Overview

River classification: theory,

practice, politics
Marc Tadaki,1,†,∗ Gary Brierley1 and Carola Cullum2

The classification of river forms and processes has emerged as a major site for
interdisciplinary cooperation and application of environmental science. Geomor-
phologists, ecologists, planners, and others have made concerted efforts to develop
theoretical and empirical frameworks with which to classify rivers and their compo-
nent parts for multiple, diverse applications. As the breadth and depth of classifica-
tion logics continue to swell, this article takes stock of recent developments through
three analytical lenses. First, the theoretical underpinnings of river classification
are explored and summarized to provide a framework within which to situate and
compare different classification approaches. Second, four emerging frameworks
for river classification are described and compared to assess their epistemological,
institutional, and governance implications. Different epistemic communities pro-
duce different kinds of classifications, which reveal different ‘realities’ of rivers to
be acted upon by human agents. Third, by emphasizing how river classification
practices are productive of environmental governance regimes and rationalities, the
roles, responsibilities, and possibilities for environmental science are clarified and
expanded. Rather than thinking about classification purely as a realist scientific
project, attention needs to be paid to the ways in which ‘classifying mindsets’ relate
to the production of social and environmental outcomes. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

How to cite this article:

WIREs Water 2014, 1:349–367. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1026

INTRODUCTION The classification of river forms and processes

is a fundamental way in which knowledge about
A cross the world, rivers are not only important
sources of water and food, but they also con-
tribute to a wide range of other material, economic,
rivers is produced and applied. Rivers and their parts
can be grouped according to different attributes for
different reasons. By classifying the geomorphology,
cultural, and spiritual resources, and meanings.1–3
hydrology, or biological processes present in rivers,
The global degradation of terrestrial and aquatic
for example, knowledge about these processes in par-
ecosystems4,5 therefore poses major questions about
ticular rivers can be generalized and applied to other
how societies are (and might want to be) living with
rivers, in order to predict effects and guide manage-
rivers.6
ment actions.7–9 However, because rivers are complex
∗ Corresponding
biophysical systems,10–12 efforts to classify rivers are
to: marc.tadaki@geog.ubc.ca
1 School
the subject of vigorous scientific debate—do particular
of Environment, University of Auckland, Auckland, New
Zealand
biophysical processes hold consistently across space,
2 School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of
in what cases does context matter, and with what
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa implications?
† Present address: Department of Geography and Program on Water Recent work in environmental studies has
Governance, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada drawn attention to the role of value judgements exer-
Conflict of interest: The second author, Gary Brierley, has developed cised through the conduct of environmental science,
the River Styles framework for over two decades—he is a teacher and how these contribute to enacting institutions of
of River Styles short courses, and co-author of the book Geomor-
phology and River Management: Applications of the River Styles governance.13,14 Emerging understandings of the par-
Framework. As such, he benefits financially from the framework. It tial, contested, and fragile nature of ‘evidence’ opens
also shapes and inspires his interest in the topic.
up to political contest decisions about whose evidence

