See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229902114

Meeting the challenges of urban river habitat restoration:

Developing a methodology for the River Thames through central
London

Article  in  Area · July 2008

DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00826.x

CITATIONS READS
23 2,129

4 authors, including:

Robert A Francis Simon Hoggart

King's College London University of Plymouth
103 PUBLICATIONS   2,813 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   1,146 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Angela Gurnell
Queen Mary, University of London
330 PUBLICATIONS   18,358 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Potential Impacts of Air Pollution from Wildfire Burning on Migratory Insects View project

War Impact on Dryland Environments and Social-Ecological Resilience in Somalia (WIDER-SOMA) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert A Francis on 21 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Area (2008) 40.4, 435–445

Meeting the challenges of urban river habitat

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

restoration: developing a methodology for the

River Thames through central London
Robert A Francis*, Simon P G Hoggart*, Angela M Gurnell* and Chris Coode**
*Department of Geography, King’s College London, London WC2R 2LS
Email: robert.francis@kcl.ac.uk
**Thames21, Walbrook Wharf, City of London Corporation, London EC4R 3TD

Revised manuscript received 29 March 2008

The River Thames is a heavily engineered urban system in recovery, though absence of
habitat in the reaches through central London has restricted recovery in this area, making
habitat creation or improvement a restoration priority. Here we discuss the pre-disturbance
Thames, its current ecological status, and then present a methodology for establishing
habitat restoration potential through central London. Habitats primarily supporting ecological
communities include inter-tidal foreshore and artificial structures, and novel techniques
for improving these habitats are under development. It is hoped that such approaches along
the Thames will provide a template for habitat creation along other large urban rivers.

Key words: River Thames, river restoration, habitat creation, urban river, landscape
ecology, ecological status

Introduction freshwater and saline ecosystems, and therefore has

The River Thames is the largest and most important
freshwater and estuarine habitat for London and the
southeast of England, and is an excellent example of
a heavily engineered urban system in recovery.
Substantially degraded in the industrial past, the
river has since recovered over the last 50 years to
become one of the cleanest urban rivers in Europe
(Kinniburgh 1998; Gray 2005). Recovery of some
biota has also taken place, particularly in the upper
freshwater and lower estuarine part of the river,
but absence of habitat in the upper tidal reaches
through central London has restricted the recovery
of biodiversity and associated ecosystem integrity
(e.g. Attrill et al. 1999). This section of the river is
highly constrained and heavily engineered with
concrete flood embankments, and experiences intensive
use from river traffic. Consequently, the connectivity
between the less impacted sections of the river is
disrupted by the section through central London.
The upper tidal Thames is also an ecocline between
a particular range of environmental conditions that
determine the ecological communities that can exist
in this section of the river (Attrill and Rundle 2002).
These considerations make the Thames through
central London a restoration priority, but any level of
restoration is difficult due to a lack of understanding
of the habitats and biodiversity along the river, as
well as spatial limitations for habitat re-creation and
the absence of novel methodologies to improve
biodiversity in a spatially restricted, heavily engineered
urban system.
This paper (1) briefly discusses the natural (pre-
disturbance) state of the upper tidal Thames and the
major alterations that have occurred to change its
morphology and biodiversity, (2) summarises the
current state of ecological knowledge of this section
of the river, and then (3) presents a methodology for
establishing the habitat restoration potential of the
upper tidal Thames through central London. Identifying
key research gaps and a workable methodology for
assessing restoration potential is a priority for this

Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008

ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
436 Francis et al.

Figure 1 Map of the tidal Thames through central London, highlighting the section of the river under consideration
in this paper (‘area targeted by Project Habitat’). The upper tidal Thames stretches approximately from Teddington
Lock to Woolwich and is freshwater dominated, while the lower tidal Thames is downstream of Woolwich and is
saltwater dominated. The London boroughs bordering the river are delineated by dotted lines

urban system, and once determined will provide an
incentive for relevant organisations to achieve this
potential, or conversely, will confirm that little in
the way of habitat improvement can be attained.
For the purposes of this paper, the upper tidal
Thames through central London (the upper estuary)
is the brackish ecocline between Teddington Lock
and Woolwich (Figure 1). Downstream from this
location the river is predominantly saline, and the
flood defences consist of earth embankments that
allow some riparian communities to develop, and
therefore a different suite of environmental conditions
and restoration opportunities exist.
The pre-disturbance tidal Thames and
a brief history of impacts
More than 10 000 years ago the River Thames up to
the estuary maintained a multi-thread morphology
and was a complex mosaic of bars, channels, islands,
backwaters and floodplain environments (Clout
1991; TEP 2005). After the beginning of the present
interglacial and its associated changes in climate and
hydrology, the river adopted its current meandering
pattern (Wood 1982), albeit that this pattern is now
greatly influenced by engineering and development.
The river floodplain was settled by humans as early
as the Neolithic era, although it was the Romans
that established London as a significant settlement
and developed the Thames as a major port, after their
invasion in the first century AD (Wood 1982). Since
then the river has remained a focus for population
growth and has been under ever-increasing urban
pressure, with the result that the river has been
continually modified over the last 2000 years (Clout
1991). In particular the section through central
London has experienced notable channel modification;
the Romans first embanked the channel, but more
extensive embankment for land development and
flood defence occurred towards the end of the
seventeenth century. This has constrained the channel
and resulted in greatly increased discharge through

Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008

ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
 Meeting the challenges of urban river habitat restoration
central London. Furthermore, the tidal influence on the
river has grown steadily since the Roman colonisation
due to the sinking of southeast England, increasing
flood risk and leading to the construction of the
Thames Barrier at Woolwich in 1984. These impacts
have reduced habitat and changed the condition of
the river substantially through central London.
Increasing populations and industry along the
River Thames brought about an increase in pollution
of the river and estuary, most dramatically in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Highly toxic
and oxygen-demanding by-products from chemical
and gas manufacture, such as phenols and ammonia,
were key pollutants during the nineteenth century
(Wood 1982). Also in the early part of the nine-
teenth century, the invention of the water closet
and basic sewerage meant that it was easier for the
population to direct increased amounts of human
refuse into the river, which, along with the direct
dumping of a varied range of industrial wastes, led
to a decrease in oxygen availability and an associated
decline of species populations and diversity (e.g.
Wood 1982; Tinsley 1998), culminating in the Great
Stink of 1858 (Halliday 1999).
Major improvements in sewage treatments, motivated
by a series of cholera outbreaks in London between
1831 and 1866, improved the situation markedly
during the latter part of the nineteenth century
(Wood 1982; Halliday 1999); but then a further period
of marked decline occurred between 1915 and the
1950s due to an increasing number of sewage outfalls
in the river, combined with harsh methods of
chemically treating the waste and the industrial and
domestic use of non-biodegradable detergents (Tinsley
1998). Although the decline in water quality for this
period is reasonably well-recorded (though water
quality measurements only began in 1882), changes
in biodiversity are not (e.g. Wood 1982). Nevertheless,
the low oxygen conditions prevalent throughout the
upper estuary through central London undoubtedly
had a major impact on the ecology of the river, leading
to a paucity of species that only began to be rectified
in the latter part of the twentieth century.
Improvements in water quality
and ecology
Since the declaration of the central London section
of the River Thames as biologically dead by scientists
at the Natural History Museum in 1957 (Lavery and
Donovan 2005), many steps have been taken to
improve the water quality of the river (Environment
Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
437
Agency 1997; Kinniburgh 1998; cf. Mourato et al.
2005). The River Thames is today regarded as one of
the cleanest heavily urbanised rivers in the world
and the most biodiverse estuary in Europe (Lavery and
Donovan 2005). However, although the freshwater
part of the Thames from the upper catchment to
Teddington lock is generally of a high water quality,
the quality is reduced through central London due
to increased sewage and industrial outflow, though
little specific information exists (Kinniburgh 1998;
Environment Agency 2004). In particular, suspended
silt loads with associated contaminants are high, and
there are occasional pollution incidents associated
with sewage overflow during storms (Kinniburgh
1998; Mourato et al. 2005).
The increase in water quality along most of the
river has led to the recovery of several fish taxa
whose populations were previously much reduced
(Environment Agency 1997). Likewise, a reduction
in pollution-tolerant oligochaete worms in inter-tidal
foreshore habitats has been suggested as evidence
of recovery of the invertebrate communities that
pre-date these organisms, although the communities
themselves remain to be investigated (Environment
Agency 1997). Nevertheless, restoration of riverine
and riparian habitat within central London, alongside
continued improvements in water quality, remains a
priority for improving the functioning and biodiversity
of the river system. This is acknowledged in the
development of conservation initiatives; for the
section of the river under consideration in this
paper, several UK Biodiversity Habitat Action Plans
and Local Action Plans have been established,
which have identified habitats and species still under
threat (see Table 1). However, such action plans
frequently lack a scientific basis and are consequently
ineffective (e.g. Pullin and Knight 2001).
The current biodiversity of the Thames
through central London
Biological communities
Despite recent improvements in populations of a
range of taxa, the ecological status of the river’s
biota as a whole, and in particular the upper tidal
Thames through central London, is uncertain. Many
data exist in a disparate form due to their being
collected during short-term or underfunded projects,
which have had limited success in quantifying or
monitoring ecological communities along the river
and which rarely result in publication (e.g. Tittley
2001; TEP nd; and see e.g. Colclough et al. 2002).
438 Francis et al.
Table 1 UK Biodiversity Action Plan ‘Habitat Action
Plans’ and ‘Local Action Plans’ relevant to the River
Thames through central London
UK Biodiversity Habitat Action Plan
Coastal sand dunes
Coastal vegetated shingle
Estuarine rocky habitats
Inter-tidal boulder communities
Inter-tidal mudflats
Reedbeds
Rivers
Seagrass beds
Subtidal sands and gravels
UK Biodiversity Local Action Plan
Bexley
Havering Wildlife Partnership
