. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00158-0.
Barak, B., and D. Katz. 2015. “Valuing Instream and Riparian Aspects of Stream Restoration: A
Willingness to Tax Approach.” Land Use Policy 45: 204–212. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.
2015.01.023.
Barbier, E. B., S. Baumg€artner, K. Chopra, C. Costello, A. Duraiappah, R. Hassan, and A. P.
Kinzig. 2009. “The Valuation of Ecosystem Services: Chapter 18.” In Biodiversity,
Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective,
edited by S. Naeem, D. Bunker, A. Hector, M. Loreau, and C. Perrings, 248–262. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Becker, N., J. Helgeson, and D. Katz. 2014. “Once There Was a River: A Benefit-Cost Analysis
of Rehabilitation of the Jordan River.” Regional Environmental Change 14 (4): 1303–1314.
doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0578-4.
Benages-Albert, M., A. Di Masso, S. Porcel, E. Pol, and P. Vall-Casas. 2015. “Revisiting the
Appropriation of Space in Metropolitan River Corridors.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 42: 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.01.002.
Bright, A. D., S. C. Barro, and R. T. Burtz. 2002. “Public Attitudes Toward Ecological
Restoration in the Chicago Metropolitan Region.” Society and Natural Resources 15 (9):
763–785. doi:10.1080/08941920290069344.
Brown, B., D. D. Perkins, and G. Brown. 2003. “Place Attachment in a Revitalizing
Neighborhood: Individual and Block Levels of Analysis.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 23 (3): 259–271. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00117-2.
Brown, T. C., and T. C. Daniel. 1991. “Landscape Aesthetics of Riparian Environments:
Relationship of Flow Quantity to Scenic Quality along a Wild and Scenic River.” Water
Resources Research 27 (8): 1787–1795. doi:10.1029/91WR00975.
Buchecker, M., S. Menzel, and R. Home. 2013. “How Much Does Participatory Flood
Management Contribute to Stakeholders’ Social Capacity Building? Empirical Findings
Based on a Triangulation of Three Evaluation Approaches.” Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences 13 (6): 1427–1444. doi:10.5194/nhess-13-1427-2013.
Buchecker, M., D. M. Ogasa, and E. Maidl. 2016. “How Well Do the Wider Public Accept
Integrated Flood Risk Management? An Empirical Study in Two Swiss Alpine Valleys.”
Environmental Science and Policy 55: 309–317. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.021.
Buijs, A. E. 2009. “Public Support for River Restoration. A Mixed-Method Study into Local
Residents’ Support for and Framing of River Management and Ecological Restoration in the
Dutch Floodplains.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (8): 2680–2689. doi:10.
1016/j.jenvman.2009.02.006.
Canter, L. W., D. Nelson, and J. Everett. 1992. “Public Perception of Water Quality Risks:
Influencing Factors and Enhancement Opportunities.” Journal of Environmental Systems 22
(2): 163–163. doi:10.2190/93D9-JF0N-EEF8-W4PW.
Casado-Arzuaga, I., I. Madariaga, and M. Onaindia. 2013. “Perception, Demand and User
Contribution to Ecosystem Services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt.” Journal of
Environmental Management 129: 33–43. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059.
Chawla, L. 1992. “Childhood Place Attachments.” In Place Attachment, edited by I. Altman and
S. Low, 63–86. New York: Plenum.
Clewell, A. F., and J. Aronson. 2006. “Motivations for the Restoration of Ecosystems.”
Conservation Biology 20 (2): 420–428. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00340.x.
Cockerill, K., and W. P. Anderson. 2014. “Creating False Images: Stream Restoration in an
Urban Setting.” JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 50 (2):
468–482. doi:10.1111/jawr.12131.
Connelly, N. A., B. A. Knuth, and D. L. Kay. 2002. “Public Support for Ecosystem Restoration
in the Hudson River Valley, USA.” Environmental Management 29 (4): 467–476. doi:10.
1007/s00267-001-0033-Z.
Cottet, M., H. Piegay, and G. Bornette. 2013. “Does Human Perception of Wetland Aesthetics
and Healthiness Relate to Ecological Functioning?” Journal of Environmental Management
128: 1012–1022. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.056.
Eden, S., and S. Tunstall. 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: Government and Policy 24 (5): 661–680. doi:10.
1068/c0608j.
Everard, M., and H.L. Moggridge. 2012. “Rediscovering the Value of Urban Rivers.” Urban
Ecosystems 15 (2): 293–314. doi:10.1007/s11252-011-0174-7.
Findlay, S.J., and M.P. Taylor. 2006. “Why Rehabilitate Urban River Systems?” Area 38 (3):
312–325. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00696.x.
Garcia, X., and D. Pargament. 2015. “Rehabilitating Rivers and Enhancing Ecosystem Services
in a Water-Scarcity Context: The Yarqon River.” International Journal of Water Resources
Development 31 (1): 73–87. doi:10.1080/07900627.2014.911147.