Volume 1, July/August 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 349

 Overview
matters, and how evidence should be interpreted and
acted upon in decision-making frameworks.13,15,16
Further, in the context of environmental governance,
notions of legitimate ‘expertise’ have increasingly
expanded to include ‘beyond scientific’ framings of
environmental problems.17–19 These insights throw
into sharp relief the need to unpack and reposition
the role of environmental science in decision-making
structures.
As investment in river classification practices
strengthens across inter/national scales, the meth-
ods, theories, and techniques of river classification
appear to be converging around a number of accepted
approaches, some of which are being institutionalized
into governance frameworks.20,21 With such signifi-
cant stakes involved, we argue that careful thought is
required about what kinds of values are being repro-
duced through conceptualizing and acting upon rivers
in these particular ways.7,20,22,23 In this article we crit-
ically review the theory, practice, and politics of river
classification. We argue that the ‘politics’ of river clas-
sification are not simply framed by the purpose of
the classification,24 but that value commitments are
embedded through the theoretical and methodological
determinations of scientists, and that these are linked
to the mindsets of actors and institutions responsible
for environmental management and planning.
We start by examining the theoretical founda-
tions of river classifications for science and manage-
ment applications. Next, we describe and analyze four
internationally prominent approaches to river classifi-
cation. We show how these schemes are not objective
or value-neutral, but instead are institutional projects
that propose and embed particular priorities and
nature–society relations. We explore the tacit value
commitments embedded in institutionalized river clas-
sification practices, arguing that river classifications
not only describe the world; they propose value-laden
decision-making rationalities. We conclude by argu-
ing that scientists should become ethically concerned
with how their classifications reproduce particular
decision-making mindsets, and should engage more
directly with their implications.
THEORY: THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF
CLASSIFICATION
Classification involves sorting objects and ideas into
categories, based on a perception that members of
a group are, in some respect, more similar to each
other than to members of another group.25 By allow-
ing statements to be made about classes of objects
and ideas, this process of generalization provides
consistent framings for measurement and reference,
350 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
wires.wiley.com/water
imposing the organization necessary to reduce the
potentially overwhelming complexity of the universe
to units and concepts that can be communicated,
managed, and understood. Classifications can also
generate hypotheses about why objects in the same
class are similar, suggesting, for example, that they
have common origins, result from the same processes,
have shared dependencies or constraints, or that they
have the same relationships between parts and the
whole.7,26,27
According to the classical view of science, clas-
sification aims to determine the fundamental objects
that exist in the world, seeking to ‘carve nature at
its joints’ (Plato: Phaedrus 265e; cited in Ref. 28).
This approach posits that certain fundamental entities
(‘natural kinds’) exist and that it is the task of philoso-
phers and scientists to determine what those entities
are and how they relate to each other.29 Classifica-
tion implies relationships within and between classes,
allowing us to extrapolate experience and understand-
ing between individual cases that belong to the same
category.25 Such categorical induction provides the
basis for much scientific enquiry, structuring the design
of experiments and models, and allowing results to be
applied to new examples of the same phenomena.7,8
However, an alternative view has emerged in
recent decades, in which scientific observation is rec-
ognized as being theory-laden, such that the objects
of investigation may be constructed in different ways,
depending on the purpose of an investigation, the
set of skills and tools available, the scientific disci-
pline and institutional context of the research, and
the scientific paradigm through which phenomena
are observed.30,31 Such influences are particularly evi-
dent in studies of natural and social systems, when
the objects studied are not self-evident entities that
exist independently of an observer, but are abstract
concepts or mental models constructed for particular
purposes.23
What Is River Classification and Why Do
We Do It?
Rivers are widely understood as complex, living
systems10–12 that are heterogeneous and dynamic
across multiple scales of space and time. Such realities
present significant challenges in generating consistent
yet uniformly meaningful approaches to classification,
and in using such framings to guide environmental
management and planning.7,21 The selection of spatial
entities, their defining attributes, and scales of obser-
vation not only need to be justified in terms of an
ontology, or conceptualization that is appropriate to
the purpose of a classification, but also in terms of
Volume 1, July/August 2014
 WIREs Water
their relevance in a particular setting. In many cases,
the same entities and processes operate at different
scales in different settings and the relative importance
of different environmental factors often varies over
both space and time.32
Many river classifications aim to identify
structural–functional units, linking form and process
to allow behavioral characteristics (such as flow inten-
sity, magnitude, and frequency) to be extrapolated
between different locations and/or foresighted under
different scenarios. In theory, if examples of river types
within a particular group are generated and sustained
by the same dominant processes, they are likely to
react in ways similar to changes in system components
or boundary conditions. River classification schemes
thus have wide application (Table 1), providing a basis
for the transfer of learning and experience from one
location to another33,34 and allowing different sites to
be compared from multiple perspectives. Classifica-
tions designed to inform environmental management
and policy decisions are based on assumptions that
members of the same class can be treated as equiv-
alent and interchangeable, such that observations,
experience, experimental results, and understandings
can be extrapolated from one sample, monitoring or
reference site to all other sites in the same class.
Practicalities of River Classification
Many environmental attributes change continuously
in space and time, and rates of change also differ
between and across attributes. As a consequence,
attributes rarely align precisely to form discrete, easily
recognizable classes (i.e., there are many ways that
nature could potentially be ‘carved’26 ). The different
patterns and ‘objects’ that are perceived in landscapes
or river systems depend largely on the attributes
considered to be important for a particular purpose
and the scale and time at which they are observed.27,39
Indeed, rivers and landscapes might be conceptualized
as a multilayered tapestry of continuously varying
fields, upon which we place various classification
structures to frame and temporarily stabilize a par-
ticular set of relationships such that we can explore
their interconnections.40
In these ways, the selection of spatial entities,
their defining attributes, and the scales of observation
used in river classification are contestable, demanding
justification in terms of an ontology, a mental model
of a river system.32 Even if a theoretical framework
for a river classification is agreed, many different
approaches and methods can be used to implement
the framework. Choices must also be made in the
selection of procedures, methods, and rules used to
delineate and classify these entities (Table 2). Not only
Volume 1, July/August 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
River classification
must spatial objects be defined and delineated at a
chosen scale, but classes must also be defined, together
with rules for assigning objects to a particular class.
River classification thus involves a multitude of
contestable choices. While our framings may provide
valuable insights, we need to acknowledge that multi-
ple framings are possible, and question how we came
to place the frame in a particular location, emphasiz-
ing particular scales and variables in certain areas (and
not others). Furthermore, we can question how spe-
cific institutional settings shape the direction of these
choices, framing them in relation to particular per-
spectives, values, and practices.
Although methods may be documented, ratio-
nales for the many choices involved in a river clas-
sification are often tacit or only partially justified.
Ultimately, all of these choices imply a certain way
of looking at the world, deemed appropriate for a
particular purpose. Thinking about river classification
as both a scientific and a political practice, we can
ask questions about the mindsets that frame attribute
and relationship selection, and how these processes
are involved in reproducing societal institutions and
values. Which similarities between rivers matter and
which similarities should be used to govern human
action and investment, and how?
THE PRACTICE OF RIVER
CLASSIFICATION
The theory and practice of river classification are
inevitably shaped by a range of institutional and
investment influences. In order to gain investment
in their development and application, classifications
need to be perceived as meeting a particular need (or
‘demand’, see Box 1). However, many different clas-
sifications could be ‘supplied’ to meet this ‘demand’,
each drawing on different disciplinary and theoreti-
cal frameworks and using varying methodological and
technological approaches. Different approaches may
embrace different ways of including experts, policy
makers, and communities in the tool development pro-
cess, they may draw on different types of evidence
through different disciplinary frames, and can articu-
late a range of decision-making rationalities, reflecting
local or inter/national concerns.16,41
In this section, we present a comparative analysis
of four high profile river classification approaches,
each of which has been derived and applied for
differing purposes:
• River Habitat Survey (United Kingdom and
elsewhere)—ecological inventory and compara-
tive assessment of river condition
351
 Overview
TABLE 1 Applications of River Classification for Science and Management (Synthesis of selected themes from Ref 8, Ref 9, Ref 24, Ref 27, Ref 35,
Ref 36, Ref 37, Ref 38)
Scientific Applications
Structuring information to facilitate the identification of patterns
and relationships among environmental attributes
• Describing river variability across an area
• Describing behavior/change over time
Categorical induction
• Predicting a river’s behavior from its appearance (inductive
generalization)
• A way to extrapolate site-specific data to other similar
locations
• Choosing representative rivers or sample sites for observation
or experiment
Developing conceptual models
• Generating and testing hypotheses that link form and process
• Analyzing system adjustments and interpreting controlling
factors (drivers, pressures, stressors, thresholds, etc.)
Framing collaborations between disciplines, between management
agencies and bridging gaps between science and management
• Providing common language and consistent concepts/spatial
entities
• Providing ‘manageable’ units (e.g., a reach, a river, and a
patch) with predictable characteristics (e.g., a braided river,
a riffle, and an ephemeral stream)
• Enables development of meta-frameworks that can be
applied across classes (e.g., environmental flows)
• Systematic conservation planning (South Africa
and elsewhere)—modeling ecological functions
to prioritize conservation actions
• Natural Channel Design (United States)—
prescription of river restoration practices
• River Styles Framework (Australia and
elsewhere)—developing place-based typologies
of river forms and processes for catchment-scale
planning.
These examples were selected because they:
• Are prominent in the international scientific lit-
erature on river classification
• Reflect an international spread—diverse riverine
landscapes, diverse institutional settings
• Embody a range of disciplinary and theoretical
approaches
352 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
wires.wiley.com/water
Management Applications
Resource inventory and allocation
• Human uses/values—commercial, transport, leisure, aesthet-
ics, ecosystem services
• Risk assessment—flood potential, erosion potential, etc.
• Water allocation management (quantity, quality)
• Ecosystem management, biodiversity, habitat availability/
viability, presence of rare/endangered species
Designing monitoring systems
• Assessing and benchmarking ecosystem condition
• Appraisal of the ‘range of variability’ in space/time
• Standardizing monitoring procedures across jurisdictions and
institutions to facilitate comparison
Setting conservation/restoration priorities
• Identification of sites or streams with representative or
rare/unique ecological characteristics
• Setting restoration/conservation objectives (a reference con-
dition)
• Diagnosing restoration needs and pathways
• Indication of methods likely to succeed on a given stream type
• Identifying sensitivities/threats to streams of a given type
Strategic decision-making
• Scoping river futures and the likely range of evolutionary
trajectories
• Foresighting impacts of land use practices, climate change,
and responses to management activities
• Are achieving significant levels of uptake and
investment in policy contexts—they are materi-
ally shaping rivers and community relationships
with rivers.
By unpacking the practical and institutional
contexts around these efforts, we can begin to ask
questions about the ends and implications of different
approaches. We describe these approaches as ‘regimes’
rather than discrete classifications because they reflect
institutionalized ways of knowing rivers, which can
involve multiple classifications and which evolve over
time. Our aim is not to evaluate the specific knowledge
produced by each classification, but to interrogate
the scientific structures of classification and consider
what they limit as well as what they bring into
focus. As one of the authors of this article is a
co-creator of the River Styles Framework, we do not
attempt to provide neutral scientific or normative
Volume 1, July/August 2014
 WIREs Water
TABLE 2 Practical Choices about the Objects and Means of Classification
Choices
Attributes used to define spatial entities
(i.e., structural–functional units)
Choices are often constrained by the availability of data and analytical resources
Controls and process associations
(inferences)
Some direct associations are evident, others are inferential. Range of variability may differ
markedly from river to river
Data availability and scale of observation
Class definition
Volume 1, July/August 2014
River classification
Possibilities Include
• Morphological attributes—drainage network, valley setting (channel–floodplain relation-
ships), channel planform, channel geometry
• Flow regime—e.g., source of flow, magnitude, intensity, frequency of flows
• Water quality—e.g., pollutants, nutrients, turbidity, temperature
• Bed material and mobility (bedrock, bedload, mixed load, suspended load river)
• Geodiversity (habitat diversity)
• Presence/absence of key species—e.g., indicator species or rare/threatened species
• Condition—e.g., pristine, degraded
• Environmental attributes—e.g., climate, geology, topography/relief, soil, vegetation cover,
species assemblages
• Hydrological regime—climate-discharge relationships, magnitude-frequency relation-
ships, hydrograph shape, discharge variability (coefficient of variation)
• Sediment availability (volume/caliber)
• Position along longitudinal profile (process zone; source, transfer, accumulation zone; mix
of erosional and depositional processes)
• Biological processes (e.g., dispersion, competition, mutualism)
• Functional role of riparian vegetation, wood, ecosystem engineers
• Contemporary controls, or imposed from the past (landscape memory)?
• Disturbance regime—flushing flows, depositional floods
• Role of human interventions (e.g., urban vs rural land uses, dammed rivers, restored rivers)
• How do differing framings see objects, relationships, processes, patterns? What data are
used to derive outputs (garbage in, garbage out)?
• How much data is required to justify class definition (spatial and temporal scale, number
of data points, statistical significance etc.)?
• Remotely sensed and field applications
• Modeled versus measured data
• Single scale relevant to process or species of interest or nested hierarchical framings
• A priori , where the classification is derived independently of an examination of objects,
or based on the examination of a sample of objects. Conceptual models are often used to
link observable variables to processes and/or functions of interest
• A posteriori , where the classification is derived from an examination of all objects to
be classified, which are grouped according to their similarities (using techniques such as
cluster analysis). If new objects are added, the groupings may need to be adjusted
• Gestalt, or emergent properties, perceived holistically by an expert observer(s), using tacit
mental model(s)
• Hybrid method involving iteration between various approaches
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 353
 Overview wires.wiley.com/water

TABLE 2 Continued
Choices Possibilities Include
Nature and degree of similarity needed
• Class assignment based on rules or on a certain level of similarity to class examples
for class membership
• Fuzzy or crisp classifications: yes/no class membership or degrees of class membership
• Class assignment based on one or more defining characteristics, which are necessary and
sufficient conditions for class membership or based on a family resemblance, in which no
single or group of characteristics is necessarily shared between all class members