Hounslow
Lewisham
London
London Borough of Newham
Richmond
Southwark
Tidal Thames
Tower Hamlets
Westminster
Consequently the data are generally incomplete,
unpublished and often held in relative isolation by
varying organisations. The records that do exist will
allow some level of assessment to be made, for
example the construction of a species list for this
section of the river. However, systematic surveys of
river and riparian communities along the Thames
are lacking, and the detailed records that do exist
are usually (with a few notable exceptions, e.g.
Attrill et al. 1999) focused on individual species,
either due to their being classified as indicator
species and perceived as being under threat or
recovering, or the species being invasive and
representing a threat to biodiversity themselves (e.g.
Birkhead and Perrins 1985; Power et al. 2000; Aldridge
et al. 2004; Herborg et al. 2005). Thus, long-term
monitoring of many species has not taken place or
is sporadic, other than for populations of several fish
species (Environment Agency 1997; Colclough et al.
2002). A scientific methodology for biodiversity
restoration along the upper tidal Thames must focus
on the appropriate degraded habitats rather than
species, as ensuring that suitable riverine landforms
exist is the first step in maintaining and promoting
populations and communities of species in general
(Bond and Lake 2003).
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
Riverine and riparian habitat
The lack of connectivity between the river channel
and floodplain through central London means that
floodplain habitat is essentially absent, as all riverbanks
have been subject to the construction of embankments
and vertical walls (e.g. LBP 2000; TEP 2004).
Downstream from central London, towards the lower
tidal Thames, terraces and earth embankments exist
that are not vertical and that allow some development
of riparian vegetation communities, with some zonation
of communities according to periodicity of inundation
(TEP 2004). Riverine and riparian habitat features
that remain within the central London stretch of the
river may be broadly classified as: (1) channel bed
and sub-littoral deposits, (2) inter-tidal foreshore and
(3) river islands (e.g. TEP 2004). Artificial structures,
such as embankment walls and bridge supports, are
also forming a suitable habitat for a selection of
opportunistic synurban species (e.g. Attrill et al.
1999; TEP 2004; Francis and Hoggart in press). All
of these habitats are subject to periodic inundation
due to variations in river flows and the influence of
tides. This may be considered a particular kind of
flow pulse (see Tockner et al. 2000) causing frequent
disturbance but leading to high connectivity between
habitats, although it is uncertain how such hydrological
pulses may affect habitat heterogeneity and species
dynamics along the Thames.
Channel bed and sub-littoral deposits
Little information exists on the channel bed and
sub-littoral habitats of the River Thames, other than
observations that some gradation of sedimentary
particle size is observable, with the coarsest material
being present at greater depths and associated with
higher velocity zones, and finer material present
towards the banks (TEP 2004). Sub-littoral areas,
particularly those subject to lower velocities, are
very important for benthic organisms, primarily
crustaceans and invertebrates, and are a key location
for the storage of pollutants in the river (Attrill and
Thomes 1995). However, opportunities for improving
the sub-littoral habitats of the river through central
London are extremely limited, other than further
reducing the level of mineral and chemical pollutants
delivered to the river.
Inter-tidal foreshore
Aside from the river bed, the most common habitat
is unconsolidated gravel, sand and silt deposits (bar
formations), often termed ‘foreshore’, in the littoral
and supra-littoral zones. These are formed by sediment
Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
 Meeting the challenges of urban river habitat restoration
aggradation in channel edge areas where water
velocity is reduced on the inside of river bends and
in association with roughness features such as
jetties and embayments. Foreshore deposits may vary
considerably in their sedimentary characteristics,
and distinct microhabitats are likely to exist due to
differences in particle size distribution, flow velocity
and periodicity of inundation (disturbance regime),
reflecting elevation and planform position. Before
the channel was constrained by the construction of
embankments, areas of foreshore would have been
extensive at low tide but this habitat is now much
reduced (e.g. Tinsley 1998; TEP 2005). Nevertheless,
the total area of foreshore habitat may still be
substantial. In 1984/5 approximately 310 ha of
foreshore habitat was recorded in the upper tidal
Thames (LBP 2000), but the current extent of foreshore
is unknown.
Through central London inter-tidal foreshore deposits
remain largely unvegetated, presumably due to the
frequency of inundation disturbance, the high shear
stresses and significant tidal ranges that result from
channel narrowing by embankment construction,
and the brackish water conditions, which restrict the
number of species that can establish. In some locations
limited communities do develop, however. Within
the brackish upper tidal Thames a mix of both
freshwater and saltwater plant communities can be
found; freshwater communities are considered to
dominate upstream of Greenwich, with transitional