Gasteyer, S., and C.B. Flora. 2000. “Measuring Ppm with Tennis Shoes: Science and Locally
Meaningful Indicators of Environmental Quality.” Society and Natural Resources 13 (6):
589–597.
Gobster, P. H., J. I. Nassauer, T. C. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. “The Shared Landscape: What
Does Aesthetics Have to Do with Ecology?” Landscape Ecology 22 (7): 959–972. doi:10.
1007/s10980-007-9110-x.
Gobster, P. H. 1994. “The Urban Savanna Reuniting Ecological Preference and Function.”
Ecological Restoration 12 (1): 64–71. doi:10.3368/er.12.1.64.
Gobster, P. H., and L. M. Westphal. 2004. “The Human Dimensions of Urban Greenways:
Planning for Recreation and Related Experiences.” Landscape and Urban Planning 68
(2–3): 147–165. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00162-2.
Grêt-Regamey, A., B. Weibel, D. Vollmer, P. Burlando, and C. Girot. 2016. “River
Rehabilitation as an Opportunity for Ecological Landscape Design.” Sustainable Cities and
Society 20: 142–146. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.013.
de Groot, M., and W. T. de Groot. 2009. “‘Room for River’ Measures and Public Visions in the
Netherlands: A Survey on River Perceptions Among Riverside Residents.” Water Resources
Research 45 (W07403).doi:10.1029/2008WR007339.
Hands, D. E., and R. D. Brown. 2002. “Enhancing Visual Preference of Ecological
Rehabilitation Sites.” Landscape and Urban Planning 58 (1): 57–70. doi:10.1016/S0169-
2046(01)00240-7.
Holmes, T. P., J. C. Bergstrom, E. Huszar, S. B. Kask, and F. Orr. 2004. “Contingent Valuation,
Net Marginal Benefits, and the Scale of Riparian Ecosystem Restoration.” Ecological
Economics 49 (1): 19–30. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.015.
20 X. Garcia et al.
Junker, B., and M. Buchecker. 2008. “Aesthetic Preferences Versus Ecological Objectives in
River Restorations.” Landscape and Urban Planning 85 (3–4): 141–154. doi:10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2007.11.002.
Junker, B., M. Buchecker, and U. M€uller-B€oker. 2007. “Objectives of Public Participation:
Which Actors Should Be Involved in the Decision Making for River Restorations?” Water
Resources Research 43 (W10438). doi:10.1029/2006WR005584.
Kaplan, R., and E. J. Herbert. 1987. “Cultural and Sub-Cultural Comparisons in Preferences for
Natural Settings.” Landscape and Urban Planning 14: 281–293. doi:10.1016/0169-
2046(87)90040-5.
Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. Ryan. 1998. With People in Mind: Design and Management of
Everyday Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. 1983. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain
World. Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrich’s.
Kenwick, R. A., M. R. Shammin, and W. C. Sullivan. 2009. “Preferences for Riparian Buffers.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 91 (2): 88–96. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.005.
Kuo, F. E., and W. C. Sullivan. 2001. “Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does
Vegetation Reduce Crime?” Environment and Behavior 33 (3): 343–367. doi:10.1177/
00139160121973025.
Le Lay, Y. F., H. Piegay, and A. Riviere-Honegger. 2013. “Perception of Braided River
Landscapes: Implications for Public Participation and Sustainable Management.” Journal of
Environmental Management 119: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.006.
Lundy, L., and R. Wade. 2011. “Integrating Sciences to Sustain Urban Ecosystem Services.”
Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 35 (5): 653–669. doi:10.1177/
0309133311422464.
Manzo, L. C., and D. D. Perkins. 2006. “Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place
Attachment to Community Participation and Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature 20
(4): 335–350. doi:10.1177/0885412205286160.
Mason, M. 1997. “Democratising Nature? The Political Morality of Wilderness Preservationists.”
Environmental Values 6 (3): 281–306. doi:10.3197/096327197776679086.
Martınez-Paz, J., F. Pellicer-Martınez, and J. Colino. 2014. “A Probabilistic Approach for the
Socioeconomic Assessment of Urban River Rehabilitation Projects.” Land Use Policy 36:
468–477. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.09.023.
Matsuoka, R. H., and R. Kaplan. 2008. “People Needs in the Urban Landscape: Analysis of
Landscape and Urban Planning Contributions.” Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (1):
7–19. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009.
McCormick, A., K. Fisher, and G. Brierley. 2015. “Quantitative Assessment of the Relationships
Among Ecological, Morphological and Aesthetic Values in a River Rehabilitation Initiative.”
Journal of Environmental Management 153: 60–67. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.025.
Menzel, S., M. Buchecker, and T. Schulz. 2013. “Forming Social Capital: Does Participatory
Planning Foster Trust in Institutions?” Journal of Environmental Management 131:
351–362. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.10.010.
Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. 1994. “Attachments to Recreation Settings: The Case of Rail-
Trail Users.” Leisure Sciences 16 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1080/01490409409513214.
M€unch, A., S. P. P. Nielsen, V. J. Racz, and A. M. Hjalager. 2016. “Towards Multifunctionality
of Rural Natural Environments? An Economic Valuation of the Extended Buffer Zones
along Danish Rivers, Streams and Lakes.” Land Use Policy 50: 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.
landusepol.2015.08.024.
Muro, M., and P. Jeffrey. 2008. “A Critical Review of the Theory and Application of Social
Learning in Participatory Natural Resource Management Processes.” Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 51 (3): 325–344. doi:10.1080/09640560801977190.
Nassauer, J., and C. Faust. 1997. Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Nassauer, J. I. 1995. “Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames.” Landscape Journal 14 (2): 161–170.
doi:10.3368/lj.14.2.161.
Nassauer, J. I. 2004. “Monitoring the Success of Metropolitan Wetland Restorations: Cultural
Sustainability and Ecological Function.” Wetlands 24 (4): 756–765. doi:10.1672/0277-
5212(2004)024[0756:MTSOMW.2.0.CO;2]
€ uner, H., Ş. Eraslan and S. Yilmaz. 2012. “Public Perception of Landscape Restoration
Ozg€
along a Degraded Urban Streamside.” Land Degradation and Development 23 (1): 24–33.
doi:10.1002/ldr.1043.
Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, P. S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, et al.
2005. “Standards for Ecologically Successful River Restoration.” Journal of Applied
Ecology 42 (2): 208–217. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x.
Parsons, R., and T. C. Daniel. 2002. “Good Looking: In Defense of Scenic Landscape
Aesthetics.” Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (1): 43–56. doi:10.1016/S0169-
2046(02)00051-8.
Pahl-Wostl, C., M. Craps, A. Dewulf, E. Mostert, D. Tabara, and T. Taillieu. 2007. “Social
Learning and Water Resources Management.” Ecology and Society 12 (2): 5. doi:10.5751/
ES-02037-120205.
Pfl€uger, Y., A. Rackham, and S. Larned. 2010. “The Aesthetic Value of River Flows: An
Assessment of Flow Preferences for Large and Small Rivers.” Landscape and Urban
Planning 95 (1–2): 68–78. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.12.004.
Pickup, M., A. Sayers, R. Knopff, and K. Archer. 2004. “Social Capital and Civic Community
in Alberta.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 617–645. doi:10.1017/
S000842390402058X.
Piegay, H., K. J. Gregory, V. Bondarev, A. Chin, N. Dahlstrom, A. Elosegi, S. V. Gregory,
et al. 2005. “Public Perception as a Barrier to Introducing Wood in Rivers for Restoration
Purposes.” Environmental Management 36 (5): 665–674. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0092-z.
Ryan, R. L. 2005. “Exploring the Effects of Environmental Experience on Attachment to Urban
Natural Areas.” Environment and Behavior 37 (1): 3–42. doi:10.1177/0013916504264147.
Ryan, R. L. 1998. “Local Perceptions and Values for a Midwestern River Corridor.” Landscape
and Urban Planning 42 (2–4): 225–237. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00089-9.
Sabate, J., and J. M. Schuster. 2001. Designing the Llobregat Corridor. Cultural Landscape and
Regional Development. Barcelona: Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Schaich, H. 2009. “Local Residents’ Perceptions of Floodplain Restoration Measures in
Luxembourg’s Syr Valley.” Landscape and Urban Planning 93 (1): 20–30. doi:10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2009.05.020.
Schauman, S., and S. Salisbury. 1998. “Restoring Nature in the City: Puget Sound Experiences.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (2–4): 287–295. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00093-0.
Seidl, R., and M. Stauffacher. 2013. “Evaluation of River Restoration by Local Residents.”
Water Resources Research 49 (10): 7077–7087. doi:10.1002/2013WR013988.
Sevenant, M., and M. Antrop. 2009. “Cognitive Attributes and Aesthetic Preferences in
Assessment and Differentiation of Landscapes.” Journal of Environmental Management 90
(9): 2889–2899. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.016.
Soini, K., H. Vaarala, and E. Pouta. 2012. “Residents’ Sense of Place and Landscape
Perceptions at the Rural-Urban Interface.” Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (1):
Spink, A., M. Hillman, K. Fryirs, G. Brierley, and K. Lloyd. 2010. “Has River Rehabilitation
Begun? Social Perspectives from the Upper Hunter Catchment, New South Wales,
Australia.” Geoforum 41 (3): 399–409. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.003.
Steinitz, C. 1990. “Toward a Sustainable Landscape with High Visual Preference and High
Ecological Integrity: The Loop Road in Acadia National Park, USA.” Landscape and Urban