Generalization and smoothing • Boundaries are smoothed and entities smaller than the minimum mapping unit are merged
with neighboring units according to some set of rules

evaluations of these four regimes, but rather we

hope to demonstrate the importance of critically
interrogating river classification practices.
We start our assessment by describing the four
river classification regimes according to their aims,
their evidential bases, the ways in which they clas-
sify biophysical phenomena, and some of the sci-
entific and practical tensions arising from their use.
By comparing these regimes, we hope to begin to
answer the question—how are rivers being ‘made the
same’ through these institutionalizing classification
schemes, and with what scientific and political impli-
cations? The aims, underlying mindsets, applications,
and implications of these four approaches to river clas-
sification are summarized in Table 3.
River Habitat Survey (United Kingdom)
Aims and Contextual Underpinnings
The River Habitat Survey (RHS) was developed in
England and Wales in the mid 1990s by environmen-
tal agencies ‘to provide an objective basis for deter-
mining the physical character of rivers which could
then be used to derive a scheme for assessing habitat
quality’.44 The aim was to survey a statistically rep-
resentative sample of rivers in the two countries to
generate a picture of riverine habitat quality across
space (and time).
Approach and Evidence Base
In the first RHS (conducted over 1994–1996),
10 × 10 km2 were gridded over maps of the coun-
tries. Squares that contain permanent land were
derived and then three river sites were randomly
selected within each grid.45,46 For each site standard-
ized field surveys are conducted by trained surveyors
along 500 m stretches of river (including 50 m either
side of the channel). At 10 equidistant points along
the 500 m stretch, surveyors fill out a pro forma and
BOX 1
MAKING MARKETS FOR RIVER
CLASSIFICATION
As the demand for ‘actionable’ river science42
continues to increase, the supply of classification
tools and frameworks for this market is being
met by a range of actors from multiple insti-
tutional settings. In the United States,43 there
has been a shift in the river restoration sci-
ence market toward valuing a particular kind of
knowledge-on-demand, a niche that has been
met by consultants rather than university sci-
entists. Scientific tools emerge from a range
of rationales, from operationalizing a particular
methodology or theory, toward securing specific
management outcomes and visions of nature.
One of the authors of this article (Brierley), for
example, is also co-creator of River Styles, and
as such he is imbricated both as an academic
geomorphologist concerned with understanding
river complexity, as well as an interested con-
sultant who creates products for the market
(and benefits financially from this participation).
River classification frameworks can indeed be
understood as products created to serve markets,
and this highlights the importance of critically
interrogating the framing rationales of any river
classification scheme. However, rather than dis-
missing the kind of knowledge valued by plan-
ners, governments, and others (the ‘demand’),
perhaps scientists should become more con-
cerned with engaging the logics of supply—what
kinds of societal values are embedded within
and reproduced through river classifications?
note the presence/absence of a range of morphologi-
cal and process features, such as the type of channel

354 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Volume 1, July/August 2014

 TABLE 3 A Comparison of the Aims, Constructs, Applications, and Implications of Four Approaches to River Classification
River Habitat Survey Systematic Conservation Planning Natural Channel Design River Styles
WIREs Water

Aims and approach Random sampling over a large area Use available data to represent Template for design to achieve To enable river scientists and
to acquire representative picture ecological processes to channel stability. Uses practitioners to ask questions
of river health and diversity for determine the optimal (or least classification to determine about general and unique

Volume 1, July/August 2014

Evidence base—emphasis
Distribution of expertise
inter/national policy directives cost) action pathways to achieve stable reference reaches (and controls on formative processes
defined conservation goals form–process relations) to for specific river systems and
emulate in design develop place-based
understandings of river
evolution
Field surveys of geomorphic and Assemble or collect as much direct Standardized field surveys, with Open-ended pro forma guide field
ecological indicators by trained data as possible relevant to the scripted calculations and surveys, encouraging users to
practitioners of randomly ecological processes of interest. procedures (e.g., bankfull identify unique as well as
selected 500 m lengths of river. For variables without data, discharge). generic features.
Coupled with indirect data such as surrogates can be used to Coupled with indirect data from Secondary data are used to frame
climate, elevation, etc. approximate them maps, climate services, etc. catchment-scale assessments
and provide spatial context for
specific field investigations
Surveyors trained to have Information largely collected and Classification is conducted by Method and resources provide
descriptive expertise. interpreted ‘from the centre’, field-practitioners. The detailed structure to application, and
Classification exercised ‘from with classification conducted by and prescriptive character of the official RS projects and River
the centre’ by scientists working scientists (sometimes with method regulates variability in Stylers need to be certified.

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Methodological and ontological
commitments
with database
Rivers rarely sampled more than
once, which means comparisons
rely on statistical assumptions
that all rivers have the same
distribution of relevant
variables. Small rivers are
underrepresented. Unable to
make claims about
within-catchment processes
stakeholders)
Pragmatic selection and
approximation of variables
means important variables can
be misrepresented or
unrepresented and incorporated
into decision-making. This can
leave an incomplete picture that
biases against those
unrepresented perspectives
application, as well as short However, expertise is placed to
course training the practitioner to develop their
own understandings and test
them practically
Assumes that almost any reach can Assumes that rivers are complex
be stabilized, and that channels and have potentially unique
can be designed to replicate patterns and behavioral traits
stable conditions by following that need to be understood
the method. Renders river catchment-by-catchment. River
variability and complexity forms and processes are
undesirable and worthy of direct classified ‘in place’, making
intervention to remove cumulative and cross-catchment
learnings difficult