saltwater communities dominant downstream until
true maritime communities take over at Gravesend
(TEP 2004; cf. Attrill and Rundle 2002), although
transitional boundaries are dynamic at a range of
spatial and temporal scales (e.g. Wood 1982).
Despite the relative scarcity of vegetation, foreshore
areas can be important for invertebrate communities
(e.g. Attrill et al. 1999), which may in turn support a
range of bird species. In a survey of invertebrate
communities along the river, Attrill et al. (1999)
noted that complex supralittoral foreshore habitats,
and consequently invertebrate communities, were
particularly limited in the upper tidal Thames through
central London. Nevertheless, in terms of habitat
restoration, foreshore sediments represent the best
natural subjects for improving habitat quality and
complexity through central London.
River islands
River islands were once common along the River
Thames (TEP 2005) but are now rare. Several relict
islands exist within the upper tidal Thames between
Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
439
Teddington Lock and Woolwich, though these are
limited in size. It has been suggested that these
islands are remnant habitat from when the river was
a multithread system (e.g. Clout 1991; TEP 2004),
but similarities between these islands and original
habitat have been lost due to both changes in hydro-
geomorphological processes (alteration of patterns
of sediment erosion and aggradation due to channel
constriction and increased flow velocities) and
anthropogenic manipulation of the islands (e.g.
reinforcement of island margins with sheet piling, toe-
boarding etc.). Nevertheless, these islands may represent
key sites for the establishment and development of
riparian communities (e.g. Gray 2005).
Artificial structures
Audits of species and habitat along the River
Thames have already noted that artificial habitats
along the river are proving of some benefit to
biodiversity, with river walls and sloping revetments
often maintaining limited plant communities similar
to those found on inter-tidal foreshores (Attrill et al.
1999; Francis and Hoggart in press). Visually, there
appears to be a relationship between the physical
complexity of river walls (e.g. number of gaps,
cracks and crevices within the wall face) and the
amount of vegetation they can support (Steele 1999;
Francis and Hoggart in press). This physical complexity
is also important for supporting faunal diversity;
Attrill et al. (1999) observed a relationship between
wall type (complexity) and invertebrate species along
the tidal Thames, with concrete and metal walls and
wood palings proving less complex and biodiverse
than brick and boulder walls. Consequently, factors
such as the construction materials, age, condition,
maintenance, size and periodicity of inundation
of the river walls are likely to be important in
determining the level of biodiversity these habitat
features will support, with older and more exposed
structures likely to support more complex communities
and/or higher populations.
Some artificial habitat has also been created
specifically to restore some inter-tidal and riparian
habitat features within central London. Managed
realignment and the creation of terraces to simulate
elevation gradients found within riparian zones have
been implemented around the Millennium Dome
and at a location in Wandsworth. These terraces,
which are up to 10 m deep in places, have been
colonised by macrophytes and now form suitable
habitat for a range of invertebrates and fish species
(Colclough et al. 2005). Existing artificial habitat
440 Francis et al.
may potentially be key sites for the creation of
surrogate habitat or habitat improvement using novel
methods (Francis and Hoggart in press).
Evaluating the potential for habitat re-
creation and improvement in the Thames
through central London: a methodology
The ideal aspirations of river restoration are to restore
the functional integrity of a river system so that all the
processes found in the pre-degradation state are
present and operate naturally (Brookes and Shields
1996). Within the River Thames through central
London, restoration of pre-degradation conditions
that might lead to passive habitat restoration is
unfeasible, as large-scale changes, such as channel
modification, are not possible along such an intensively
used and heavily modified urban river. Likewise,
there are limited opportunities to actively recreate
habitat along the river due to space constraints and
development regulations. However, the ecoclinal
nature of the extensive brackish zone through central
London makes this part of the Thames important not
just in itself, but also in the context of the riverine
landscape (e.g. Attrill and Rundle 2002). Although
habitat re-creation is highly problematic, the potential
may exist to improve the quality of the habitat that
is currently present within the river, for example by
increasing habitat complexity and heterogeneity, as
well as creating small, low-impact areas of surrogate
habitat to support riverine communities (Francis and
Hoggart in press). In order for any of these efforts to
be successful however, several steps need to be
taken to ensure that sufficient understanding of the
habitats and their biodiversity is obtained, and that
scientific rigour and objectivity can be applied at
every stage of implementation.
Quantification of riverine and riparian habitats
and associated biodiversity
The habitats outlined above need to be surveyed not
just to obtain their spatial distribution, which has