Planning 19 (3): 213–250. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(90)90023-U.
Sullivan, W. C., O. M. Anderson, and S. T. Lovell. 2004. “Agricultural Buffers at the Rural-
Urban Fringe: An Examination of Approval by Farmers, Residents, and Academics in the
Midwestern United States.” Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (2–3): 299–313. doi:10.
1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.036.
Thomas, J., and A. Harden. 2008. “Methods for the Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research
in Systematic Reviews.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 8 (1): 45. doi:10.1186/1471-
2288-8-45.
Van Marwijk, R., B. H. Elands, J. K. Kampen, S. Terlouw, D. G. Pitt, and P. Opdam. 2012.
“Public Perceptions of the Attractiveness of Restored Nature.” Restoration Ecology 20 (6):
773–780. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00813.x.
22 X. Garcia et al.
Vining, J. 1992. “Environmental Emotions and Decisions: A Comparison of the Responses and
Expectations of Forest Managers, an Environmental Group, and the Public.” Environmental
Behaviour 24 (1): 3–34.
Vining, J., E. Tyler, and B. S. Kweon. 2000. “Public Values, Opinions, and Emotions in
Restoration Controversies.” In Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and
Humanities, edited by P. H. Gobster and R. B. Hull, 143–161. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Vollmer, D., M. F. Prescott, R. Padawangi, C. Girot, and A. Grêt-Regamey. 2015.
“Understanding the Value of Urban Riparian Corridors: Considerations in Planning for
Cultural Services along an Indonesian River.” Landscape and Urban Planning 138:
Vorkinn, M., and H. Riese. 2001. “Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance
of Place Attachment.” Environment and Behavior 33 (2): 249–263. doi:10.1177/001391601
21972972.
Weber, M. A., and P. L. Ringold. 2015. “Priority River Metrics for Residents of an Urbanized
Arid Watershed.” Landscape and Urban Planning 133: 37–52. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.
2014.09.006.
Westling, E. L., B. W. Surridge, L. Sharp, and D. N. Lerner. 2014. “Making Sense of
Landscape Change: Long-Term Perceptions among Local Residents following River
Restoration.” Journal of Hydrology 519: 2613–2623. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.029.
Williams, D. R., M. E. Patterson, J. W. Roggenbuck, and A. E. Watson. 1992. “Beyond the
Commodity Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place.” Leisure
Sciences 14 (1): 29–46. doi:10.1080/01490409209513155.
Yang, D., T. Luo, T. Lin, Q. Qiu, and Y. Luo. 2014. “Combining Aesthetic with Ecological
Values for Landscape Sustainability.” PLoS One 9 (7): e102437. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
0102437.
Yu, K. 1995. “Cultural Variations in Landscape Preference: Comparisons among Chinese Sub-
Groups and Western Design Experts.” Landscape and Urban Planning 32 (2): 107–126. doi:
10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9.
Zaugg, M. 2002. “More Space for Running Waters: Negotiating Institutional Change in the
Swiss Flood Protection Regime.” GeoJournal 58 (4): 275–284. doi:10.1023/B:GEJO.
0000017958.01882.77.
Zedler, J. B., and M. K. Leach. 1998. “Managing Urban Wetlands for Multiple Use: Research,
Restoration, and Recreation.” Urban Ecosystems 2 (4): 189–204.

River Rehabilitation: Preference Factors and Public Participation Implications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

River Rehabilitation: Preference Factors and Public Participation Implications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

ISSN: 0964-0568 (Print) 1360-0559 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

River rehabilitation: preference factors and public

Xavier Garcia, Marta Benages-Albert, Matthias Buchecker & Pere Vall-Casas

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1680353

Published online: 05 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Corresponding author. Email: xavier.garciaacosta@udg.edu

ß 2019 Newcastle University

3. Rehabilitation preference factors

 Socio-cultural (distance and length of residence, socio-demographic, knowledge,

At risk of oversimplification, the grouping of factors into large categories high-

3.1. Socio-cultural factors

3.1.1. Distance and length of residence

3.1.4. Beliefs and values

3.1.5. Place attachment

inhabitants reporting stronger attachment to the community were significantly less

3.2. Perceptual factors

3.2.2. Risk and safety

3.2.3. Care and cleanliness

3.3. Physical factors

3.3.1. Landscape biophysical characteristics

3.3.2. Design and functional features

4. Interconnections among preference factors

5. River rehabilitation preference factors: implications for public participation

understanding of how rehabilitation measures are perceived by different social groups,

You might also like

Socio-cultural (distance and length of residence, socio-demographic, knowledge,