355
River classification
356
TABLE 3 Continued
How it ‘makes rivers the same’
Scales of evidence, and scales of
action
Classifying mindset
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Enabling discourses
Volume 1, July/August 2014
River Habitat Survey
Breaks rivers into variables that are
then stratified into controlling
variables. Key interest variables
are predicted based on
statistical relationships between
interest variables and driving
variables in other locations.
Assumes river attributes and
processes relate equally across
all locations
Reach-scale observations
extrapolated across catchments
and analyzed at inter/national
scales
Inductive kinds
River variable relations are
consistent across continental
areas and can be disaggregated
to their components and
meaningfully modeled in a local
setting
Inter/national policy discourse of
‘good’ ecological quality as a
benchmark for river restoration
Systematic Conservation Planning
Space is homogenized—assumes
relationships between modeled
variables are consistent across
space and time (when stratified
for other variables), which may
not be the case. Often struggles
with place concepts, as
processes compound and
interact across space and
connectivities need to be taken
into account (often in quite
simple or partial ways)
Often coarse, regional data used to
estimate spatial connectivities
and determine actions at site
scales
Optimal kinds
Relevant river processes can be
robustly estimated and modeled
by experts to determine spatial
conservation actions and
priorities
Cost efficiency and multiple-use
narratives
Natural Channel Design
Existing reach is compared to
‘reference reach’ of similar
valley and stream type.
Boundary conditions for (stable)
reference reach are measured
and then emulated through
design of the existing reach such
that their dimensionless
constants are similar. It literally
makes rivers the same
Reach-scale data for ‘reference’
reach translated and applied to
‘existing reach’
Prescriptive kinds
Rivers are fundamentally the same
and can be designed for human
ends if certain prescriptions are
followed
Standardized, prescriptive method
that accepts and embeds
channel stability as the primary
aim for restoration
Overview
River Styles
Meta-descriptors such as ‘valley
confinement’ and ‘planform
type’ act as prompts to guide
practitioners to develop their
own catchment-specific ‘River
Styles tree’, in which river types
are distinguished according to
particular assemblages of
landforms. Geomorphic units
are listed as building blocks for
reach-scale process analysis
Geomorphic unit, reach-, and
catchment-scale observations
used to inform strategic action
at the site-level through to
catchment-level
Pedagogical kinds
Rivers share general forms and
processes but these may be
different within any specific
river system. Specific relevant
forms and processes, and their
patterns/relationships, need to
be understood for each river
Adaptive management and a
place-based orientation to
environmental governance.
Learning framework
wires.wiley.com/water
 WIREs Water
and the bed/bank substrate, the quality and quan-
tity of vegetation and human structures, as well as
attributes such as in-channel bar structures and evi-
dence of morphological change. While most variables
are qualitative, their systematic (10 points) and ran-
dom sampling makes them statistically useful. Ulti-
mately the first RHS represented some 6.6% of the
total length of rivers in the two countries.45
Classification
RHS is not a typology per se; rather, it is a database
of physical and biological attributes that allows rela-
tions among variables to be derived statistically and
projected across space. In order to conduct analy-
ses, surveyors are trained and accredited by the rele-
vant environmental agencies to ensure observational
consistency; they fill in pro forma that have been
developed by the agencies and produced by experts.
After quality control has been administered, the RHS
data go into a database where they are available
for analysis (and perhaps eventually public access).45
To create indices of habitat quality for comparison,
experts have developed a suite of tools and metrics
that link the attributes observed in RHS to ecosys-
tem functions.47–49 The RHS facilitates classification
of the ‘ecological quality’ status of rivers, benchmark-
ing degraded reaches (defined by human modification
attributes) against more ‘pristine’ reaches across all
variables measured, which can inform the setting of
restoration objectives in relation to physical and bio-
logical characteristics.21,50
Tensions
The fundamental assumption guiding the use of RHS
to assess ecological integrity is that the physical struc-
ture of habitat (and associations with attributes such
as aquatic and bank vegetation and land use) is
a significant determinant of biological functioning.
Emphasis is placed upon comprehensive yet prescrip-
tive appraisals of morphological attributes using a
checklist principles approach. This creates a static
picture of the river, where process is inferred from
the presence and/or condition of attributes. It thus
‘makes rivers the same’ by reducing them to com-
binations of morphological features whose relations
are assumed to be universal, and which are intended
to represent broad geographic areas. Further, while
the spatial stratification means that rivers are sam-
pled somewhat evenly across a country-scale area,
this is biased against small streams and also against
having multiple sites from the same stream (mak-
ing appraisals of upstream–downstream correlations
difficult within any given river).46 Importantly, not
only are the measured attributes discipline-derived
Volume 1, July/August 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
River classification
(and optimistic about the habitat-function assump-
tion), there is also significant variability in the obser-
vation and description of these attributes, even when
conducted by professionals.51
The RHS emerged and was purposely defined
through inter/national projects relating to environ-
mental monitoring and benchmarking ecological
‘quality’.44,52 Its insights are drawn from its large
and statistically representative sampling, and oper-
ates through inductive inference—deriving general
relationships from large samples. The living database
allows analysts to draw on the data to calibrate
and compare different aspects of rivers through sta-
tistical methods.53 Although much secondary data
can be produced for the sites (e.g., altitude, posi-
tion within catchment) to inform more stratified
cross-river comparisons, RHS is still fundamentally
limited by the partial nature of its description/analysis
and—perhaps ironically—by the random rather than
theoretical sampling frame. It assumes that all rivers
contain the same habitat-process relationships, so
long as measured variables are statistically controlled.
Upstream/downstream differences in streams that
shape the relationships observed at a site are rendered
the same through statistical methods (assumption of
randomness).
Systematic Conservation Planning
(International)
Aims and Contextual Underpinnings
Systematic conservation planning (SCP) emerged
through attempts in conservation ecology to derive
ways to prioritize conservation actions by modeling
the underlying drivers of conservation outcomes
across space.54,55 Fundamentally, it moves away from
thinking solely about bounded protected areas as
conservation targets, to thinking about how spatially
continuous processes produce outcomes that are dis-
tributed across the entire landscape.56 Applications
of these principles inform land use and conservation
planning by prioritizing areas for conservation (and
consequently for strict controls on development)
according to principles of representation (must con-
serve x% of each habitat type) and rarity (must
conserve areas containing rare/threatened species).
Another way of framing SCP is that it is about
reverse-engineering from societal goals (quantitative
targets for biodiversity) to an optimal set of actions
that can achieve those goals, given certain ways of
weighting the different actions against each other
(e.g., minimizing costs or the area of land subject
to strict planning controls). SCP procedures support
efforts to define conservation priorities, targeting
357
 Overview
areas that meet multiple goals at minimal cost. This
framing supports optimization by allowing areas with
similar characteristics to be exchanged in order to
meet conservation targets. The implication here is
that it does not matter which particular instance is
conserved, as all areas are considered equally good
representations of the class. This may have signifi-
cant implications for swapping parcels of land under
development pressure (i.e., developers can propose
swapping areas to meet differing agendas). Examples
of SCP from South Africa include the designation of
potential conservation areas that collectively represent
healthy examples of all river types (defined in terms of
climate, geology, flows, and various fluvial processes
such as water yield57 ), and which conserve habitats
for rare species of fish and birds as well as lengths of
river with unmodified flows.58
Approach and Evidence Base
SCP relies to a large extent on spatial assessments of
biophysical diversity, assembling preexisting ecolog-
ical data within remotely sensed spatial frameworks,
supplemented by the use of credible surrogates when
required.56 Data on species abundance and richness,
environmental forms/gradients/processes, geology,
and climate (among other variables) are potentially
relevant. However, the selection of attributes to be
included as well as the scales of observation used
are largely dependent on the availability of data.24
According to Nel et al.,59 SCP includes the following
steps:
• Delineation of ‘planning units’ for assessment—
this involves selecting surrogate measures for
biophysical pattern and process, and mapping
their distribution. This map is produced by sci-
entists and GIS practitioners, overlaying different
datasets and looking for spatial clusters. Ques-
tion marks remain over how variables and scales
are selected to make these determinations, what
size and density constitutes a cluster, and how
distinct clusters have to be in order to count as
separate classes.
• A panel of experts and conservation practitioners
checks the map, adjusting boundaries as they
deem necessary. This somewhat exclusionary
process entails expert-based derivation of rules.
• Social scientists and planners then use this data
to recommend or set quantitative conservation
targets and policies. Constraints are appraised
in relation to management costs for conser-
vation actions and factors such as economic
impacts on stakeholders. Based on various iter-
ations, planning units are derived that achieve
358 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
wires.wiley.com/water
the conservation targets for all biodiversity, most
efficiently. This is usually completed using pro-
grams such as MARXAN.
• Once plans are derived and implemented, con-
servation actions are monitored and adaptively
managed.
Classification
SCP is an evaluative classification inventory, in that
it ranks objects (including rivers or parts of rivers)
according to ‘conservation value’ or some other
explicitly defined objective.60,61 The analyst selects
data and their surrogates and first maps out the
diversity of the variables themselves. Then func-
tions are built that can model the variables of
interest under different action scenarios, incorporat-
ing elements such as upstream–downstream linkages,
channel–floodplain connectivity, and other aspects of
ecological dynamics.55,56 In general, these are crude
approximations that combine variables linearly. For
example, Nel et al.61 evaluated six attributes of rivers
(flow, inundation, water quality, stream bed condition,
introduced instream biota, and riparian or stream
bank condition) according to a human modification
scale that ranges from ‘natural’ to ‘critically modified’.
The scores were summed linearly to provide a ranking
of ‘river integrity’, from which ‘intact’ streams were
designated, and those sections were deemed suitable
for particular conservation actions.
Tensions
SCP classifications are fundamentally reductionist and
deterministic. As such, they reflect the disciplinary
and theoretical orientations and resources of the ana-
lysts. While largely expert-driven, they can be used
in participatory ways with communities.16 SCP appli-
cations are entirely dependent upon spatial biodiver-
sity assessments,62 which may be highly contested in
terms of choice of attributes and scales of analysis.
SCP classifications rely on the relationships between
the surrogates and the outcome variables to be valid
and reliable across space. Procedures innately assume
that all types of rivers are captured within the inven-
tory. It is well-acknowledged that SCP approaches
struggle to deal with lateral, vertical, and longitu-
dinal connectivity.55 For example, the wetland con-
servation prioritizations advanced by Ausseil et al.63
are built on a linear combination of six variables but
do not include the functions of the wetland within
a wider catchment context. The ‘value’ of a water-
body is reduced to its component variables. This also
poses problems of establishing ecological equivalence
(and interchangeability) where it does not exist, for
instance, between preserved and restored systems.64
Volume 1, July/August 2014
 WIREs Water
SCP emerged as a tool to structure knowledge
into a framework for human decision-making. It offers
a way to optimize ecological outcomes for a given set
of constraints, but this involves important value-laden
choices around which surrogates to use and which
variables to include in a ‘conservation value’ function,
and how. Rather than simply ‘representing the real’,
SCP seeks to transform rivers into objects governed
by constant functions, which can then be reduced
to their variables and disaggregated across space.
These procedures ‘make rivers the same’ by projecting