already been recorded in outline for central London
by the Thames Estuary Partnership (TEP 2004), but
also to quantify spatial and temporal variability of
environmental and ecological characteristics both within
and between habitats. Investigations into sedimentary
characteristics (e.g. particle size distributions, gradients,
texture, organic content), periodicity of inundation
(and therefore disturbance), pollution content of the
sediments, seed bank composition and abundance,
diversity (not just species richness) of floral and
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
faunal communities, and presence of particular
guilds or functional groups, would all be important
for gaining an insight into the functioning of these
habitats and the relationships between specific
environmental parameters and biodiversity (see, for
example, Eriksson et al. 2006; Francis and Gurnell
2006; Gilvear and Willby 2006; Porter et al. 2007).
In particular, the quantification of habitat complexity
and how important this may be for biodiversity
would be especially useful (e.g. Attrill et al. 1999;
Wiens 2002; Gurnell et al. 2005; Kostylev et al. 2005;
Lepori et al. 2005; Porter et al. 2007). Fine-scale
habitat mosaics composed of patches of differing
sediment calibre at a variety of elevations on bar
formations in river systems are crucial in maintaining
high plant diversity, whereas individual microsites
within the mosaic are important for specific species
or communities of flora and fauna (e.g. Francis and
Gurnell 2006; Gilvear and Willby 2006; Tockner
et al. 2006). This fine-scale heterogeneity is likely to
be important on inter-tidal foreshore and artificial
habitats along the Thames.
The limited extent of riverine and riparian habi-
tats along the upper tidal Thames should make
habitat quantification within this area an achieva-
ble objective. It is likely that particular suites of
environmental characteristics would be observed
in the different habitat types, according to, for
example, sedimentary characteristics and elevation
within the river channel (see Figure 2). Sub-littoral
(channel bed) zones are found only at low eleva-
tions and consist of mainly coarse sediments, as
fine sediments are continually removed by strong
flows. Inter-tidal foreshore areas are found between
low and high tide elevations, and range in sediment
calibre from very coarse boulders and cobbles
(mainly near the water’s edge) to finer sediments
higher up the foreshore (at higher elevations). River
islands are found at or above mean high tide elevations
and are usually composed of predominantly fine
sediments, as these landforms were originally created
by fine sediment aggradation. Artificial habitats (flood
defence walls, piling, etc.) are coarse materials
(rock, brick, metal and wood) found at all elevations,
but it is only those found at or above mean high tide
that form suitable habitat for ecological communities.
Determining which suites of characteristics are most
common and which are absent throughout the upper
tidal Thames via systematic and repeated surveys of
habitat area, environmental conditions and hetero-
geneity, would be a useful step towards identifying
restoration priorities.
Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
 Meeting the challenges of urban river habitat restoration
Figure 2 Diagram illustrating how elevation and
sediment calibre characteristics may vary between
different river and riparian habitat types along the River
Thames (see text for further details)
Foreshore and artificial habitats should be a priority
for quantification of environmental conditions. Inter-
tidal foreshore is the most common natural habitat
along the river, and represents the most likely habitat
to support riparian plants and invertebrates; it is also
the habitat with the most potential for restoration.
Artificial structures are also important habitat types
that remain to be quantified in terms of their com-
plexity and their effects on biodiversity – this is an
urgent research priority, as artificial structures represent
the most common (and enduring) type of habitat to
be found in the central Thames.
Alongside an assessment of the environmental
conditions and heterogeneity of the physical habitat,
consideration also needs to be given to the life cycle
requirements of the species that are found in these
habitat types (see Bond and Lake 2003). For example,
some species will require different habitat types at
particular life stages and these may require specific
spatial arrangements. Likewise, it is important to
evaluate potential barriers to dispersal and colonisation
between habitats. At a community level, particular
functional characteristics are likely to be common
among the floral and faunal communities found in
these habitats, and promoting this functionality may
be a successful landscape-scale form of restoration.
For example, most species found in inter-tidal foreshore
habitats are disturbance-tolerating annuals which are
easily dispersed and are suited to transitory frequently-
disturbed environments. Competitive perennials and
woody plants are less common as they require more
Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
441
abundant resources and a more stable habitat – and
are therefore better suited to, for example, river islands.
Consequently, surrogate habitat (e.g. floating island
rafts as detailed below) may be aimed at rare functional
groups (competitive perennials), while foreshore
improvements (e.g. increased complexity) might
target a wider variety of annuals.
Creation of a centralised database and GIS to