universal relationships across space, assuming these
processes act in the same way whenever the required
relationship between attributes is observed (or in some
cases, modeled). In this sense, they can erase space
either by ignoring it (as in the wetland example) or
by reducing ‘spatial context’ to a specific function
of those variables that are practically available (e.g.,
upstream catchment area as an attribute reflecting
catchment position).
Natural Channel Design (United States)
Aims and Contextual Underpinnings
Natural Channel Design (NCD) was developed in the
United States in the 1980s and 1990s as a way to clas-
sify rivers so that interventions required to achieve
a ‘natural’ stable channel could be prescribed.65,66
The methodology arose from a critique of ‘tradi-
tional’ engineering methods (that utilized concrete,
rip rap, etc.). Such practices often failed to deal
with reach-scale formative processes and ended up
producing more uncertainty with respect to envi-
ronmental outcomes. After citing the failure of tra-
ditional engineering approaches, Rosgen65 proposes
that:
What can be done practically … is to emulate natural
stable rivers that exist under the present boundary
conditions and driving variables reflected in their
watersheds.
In practical terms, this means determining the
biophysical conditions under which a particular reach
of stream is hypothesized to be dynamically stable over
time periods desirable for humans. This is achieved
by classifying rivers and then developing constants
for dimensions of those classes (e.g., relating chan-
nel width to flow), such that morphologically stable
reaches can be reproduced by designing those rela-
tionships into desired locations.65 The ‘natural’ part
of NCD refers to the use of ‘natural’ engineering struc-
tures (such as trees, root wads, logs, and endogenetic
floodplains) to achieve this stability of form, instead
of using ‘unnatural’ concrete structures.67
Volume 1, July/August 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
River classification
Approach and Evidence Base
NCD requires a range of standardized assessment pro-
cedures in order to determine key variables that influ-
ence channel form and process.65 Measurements and
calculations of sediment load and quality, flow rates,
geomorphic character and change, land use, valley
and stream type and shape, and drivers of ecological
degradation are some of the variables required, and
may be obtained directly or indirectly. Some assess-
ment types are more flexible (such as characterizing
land use/change), whereas others (such as how to cal-
culate bankfull discharge) require rigid conformity to
a set standard.65 These reach-scale determinations are
not necessarily framed in their catchment context, and
emphasis is placed upon channel adjustment, with lim-
ited regard for longer-term floodplain formation and
reworking.26,68
Classification
NCD works by deriving specific process–form rela-
tionships for a stable ‘reference reach’ that exists
under similar boundary conditions to the ‘existing
reach’, and transplanting those relationships by design
into the ‘existing reach’, with the aim of reproducing
the necessary environmental conditions (e.g., sediment
supply, flood capacity) for the existing reach to then
become stable. It does this by evaluating the exist-
ing reach within a statistically derived 9-part classi-
fication framework.35 Once the existing river reach
is classified, a ‘reference reach’ is then selected as a
desired end point (stability), which must share the
same valley type, stream classification, and a range of
other variables.65 Pathways between the stream types
are selected and evaluated using specific prescribed
criteria and assessment methods, framing the design,
and implementation of the ‘natural’ channel.
Tensions
NCD has become hegemonic as a standard for river
restoration practice in many parts of the United
States, and those who don’t subscribe to (or have
expertise in) NCD are de-valued in much of the
marketplace.66 NCD has faced significant criticism
from academics who argue that NCD is reduction-
ist and prescriptive, and therefore fails to account
for the system-specificity and complexity of rivers,
such that applications may cause more harm than
good.26,66 Perhaps more fundamentally, NCD is built
on the discourse of ‘nature by design’69 and the idea
that rivers can and should be designed to emulate
processes that are deemed relevant and desirable by
its disciplinary approach. It promotes ‘mastery over’
(a compliant) nature rather than ‘humility with’ (an
inherently variable) nature.70,71 The development and
uptake of NCD has provoked significant discussion
359
 Overview
within the geomorphic community, including con-
cerns that it does not give sufficient regard to the
catchment and evolutionary context, and associated
assumptions of stability in relation to its ‘equilibrium’
framing.66,68,72,73
NCD has arisen to meet a major demand in the
river restoration market—a methodology that is stan-
dardized, (somewhat) transparent, prescriptive, and
protects current patterns of investment by promot-
ing (and promising) channel stability through ‘natural’
means. It describes rivers as being the same scientifi-
cally for the purposes of designing existing reaches to
emulate stable reference reaches—it is literally about
making rivers the same.
River Styles Framework (Australia)
Aims and Contextual Underpinnings
River Styles (RS) was developed in New South Wales,
Australia, as a framework to characterize the geo-
morphic form and function of rivers and prioritize
river rehabilitation and conservation activities in a sys-
tematic context.74,75 It was framed as a geomorphic
template upon which ecological processes are played
out. RS is explicitly constructivist, in that it assem-
bles ground level landscape units and process obser-
vations into a multiscalar building block approach
to landscape interpretation and understanding to
inform management actions.76 RS is framed around
‘knowing your catchment’, requiring practitioners to
identify the specific constraints, contingencies, and
complex drivers of their local river system at the site,
reach, and catchment scales. Analysis of evolution-
ary adjustments prompts practitioners to think about
processes that shape river form and function over time,
and then to link spatial scales and temporal consid-
erations together in developing a catchment-specific
understanding of river evolution. RS is intended to
support learning about rivers-in-place by assembling
relevant theory to explain a given river, rather than
transposing pre-set biophysical relationships across
contexts.76
Approach and Evidence Base
RS applies remotely sensed analyses and field surveys
to generate systematic catchment-scale analyses of
river character, behavior, condition, and evolutionary
traits. Field survey pro forma guide the identification
and description of river forms and processes at reach
and catchment scales, interpreting spatial and tempo-
ral relationships in a place-based manner.76 The appli-
cation of flexible, open-ended, adaptive principles
has significant implications for skill set development.
Professional short courses cultivate shared conceptu-
alizations and approaches to ‘reading the landscape’,
360 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
wires.wiley.com/water
relating interpretations of landform assemblages in
any given setting to general (theoretical) geomorphic
principles.76
Classification
RS deploys two levels of classification. First, basic
‘geomorphic units’ and their process relationships
are described, and practitioners use these to build a
picture of their rivers at site, reach, and catchment
scales. Practitioners are encouraged to think about
how the multiple constellations of geomorphic units
may reflect particular sets of formative processes; thus
the specific combinations of geomorphic units within
a reach are the main object of interest.75 The assem-
blages of geomorphic units (and their formative pro-
cesses) are thus interpreted for a given river to develop
an understanding of (or argument for) the dominant
controls on a given river. In the second level of clas-
sification, practitioners develop an open-ended ‘tree’
of rivers based on catchment or region-specific inter-
pretations of distinct and influential processes. For
example, a river might be described as ‘partly-confined
valley with bedrock controlled floodplain pockets’ or
as an ‘unconfined meandering sand-bed river’. Getting
practitioners to develop their own (rigorous) evidence
base and lines of reasoning that demonstrate how par-
ticular process–form relationships generate different
types of river within any given catchment is the nor-
mative and stated aim of RS.75
Tensions
Because RS does not assert universal classes of rivers,
cross-catchment and cross-region comparisons for
explanation and management can be difficult. Further,
because it does not prescribe standardized measure-
ments and interpretations for appraising river forms
and processes (as NCD does), RS assessments can
vary significantly due to variations in methods, inter-
pretations, and skill sets of applying practitioners, as
well as due to differences in landscapes. In this sense,
it is harder to accumulate learnings from different
RS assessors and create management protocols for
the wider-than-catchment scale. As an intention-
ally open-ended framework, it does not prescribe
actions based on river types, but this also means
it has a limited ability to direct action at the local
scale. For example, RS type boundaries were once
used to scientifically ‘justify’ the management actions
relating to concerns for water quality and licensing
arrangements, a specific use of the framework that was
unforeseen and even contested as inappropriate by the
developers of RS. While less prescriptive than NCD, it
is arguably less accountable as it relies on place-based
expert judgement. Further, as a geomorphic assess-
ment, like RHS, RS assumes that relevant and valued
Volume 1, July/August 2014
 WIREs Water
ecological processes are automatically provided for
through geomorphic habitat, which is not necessarily
the case.48,77
RS uses broad process–form classifications
as heuristics with which to enable practitioners to
develop knowledge about their specific river systems
and how they have changed over time (and might
change in the future). They ‘make rivers the same’ by
providing some general conceptual models that link
observed features to generative processes, encouraging
practitioners to use these building blocks to construct
their own detailed understandings of their catchment,
enabling them to create their own classifications of
rivers based on dominant processes observed in the
field. Process-based interpretations rely upon intuitive
associations and familiarity with background litera-
tures, rather than process-based measurements per
se.8 Also, procedures provide conceptual guidance
for management applications, viewing predictive,
quantitative explanations as an optional ‘add-on’
rather than a core component of the framework
itself.37 While RS is intended to be open-ended rather
than prescriptive, its use will always be shaped by the
specific skill sets and mindsets of practitioners. This
makes methodological ‘quality control’ of projects a
major concern, and leaves the ‘use’ of the classification
to be determined through local means.
POLITICS OF RIVER CLASSIFICATION
… [river] classification is an artificial and limited
tool which can provide more or less objective group-
ings. The use that is made of these groupings, the
predictions and extrapolations arising from them, and
the values that are assigned to them are additional to
the classification exercise, not part of it, and will still
depend on the accuracy and reliability of the available
expertise and information. (River scientists O’Keeffe
and Uys.24, emphasis added ).
Having explored the diverse theoretical and
practical choices involved in producing river clas-
sifications (and their associated values-based ratio-
nales), we can begin to see how the values of envi-
ronmental scientists are folded into the production
of environmental action. Contrary to the passage
from O’Keeffe and Uys above, we argue that atten-
tion should be paid to how the means of river clas-
sification are productive of the outcomes of envi-
ronmental governance, rather than assuming that
values and uses of classifications are ‘additional
to’ scientific classification practices. Particular values
and institutional/investment pressures are embedded
within any classification framework. Beyond simply
‘knowing rivers’, river classification practices operate
Volume 1, July/August 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
River classification
to enable acting upon rivers in particular ways.
The theoretical frameworks and practical configu-
rations of classifications interact within and across
local institutional settings to reproduce particular
decision-making rationalities that have material and
investment implications22,23,41,66,78–80 (Table 3). These
various framings, and the conceptual models that
underpin them, have their own politics, reproducing
or resonating with existing environmental discourses,
and ways of living with nature.81 Here we ask, how
are these river classifications used, with what effects,
and how do they contribute to wider environmental
discourses?
By thinking about how rivers are made the same
and what actions these practices enable, information
summarized in Table 3 prompts us to think about
how ‘classifying mindsets’ are produced and embed-
ded through river classifications. How do the values
and politics that underpin the conceptualization of
rivers (its ontology/mental model), and associated
sense of nature–society relationships, fashion the
framing ‘work’82 that is done through and by these
applications?
RHS makes rivers the same through standard-
ized sampling techniques and analytics of statistical
calculation—they are reduced to field-collected and
remotely derived variables, and these variables are
manipulated under the assumption that they obey laws
that are equally applicable across all spatial units (e.g.,
habitat provision by specific bed materials is assumed
constant). The spatial scale of the field survey is very
coarse—small rivers are ignored, and hardly any rivers
are surveyed at more than one site.46 The assumption
of spatial representation substitutes for system-specific
understandings—the classification approaches rivers
as inductive kinds that can be known by deriving
general laws from samples from many rivers. These
applications are supported by international policy
discourses that move toward standardization of ‘eco-
logical quality’ (for national and international com-
parison) and methods of accounting for national water
policy compliance.50
SCP homogenizes space by representing it as
variables that are thought to contribute (by expert
judgement) to the objectives desired. The ‘contribu-
tions’ of variables to outcomes are formalized as
functions and applied across space in order to tar-
get actions spatially and optimize outcomes for some
given level of resources. The approach risks leaving
important variables unarticulated and unaccounted
for, because of data availability, disciplinary partial-
ity, and the universal assumptions embedded in func-
tional relationships, or our inability to disentangle
process understandings from a ‘causal thicket’.83 As
361
 Overview
a consequence, prospects for managing for optimal
kinds need to grapple with the question ‘optimal
for whom?’16 Despite concerns among scientists and
researchers, many practitioners appear to take these
maps as gospel. In the wetland example cited,63 the
role of wetlands within wider catchment connectivity
relationships was not operationalized into its ranking
and prioritization for action, despite wetlands being
widely known for their functionality relating to eco-
logical habitat connectivity and their water quality,
flood and erosion regulation.3 Should such concerns
be a part of decision-making rationalities, and what
are the implications of providing management tools
without such values embedded into them? SCP finds
ready support in narratives of cash-strapped conser-
vation that needs to optimize value for input, and
thus reproduces logics for unitary metrics of ecological
‘value’ that are extracted from their relational ecolog-
ical and social contexts.41
NCD offers practitioners a method to attain
channel stability by identifying prescriptive kinds
of rivers to emulate and the interventions required
to create them. It is literally about transforming
existing rivers into reference rivers in order to mimic
conditions thought to be necessary for stability. It pro-
vides a useful regulatory tool—standardized, account-
able, and prescriptive steps that are easy to circulate
and—crucially—it does not challenge the presumption
that bank channels should be stable. It reproduces a
discourse of ‘nature by design’ that accords mastery
to its human designers, rather than framing human
design as needing to cede mastery over nature.66
Given its emphasis upon stability framed in terms of
equilibrium relations, NCD represents an alternative
form of ‘command and control’ river management.
Reductionist, determinist principles are taught in a
tightly formatted training regime, and applied in a
prescriptive manner.66 More than the other classifica-
tion systems, NCD is about materially making rivers
the same.
RS makes rivers the same in a provisional way
to aid learning and test ideas about landscapes. It
emphasizes place-based interpretation of river sys-
tems and their complexity through framings such
as ‘know your catchment’.75 It supports learning
and ‘adaptive epistemology’ in efforts to ‘work with
nature’, but this comes at the cost of universal com-
parison and ensuring consistency and reliability of
on-the-ground applications. The interpretative com-
ponent of the framework prioritizes expert knowledge
rather than standardized measurement-analysis pack-
ages, and encourages building scientific capability that
intersects with expert-community relations in unpre-
dictable ways. It classifies rivers as pedagogical kinds
362 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
wires.wiley.com/water
in order to guide thinking about the development and
change of specific river systems.
In these various ways, river classification prac-
tices are constitutive of decision-making rationali-
ties, and they are always undergirded by disciplinary
and/or situated understandings of river systems. The
classifying mindsets they produce relate directly with
local and international scientific and institutional cul-
tures, investment narratives, and visions of human
relationships with nature.
DISCUSSION
Ontological politics is a composite term. It talks of
ontology—which in standard philosophical parlance
defines what belongs to the real, the conditions of
possibility we live with. If the term ’ontology’ is
combined with that of ’politics’ then this suggests that
the conditions of possibility are not given. That reality
does not precede the mundane practices in which we
interact with it, but is rather shaped within these
practices. So the term politics works to underline this
active mode, this process of shaping, and the fact that
its character is both open and contested. (Philosopher
Annemarie Mol).84
The concept of ontological politics empha-
sizes that ontology—the fundamental categories of
reality—is not independent of the practices that bring
these categories into existence and stabilize their
meaning. Because rivers are complex biophysical
systems, the disciplinarily derived and institution-
ally influenced framings we place around them are
always tentative, partial, and open to contest on
multiple fronts. To date, however, the relevant ‘fronts’
for debate have been understood as ‘scientific’ ones
involving debate about the nature of reality, rather
than debates about the values and institutions that
should guide living with/in a complex world.
River classification provides an abstraction of
what would otherwise be an inconceivable array of
natural variation into relatively few selected parame-
ters whether they be quantitative, qualitative, or both.
As classification cannot incorporate every aspect of
any particular fluvial environment, some information
must be lost or a new class would be required for every
situation at every point in time. Although every river
can ‘fit’ into a classification scheme, this does not mean
that its relevant formative or generative relationships
are accounted for.32 This situation is especially limit-
ing if the classification scheme is framed in relation to
a limited number of generic, perhaps locally unimpor-
tant, variables. The ‘uncertain geographical context
problem’ refers to how the causal relations produc-
ing a phenomenon may be different across space, such
Volume 1, July/August 2014
 WIREs Water
that we may never know whether we can meaningfully
extrapolate contexts.85
Despite the veneer of objectivity granted by
the application of various statistical procedures,
approaches to river classification ultimately rely upon
expert judgement and intuition to classify phenom-
ena. However, the statistical investigation of spatial
patterns may be the only option in cases where
conceptual models linking observable data to the
processes of interest do not exist or cannot be agreed
upon. For example, many phenomena result from the
coevolution of a wide range of interdependent com-
ponents and processes that form ‘causal thickets’,83
which are difficult, if not impossible to disentangle.32
Understanding river classification as ontolog-
ical politics is not just about framing knowledge as
partial and uncertain. The preferences and value com-
mitments of scientists for particular theoretical and
methodological framings are couched within wider
discourses of nature–society relations.80 As such,
there is a need to reflexively engage the institutions
that surround and are imbricated in river classification
practices.
River classifications are part of—and perform
into—wider discourses and trajectories relating to
the means and ends of environmental management.
They draw on public narratives for investment, and
can contribute to discourses ranging from human
mastery over nature to that of ‘humble steward’.81
They also contribute to framing the normative prac-
tice of environmental management by assuming
uncontestable definitions of ‘naturalness’ or by cre-
ating ‘scientific’ norms for evaluation (e.g., defining
rivers as ‘degraded’ or ‘pristine’20 ). The specific
framings deployed by scientists can create vehicles
for policy-relevant knowledge production, such as
framings around ‘ecosystem services’,86 despite the
implications of these framings often being contested
on normative grounds.41,87
In summary, what has been traditionally seen
as a scientific practice is clearly a more-than-scientific
endeavor.13 In this, we agree with sociologist John
Law 88 that scientific practices produce ‘collateral real-
ities’; they create institutional legacies and material
effects. Not only do they determine what matters and
what does not matter in environmental management
(ontological politics), but they also frame these deter-
minations as expert tasks rather than as democratic
ones. River classifications intersect with the govern-
ing rationalities of a given place, and can produce
rivers-to-order to support existing power dynamics
and environmental discourses.
Engaging with the discursive work of river clas-
sification is an important task ahead for river scientists
Volume 1, July/August 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
River classification
and practitioners. While significant efforts have been
made to critique environmental discourses around the
world, the practice of river classification ultimately
always intersects with local power/knowledge rela-
tionships in particular ways. Particular epistemic com-
munities may have a ‘hold’ on framings of rivers, or
political actors may have shaped the context to privi-
lege particular framings over time.22,23,78 The project
of river classification needs to be understood as inter-
vening into and across these relations, and can thus
intervene in ways that encourage participatory democ-
racy, value pluralism, and scientific openness.13
CONCLUSION
Classification procedures are developed, justified,
negotiated, legitimized, and performed by particular
practitioners for particular audiences. These deliber-
ations entail choice, the consequences of which have
significant implications. Choices about classification
structure (including the definition of entities, the
characteristics deemed pertinent to their grouping, the
definition of groups, and the relationships between
groups) provide a platform for the ongoing sharing
of knowledge and action upon rivers and human sub-
jects. These are not simple ‘better or worse’ choices.
They are disciplinary questions of emphasis (which
variables matter, how variables matter), and they are
imbricated with values (what constitutes desirable
livelihoods), fair ways of living with nature, and
so on. River classifications are not just ‘truths of
nature’ being described, they are decision-making
rationalities being proposed. What happens when
we provide a statistical regression package for RHS
data to state officials: how do they approach the river
management problem? How are we encouraging them
to approach the problem through our own production
and application of knowledge?
In this article, we have argued that river classifi-
cations do multiple and particular kinds of theoretical,
institutional, and governmental work. While we can-
not escape this, we can be conscious of the classifying
mindsets that our scientific practices produce. We may
well need ‘requisite simplicities’ for the project of envi-
ronmental management,89 but how we underpin and
rationalize these simplicities from a scientific and dis-
cursive point of view can create (not just reveal) social
and environmental relationships and futures. Rather
than shy away from questions of use and aims, river
scientists can and should think about how their work
contributes to the building of institutions and repro-
duction of values.
By thinking about the classifying mindsets of
river classification in the wider spheres of institution
363
 Overview
building, investment narratives, and environmental
management, we can begin to understand how river
classifications perform and embed particular environ-
mental rationalities, which give rise to particular fram-
ing effects in a given location. We can think about how
SCP relates to narratives of cost efficiency and mone-
tary framings of conservation, we can think about how
NCD allows a prescriptive and ‘accountable’ kind of
planning to unfold, and we can draw out our own con-
cerns about how these approaches to environmental
governance miss out things that are important, within
a normative but also a scientific sense. A more engaged
scientific project could contribute productively to the
reshaping of these environmental narratives.
Perhaps rather than thinking about ‘right’ or
‘wrong’ classifications, it is important to accept that
they can be useful for a range of purposes. How-
ever, these framings are not developed as if in a vac-
uum, and we should be under no illusions that they
are the final statement about what rivers are.26 In
this sense, it is not about getting the ‘right’ classifica-
tion, but producing one where knowledge and insti-
tutions work to help frame deliberative and demo-
cratic processes, where science is understood and
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Kiely McFarlane, Stuart Lane, and two anonymous reviewers for detailed and constructive comments
on the manuscript, and we thank Brendon Blue for early valuable conversations about the politics of river
classification. Final responsibility for the article remains ours.
REFERENCES
1. Cosgrove D, Petts G, eds. Water, Engineering and
Landscape. London: Belhaven Press; 1990.
2. Gregory KJ. The human role in changing river channels.
Geomorphology 2006, 79:172–191.