allow spatial landscape analysis
Once quantification of habitat characteristics has
taken place, this information can be placed in a
database and georeferenced for analysis within a
GIS to enable a detailed spatial (and possibly temporal)
model of habitat and environmental parameters to
be created. Once such a database is created,
important landscape metrics can be determined for
the river and associated with different river levels,
such as habitat patch and corridor characteristics
(e.g. area, shape, width, perimeter, density, quality,
isolation) that would help to determine how these
habitats may be utilised by different species or
functional groups. This will help to elucidate patterns
and processes within the river, and will also greatly
help with efforts to restore and manage the habitat
and biodiversity within the Thames at a landscape
scale. Other considerations relating to restoration
potential may also be held within GIS layers and are
essential to support spatial analysis, for example
information on river flow velocities or depths,
accessibility to foreshore, land ownership and land use.
Development and testing of novel ways to
improve habitat complexity and provide
surrogate habitat in highly engineered river
environments
The usual methods of habitat re-creation/restoration
along river systems, such as channel re-working,
floodplain scraping or the creation of channel bed
features such as pools and riffles, are usually not
feasible along heavily engineered urban rivers (Francis
and Hoggart in press). Several tentative habitat-
improvement methodologies have been implemented
in highly constrained urban rivers or canals within
the UK, including the planting of vegetation on the
top of river walls and adjacent to sheet piling,
although this is often performed for aesthetic reasons
(e.g. Steele 1999; LCC 2006). The potential for
installing these types of surrogate habitat vary with
specific river characteristics and conditions, and
monitoring has yet to determine how effective such
efforts are. Nevertheless, the provision of small but
442 Francis et al.
Plate 1 A floating habitat raft placed in Limekiln dock
along the River Thames in August 2006. At time of
surveying in August 2007, ten plant species and eight
invertebrate species had colonised the raft
Source: Photograph supplied by Thames21
regular areas of surrogate habitat along urban rivers
represents perhaps the best opportunity for habitat
creation and improvement, and there is a need to
develop effective and aesthetically pleasing novel
techniques. Three potential techniques for habitat
improvement or surrogacy are suggested here.
1 Habitat rafts: Placing of rafts in docks, harbours or
lakes to provide nesting habitat for birds has had
some success in supporting populations (e.g. Dunlop
et al. 1991; Lampman et al. 1996; Hancock 2000),
but so far no consideration has been given to the
use of habitat rafts as surrogate habitat for riparian
plant and invertebrate communities in urban systems.
Vegetation is usually provided on the habitat rafts in
the form of turf (grasses) or coir with sedge/rush
species planted, although once the rafts are in
place, new plant communities may develop as seeds
arrive via anemochory, hydrochory or zoochory.
Along the upper tidal Thames, Limekiln, Limehouse
and St Saviour’s docks have been sites for the intro-
duction of habitat rafts by environmental charity
Thames21 to provide bird nesting and perching
sites. Rafts (see Plate 1) were installed in Limekiln
dock in August 2006 and were anchored by chain
to the foreshore, although only one remains as one
raft was lost when its anchoring chain came loose.
By August 2007, ten new plant species and eight
invertebrate species had established on the remaining
raft, and a typical foreshore community was devel-
oping. This highlights the potential for such rafts
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
(essentially small floating islands) to provide surrogate
habitat in areas of reduced flow velocity along
heavily urbanised rivers.
2 Large wood: Under natural conditions a large low-
land river such as the Thames would be subject to
frequent and abundant accumulations of large
wood on bar surfaces and across the riparian zone
(e.g. Maser and Sedell 1994; Gurnell et al. 1995).
Such wood accumulations have been demonstrated
to be important for creating sedimentary complexity
and habitat microsites (Gurnell et al. 2002; Gregory
et al. 2003; Yarnell et al. 2006), storing organic matter
and stabilising sediments (e.g. Abbe and Mont-
gomery 1996; Edwards et al. 1999), and supporting
a variety of taxa (e.g. Lehane et al. 2002; Lepori
et al. 2005; Karaus et al. 2005; Francis et al. 2008),
although urban applications of large wood have
had limited success so far (Larson et al. 2001; Lepori
et al. 2005). Large-scale introduction of wood to
the urban River Thames is unfeasible due to lack of
space and potential conflict with shipping traffic.
However, wood contained within well-anchored steel
mesh cages could be placed on areas of foreshore
to provide rare habitat and to increase habitat
complexity. This may be a useful way of engineering
niches that may be exploited by, for example,
disturbance-tolerant annual species as outlined above.
Wood also provides an excellent biodegradable
material from which other habitat structures can be
constructed, including floating structures (see above)
and wall containers (see below).
3 Wall modifications: Vertical embankments preclude
any kind of natural riparian zonation, but placing of