3. Russi D, ten Brink P, Farmer A, Badura T, Coates D,
Förster J, Kumar R, Davidson N. The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands.
2013.
4. Carpenter SR, Stanley EH, Vander Zanden MJ. State of
the world’s freshwater ecosystems: physical, chemical,
and biological changes. Ann Rev Environ Resour 2011,
36:75–99.
5. Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon
D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan
CA, Liermann CR, et al. Global threats to human
water security and river biodiversity. Nature 2010,
467:555–561.
6. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA. River Futures: An Integrative
Approach to River Repair. Washington DC: Island
Press; 2008, 304.
364 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
wires.wiley.com/water
approached as embodying societal values.13 In this
sense, moving toward a ‘reflective’ reductionism16
can help to illuminate the partial and situated nature
of environmental framings and evidence, and draw
attention to the value-laden process of environmen-
tal knowledge construction. This opens up new fronts
for engagement and allows scientists to rethink the
role of river science in contributing to dialogue about
environmental governance.14 While we should con-
tinue to ask ‘how robust is this river classification?’,
we should also ask ‘how does this approach repro-
duce and embed particular social-ecological relation-
ships and values?’ Critically, are classification proce-
dures externally imposed, and do practitioners have
capacity (and agency) to generate and apply alterna-
tive framings? Are we creating locked-in mentalities
with associated path dependencies, or are alternative
realities that enable capacity to ‘make the world differ-
ently’ possible? Recognizing the work of classification
procedures is a critical first step in (re)formulating and
(re)visioning the work that is performed by such prac-
tices. To what ends are we ‘making rivers the same’,
and with what effects?
7. Melles SJ, Jones NE, Schmidt B. Review of theoretical
developments in stream ecology and their influence on
stream classification and conservation planning. Freshw
Biol 2012, 57:415–434.
8. Buffington JM, Montgomery DR. Geomorphic classifi-
cation of rivers. In: Treatise on Fluvial Geomorphology.
Fluvial Geomorphology, vol. 9. San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic Press; 2013, 730–767.
9. Olden JD, Kennard MJ, Pusey BJ. A framework for
hydrologic classification with a review of methodologies
and applications in ecohydrology. Ecohydrology 2012,
5:503–518.
10. Harris GP, Heathwaite AL. Why is achieving good
ecological outcomes in rivers so difficult? Freshw Biol
2012, 57:91–107.
11. Everard M, Powell A. Rivers as living systems. Aquat
Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 2002, 12:329–337.
12. Phillips JD. The perfect landscape. Geomorphology
2007, 84:159–169.
Volume 1, July/August 2014
 WIREs Water
13. Juntti M, Russel D, Turnpenny J. Evidence, politics and
power in public policy for the environment. Environ Sci
Policy 2009, 12:207–215.
14. Wesselink A, Buchanan K, Georgiadou Y, Turnhout E.
Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at
the science–policy interface. Environ Sci Policy 2013,
30:1–9.
15. Bracken LJ, Oughton EA. Making sense of policy
implementation: the construction and uses of expertise
and evidence in managing freshwater environments.
Environ Sci Policy 2013, 30:10–18.
16. Audouin M, Preiser R, Nienaber S, Downsborough L,
Lanz J, Mavengahama S. Exploring the implications of
critical complexity for the study of ecological systems.
Ecol Soc 2013, 18:12. doi: 10.5751/ES-05434-180312.
17. Callon M. The role of lay people in the production and
dissemination of scientific knowledge. Sci Technol Soc
1999, 4:81–94.
18. Lane SN, Odoni N, Landström C, Whatmore SJ, Ward
N, Bradley S. Doing flood risk science differently: an
experiment in radical scientific method. Trans Inst Br
Geogr 2011, 36:15–36.
19. Eden S, Bear C. Models of equilibrium, natural agency
and environmental change: lay ecologies in UK recre-
ational angling. Trans Inst Br Geogr 2011, 36:393–407.
20. Fryirs KA, Arthington A, Grove J. Principles of river
condition assessment. In: Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA, eds.
River Futures: An Integrative Scientific Approach to
River Repair. Washington DC: Island Press; 2008,
100–124.
21. Boon PJ, Holmes NTH, Raven PJ. Developing standard
approaches for recording and assessing river hydromor-
phology: the role of the European Committee for Stan-
dardization (CEN). Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst
2010, 20:S55–S61.
22. Bouleau G. The co-production of science and water-
scapes: the case of the Seine and the Rhône Rivers,
France. Geoforum 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.
2013.1001.1009.
23. van Hemert M. Taming indeterminacy: the
co-production of biodiversity restoration, flood protec-
tion and biophysical modelling of rivers and coastal
environments. Sci Technol Soc 2013, 18:75–92.
24. O’Keeffe JH, Uys M. The role of classification in the
conservation of rivers. In: Boon PJ, Davies BR, Petts
GE, eds. Global Perspectives on River Conservation:
Science, Policy and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons; 2000, 445–458.
25. Sokal RR. Classification: purposes, principles, progress,
prospects. Science 1974, 185:1115–1123.
26. Kondolf GM, Montgomery DR, Piegay H, Schmitt L.
Geomorphic classification of rivers and streams. In:
Kondolf GM, Piegay H, eds. Tools in Fluvial Geo-
morphology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2003,
171–204.
Volume 1, July/August 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
River classification
27. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD. A hierar-
chical framework for stream habitat classification: view-
ing streams in a watershed context. Environ Manage
1986, 10:199–214.
28. Slater MH, Borghini A. Introduction: lessons from the
scientific butchery. In: Campbell JK, O’Rourke M,
Slater MH, eds. Carving Nature at It’s Joints: Natural
Kinds in Metaphysics and Science. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press; 2011, 1–31.
29. Rhoads BL, Thorn CE. Toward a philosophy of geomor-
phology. In: Rhoads BL, Thorn CE, eds. The Scientific
Nature of Geomorphology. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons; 1996.
30. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd
ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1996.
31. Church M. Observations and experiments. In: Gregory
KJ, Goudie AS, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Geomor-
phology. London: SAGE; 2011, 121–142.
32. Inkpen R, Wilson G. Science, Philosophy and Physical
Geography. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2013.
33. Chorley RJ. Geography and analogue theory. Ann
Assoc Am Geogr 1964, 54:127–137.
34. Fryirs K, Brierley GJ, Erskine WD. Use of ergodic rea-
soning to reconstruct the historical range of variability
and evolutionary trajectory of rivers. Earth Surface Pro-
cess Landforms 2012, 37:763–773.
35. Rosgen DL. A classification of natural rivers. Catena
1994, 22:169–199.
36. Kondolf GM. Geomorphological stream channel clas-
sification in aquatic habitat restoration: uses and lim-
itations. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 1995,
5:127–141.
37. Small MJ, Doyle MW. Historical perspectives on river
restoration design in the USA. Prog Phys Geogr 2012,
36:138–153.
38. Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman
RJ, Kendy E, Acreman M, Apse C, Bledsoe BP, Free-
man MC, et al. The ecological limits of hydrologic
alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for develop-
ing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol
2010, 55:147–170.
39. Church M. Space, time and the mountain – how do we
order what we see? In: Rhoads BL, Thorn CE, eds. The
Scientific Nature of Geomorphology: Proceedings of the
27th Binghamton Symposium in Geomorphology held
27–29 September 1996. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons;
1996, 147–170.
40. Smith B, Mark DM. Do mountains exist? Towards an
ontology of landforms. Environ Plann B: Plann Des
2003, 30:411–427.
41. Tadaki M, Sinner J. Measure, model, optimise: under-
standing reductionist concepts of value in freshwater
governance. Geoforum 2014, 51:140–151.
42. Palmer MA. Socioenvironmental sustainability and
actionable science. BioScience 2012, 62:5–6.
365
 Overview
43. Lave R, Doyle M, Robertson M. Privatizing stream
restoration in the US. Soc Stud Sci 2010, 40:677–703.
44. Raven PJ, Holmes NTH, Naura M, Dawson FH. Using
river habitat survey for environmental assessment and
catchment planning in the U.K. Hydrobiologia 2000,
422–423:359–367.
45. Jeffers JNR. The statistical basis of sampling strategies
for rivers: an example using River Habitat Survey.
Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 1998, 8:447–454.
46. Seager K, Baker L, Parsons H, Raven PJ, Vaughan
IP. The rivers and streams of England and Wales: an
overview of their physical character in 2007–2008 and
changes since 1995–1996. In: Boon PJ, Raven PJ, eds.
River Conservation and Management. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons; 2012, 29–43.
47. Raven PJ, Holmes NTH, Dawson FH, Everard M.
Quality assessment using River Habitat Survey data.
Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 1998, 8:477–499.
48. Harvey GL, Clifford NJ, Gurnell AM. Towards an eco-
logically meaningful classification of the flow biotope
for river inventory, rehabilitation, design and appraisal
purposes. J Environ Manage 2008, 88:638–650.
49. Vaughan IP. Habitat indices for rivers: derivation and
applications. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 2010,
20:S4–S12.
50. Raven PJ, Holmes NTH, Vaughan IP, Dawson FH,
Scarlett P. Benchmarking habitat quality: observations
using River Habitat Survey on near-natural streams and
rivers in northern and western Europe. Aquat Conserv
Mar Freshw Ecosyst 2010, 20:S13–S30.
51. Milner VS, Gilvear DJ, Willby NJ. An assessment of
variants in the professional judgement of geomorpho-
logically based channel types. River Res Appl 2013,
29:236–249.
52. Newson MD, Large ARG. ‘Natural’ rivers, ‘hydromor-
phological quality’ and river restoration: a challenging
new agenda for applied fluvial geomorphology. Earth
Surface Process Landforms 2006, 31:1606–1624.
53. Vaughan IP, Merrix-Jones FL, Constantine JA. Success-
ful predictions of river characteristics across England
and Wales based on ordination. Geomorphology 2013,
194:121–131.
54. Margules CR, Pressey RL. Systematic conservation
planning. Nature 2000, 405:243–253.
55. Nel JL, Roux DJ, Abell R, Ashton PJ, Cowling RM, Hig-
gins JV, Thieme M, Viers JH. Progress and challenges in
freshwater conservation planning. Aquat Conserv Mar
Freshw Ecosyst 2009, 19:474–485.
56. Linke S, Turak E, Nel J. Freshwater conservation
planning: the case for systematic approaches. Freshw
Biol 2011, 56:6–20.
57. Kleynhans CJ, Thirion C, Moolman J. A Level I
River Ecoregion Classification System for South Africa,
Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: Resource Quality
Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry;
2005.
366 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
wires.wiley.com/water
58. Nel JL, Reyers B, Roux DJ, Impson ND, Cowling RM.
Designing a conservation area network that supports
the representation and persistence of freshwater biodi-
versity. Freshw Biol 2011, 56:106–124.
59. Nel JL, Turak E, Linke S, Brown C. Integration of envi-
ronmental flow assessment and freshwater conservation
planning: a new era in catchment management. Mar
Freshw Res 2011, 62:290–299.
60. Linke S, Pressey RL, Bailey RC, Norris RH. Manage-
ment options for river conservation planning: condi-
tion and conservation re-visited. Freshw Biol 2007,
52:918–938.
61. Nel JL, Roux DJ, Maree G, Kleynhans CJ. Rivers in
peril inside and outside protected areas: a systematic
approach to conservation assessment of river ecosys-
tems. Divers Distrib 2007, 13:341–352.
62. Driver A, Maze K, Rouget M, Lombard AT, Nel J,
Turpie JK, Cowling RM, Desmet P, Goodman P, Harris
J, et al. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004:
Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa.
Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute;
2005.
63. Ausseil A-GE, Chadderton WL, Gerbeaux P, Stephens
RTT, Leathwick JR. Applying systematic conservation
planning principles to palustrine and inland saline wet-
lands of New Zealand. Freshw Biol 2011, 56:142–161.
64. Maron M, Hobbs RJ, Moilanen A, Matthews JW,
Christie K, Gardner TA, Keith DA, Lindenmayer DB,
McAlpine CA. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities
in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol Con-
serv 2012, 155:141–148.
65. Rosgen DL. Natural channel design: fundamental con-
cepts, assumptions, and methods. In: Simon A, Ben-
nett SJ, Castro JM, eds. Stream Restoration in Dynamic
Fluvial Systems: Scientific Approaches, Analyses, and
Tools. Geophysical Monograph Series, vol. 194. Wash-
ington DC: American Geophysical Union; 2011, 69–93.
66. Lave R. Fields and Streams: Stream Restoration, Neolib-
eralism, and the Future of Environmental Science.
Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press; 2012.
67. Fryirs K, Brierley GJ. Naturalness and place in river
rehabilitation. Ecol Soc 2009, 14:20[online]. Available
at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art20/
(Accessed April 1, 2014).
68. Simon A, Doyle M, Kondolf M, Shields FD Jr, Rhoads
B, McPhillips M. Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen
classification and associated "Natural Channel Design"
methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes
and channel response. J Am Water Resour Assoc 2007,
43:1117–1131.
69. Higgs E. Nature by Design: People, Natural Process,
and Ecological Restoration. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press; 2003.
70. Florsheim JL, Mount JF, Chin A. Bank erosion as
a desirable attribute of rivers. BioScience 2008,
58:519–529.
Volume 1, July/August 2014
 WIREs Water River classification

71. Hillman M, Brierley GJ. Restoring uncertainty: trans-
lating science into management practice. In: Brierley
GJ, Fryirs KA, eds. River Futures: An Integrative Scien-
tific Approach to River Repair. Washington DC: Island
Press; 2008, 257–272.
72. Juracek KE, Fitzpatrick FA. Limitations and implica-
tions of stream classification. J Am Water Resour Assoc
2003, 39:659–670.
73. Roper BB, Buffington JM, Archer E, Moyer C, Ward M.
The role of observer variation in determining Rosgen
stream types in northeastern Oregon mountain streams.
J Am Water Resour Assoc 2008, 44:417–427.
74. Brierley G, Fryirs K, Cook N, Outhet D, Raine A,
Parsons L, Healey M. Geomorphology in action: linking
policy with on-the-ground actions through applications
of the River Styles framework. Appl Geogr 2011,
31:1132–1143.
75. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA. Geomorphology and River Man-
agement: Applications of the River Styles Framework.
Oxford: Blackwell; 2005.
76. Brierley G, Fryirs K, Cullum C, Tadaki M, Huang HQ,
Blue B. Reading the landscape: integrating the theory
and practice of geomorphology to develop place-based
understandings of river systems. Prog Phys Geogr 2013,
37:601–621.
77. Chessman BC, Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ. Linking geo-
morphic character, behaviour and condition to fluvial
biodiversity: implications for river management. Aquat
Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 2006, 16:267–288.
78. Fernandez S. Much ado about minimum flows. Unpack-
ing indicators to reveal water politics. Geoforum 2013.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.1004.1017.
79. Lane SN, Landström C, Whatmore SJ. Imagining flood
futures: risk assessment and management in practice.
Philos Trans R Soc A 2011, 369:1784–1806.
80. Emery SB, Perks MT, Bracken LJ. Negotiating river
restoration: the role of divergent reframing in environ-
mental decision-making. Geoforum 2013, 47:167–177.
81. Dryzek JS. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental
Discourses. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
2013.
82. Tadaki M, Salmond J, Le Heron R, Brierley G. Nature,
culture, and the work of physical geography. Trans Inst
Br Geogr 2012, 37:547–562.
83. Wimsatt WC. The ontology of complex systems: levels
of organization, perspectives, and causal thickets. Can J
Philos 1994, 24:207–274.
84. Mol A. Ontological politics. A word and some ques-
tions. In: Law J, Hassard J, eds. Actor Network Theory
and After. Oxford: Blackwell; 1999, 74–89.
85. Kwan M-P. The uncertain geographic context problem.
Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2012, 102:958–968.
86. Thorp JH, Flotemersch JE, Delong MD, Casper AF,
Thoms MC, Ballantyne F, Williams BS, O’Neill BJ,
Haase CS. Linking ecosystem services, rehabilitation,
and river hydrogeomorphology. BioScience 2010,
60:67–74.
87. Ernstson H, Sörlin S. Ecosystem services as technology
of globalization: on articulating values in urban nature.
Ecol Econ 2013, 86:274–284.
88. Law J. Collateral realities. In: The Politics of Knowl-
edge. London: Routledge; 2012, 156–178.
89. Stirzaker R, Biggs H, Roux D, Cilliers P. Requisite
simplicities to help negotiate complex problems. Ambio
2010, 39:600–607.

WEB RESOURCES
http://www.wildlandhydrology.com/ contains further publications and resources relating to Natural Channel Design.
http://www.riverhabitatsurvey.org/ provides a hub for news and resources for the River Habitat Survey.
http://www.riverstyles.com/ provides resources and case study applications of the River Styles framework.

FURTHER READING
Margules C, Sarkar S. Systematic Conservation Planning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This textbook provides
an overview of systematic conservation planning theory and methodology; 2007.

Volume 1, July/August 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 367