wall boxes or ledges may allow this to be simulated,
with boxes containing distinct sedimentary substrates
to support a range of riparian species tolerant of
different sediment types and inundation periods
(Francis and Hoggart in press). Wall boxes may be
left to colonise naturally or could be planted with
relevant species to help create a desired community.
Such boxes could be particularly successful where
recesses in embankments (for example, where steps
and jetties are installed) provide a more sheltered
environment than fully-exposed embankments. Any
habitat creation methodology using wall boxes would
need to implement (1) a study to ascertain the available
seed bank and seed transportation for passive seeding
potential, (2) investigations into the survival and
growth of planted vegetation, and (3) trial experiments
to determine which sediment sizes are feasible
(e.g. unlikely to be easily removed) based on the
hydraulics of the river site and the container
Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
 Meeting the challenges of urban river habitat restoration
materials available. Such novel approaches represent
potentially important methods of maximising habitat
in highly constrained reaches where prevailing con-
ditions prevent any habitat forming naturally.
Application of successful methods of habitat
improvement to the river on a landscape scale
The final stage of the methodology is the application
of a landscape ecological approach to the management,
conservation and restoration efforts that are taking
place or are possible along the river through central
London. With (1) the development of a GIS to support
landscape-scale visualisation and interpretation of the
spatial distribution of habitat types and environmental
characteristics and the calculation of landscape
metrics, and (2) quantitative evidence supporting the
benefits provided by surrogate habitat or habitat
improvement methods, it should then be possible to
evaluate different habitat restoration scenarios for
the Thames through central London. These restoration
scenarios would incorporate the feasibility of gaining
planning permission and the logistics of the restoration
efforts (e.g. access to foreshore), as well as financial
cost/benefit analyses for different levels of restoration.
It would also be possible to include hierarchies of
scale into the restoration scenarios to allow for different
levels of financial support or planning/development
restrictions – for example, if particular riparian
landowners do not give consent to developments for
sections of the river.
Obstacles to habitat re-creation and
improvement
Management of the upper tidal Thames is complicated
and involves several organisations. The Port of
London Authority owns all of the river bed and
foreshore up to the mean high spring tide line and is
responsible for navigation, pollution control and
land-use/planning issues. The Environment Agency
is responsible for flood defence, water quality and
any issues relating to environmental protection and
conservation. Thus any habitat creation or improvement
efforts that relate to the foreshore will require
planning permission and/or advice to be given by
both organisations. Most habitat creation will also
involve the supra-littoral zone or require access
from the riverbank, and will therefore potentially
involve a wide range of landowners, who must also
give permission, as well as Local Authorities, for
example one or more of the London Borough
Councils. Other complicating factors may also emerge,
Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
443
for example, sections of the river walls may have
historical value, or there may be aesthetic implications.
Along the River Thames, a River Works Licence is
required for any work taking place on the river
which is ‘riverward of the mean high water mark,
including any works under the river or overhanging
the river’ (PLA nd). This is a requirement for each
new project and involves the production of (1) a
method statement, (2) detailed construction drawings,
(3) background information of any wider project and
(4) environmental and hydrodynamic assessments.
These in turn take time to be produced and may
require information to be provided by outside agencies
(Table 2).
This is noted here not to criticise the organisations
or protocols involved, but to highlight the lengthy
procedure that needs to be followed to conduct
even the smallest habitat re-creation or improvement,
and to illustrate the barriers that may exist to
attempting to perform any restoration or improvement
at a landscape scale. Any project covering more
than a small area will involve several LAs and many
riparian landowners as well as the PLA and EA.
Consequently the testing of novel methods is crucial,
possibly via temporary planning applications, before
any large-scale restoration is attempted.
Conclusions and future directions
This paper has highlighted an achievable methodology
for evaluating the potential for habitat restoration
throughout the highly impacted upper tidal Thames
through central London. Surveying of habitat has
been performed on a limited scale by a range of
organisations, but data are limited and disparate,
and need to be comprehensively assessed. The
creation of a GIS using these data, ideally compiled
by a single academic or governmental organisation
but freely available, would allow landscape-scale
analysis and planning. These stages, as well as novel
methods of habitat surrogacy and improvement, are
currently being developed by researchers at the
Centre for Environmental Assessment, Management
and Policy at King’s College London in collaboration
with Thames21, as part of ‘Project Habitat’. The
resultant combination of these data to create landscape
restoration scenarios should be possible in the near
future after the results of the surveying and experiments
are disseminated. Once these scenarios are developed,
it will then be down to funding organisations or the
Environment Agency to decide whether restoration
along the Thames is desirable.
444 Francis et al.
Table 2 The procedure involved in obtaining a River Works Licence and planning permission to install habitat rafts
in Limekiln Dock along the River Thames
Action
Application for a River Works Licence sent to the Port of
London Authority (PLA), along with an outline of the
project. PLA confirmed that the licence could be
approved provided supporting documents from the
Environment Agency and official planning permission
could be obtained.
Support requested from the Environment Agency who
were also sent the project description, at the same time
as the River Works Licence application to the PLA.
Southwark Borough Council contacted to obtain planning
permission for the raft installation. This involved
notifying owners and residents of the docklands area of
the proposal. A total of six objections were received
which had to be fully considered before the planning
permission could be approved.
Supporting documents sent to the PLA so that the River
Works Licence could be approved and delivered.
Acknowledgements
‘Project Habitat’ (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/projects/ceamp/kings/
river/) is funded by Thames21 and the Esmee Fairbairn
Foundation. Two anonymous reviewers are thanked for their
constructive comments.
References
Abbe T B and Montgomery D R 1996 Large woody debris
jams, channel hydraulics and habitat formation in large rivers
Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12 201–21
Aldridge D C, Elliott P and Moggridge G D 2004 The recent
and rapid spread of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)
in Great Britain Biological Conservation 119 253–61
Attrill M and Rundle S D 2002 Ecotone or ecocline: ecological
boundaries in estuaries Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science
55 929–36
Attrill M and Thomes R M 1995 Heavy metal concentrations
in sediment from the Thames Estuary, UK Marine Pollution
Bulletin 30 742–4
Attrill M, Bilton D T, Rowden A A, Rundle S D and Thomas R M
1999 The impact of encroachment and bankside development
on the habitat complexity and supralittoral invertebrate
communities of the Thames Estuary foreshore Aquatic Con-
servation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 9 237–47
Birkhead M E and Perrins C 1985 The breeding biology of the
mute swan Cygnus olor on the River Thames with special
reference to lead poisoning Biological Conservation 32 1–11
Bond N R and Lake P S 2003 Local habitat restoration in streams:
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
Time required for Total time elapsed
response/completion
6 months 6 months
1 month 6 months
10 months 16 months
6 months 22 months
constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota
Ecological Management and Restoration 4 193–8
Brookes A and Shields F D eds 1996 River channel restoration:
guiding principles for sustainable projects Wiley, Chichester
Clout H 1991 The Times London history atlas Harper Collins,
London
Colclough S R, Gray G, Bark A and Knights B 2002 Fish and
fisheries of the tidal Thames: management of the modern
resource, research aims and future pressures Journal of Fish
Biology 61 64–73
Colclough S, Fonseca L, Astley T, Thomas K and Watts W
2005 Fish utilisation of managed realignments Fisheries
Management and Ecology 12 351–60
Dunlop C L, Blokpoel H and Jarvie S 1991 Nesting rafts as a
management tool for a declining common tern (Sterna
hirundo) colony Colonial Waterbirds 14 116 –20
Edwards P J, Kollmann J, Gurnell A M, Petts G E, Tockner K
and Ward J V 1999 A conceptual model of vegetation
dynamics on gravel bars of a large Alpine river Wetlands
Ecology and Management 7 141–53
Environment Agency 1997 The water quality of the tidal
Thames Environment Agency, Bristol
Environment Agency 2004 Thames corridor CAMS technical
document Environment Agency, Bristol
Eriksson B K, Rubach A and Hillebrand H 2006 Biotic habitat
complexity controls species diversity and nutrient effects
on net biomass production Ecology 87 246–54
Francis R A and Gurnell A M 2006 Initial establishment of
vegetative fragments within the active zone of a braided gravel-
bed river (River Tagliamento, NE Italy) Wetlands 26 641–8
Francis R A and Hoggart S P G in press Waste not, want not:
Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
 Meeting the challenges of urban river habitat restoration
the need to utilise existing artificial structures for habitat
improvement along urban rivers Restoration Ecology
Francis R A, Tibaldeschi P and McDougall L 2008 Fluvially-
deposited large wood and riparian plant diversity Wetlands
Ecology and Management doi 10.1007/s11273-007-9074-2
Gilvear D J and Willby N 2006 Channel dynamics and
geomorphic variability as controls on gravel bar vegetation
development, River Tummel, Scotland River Research and
Applications 22 457–74
Gray R 2005 Tidal Thames habitat action plan: Richmond upon
Thames London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, London
Gregory S V, Boyer K L and Gurnell A M eds 2003 The ecology
and management of wood in world rivers American Fisheries
Society Symposium 37, Bethesda MD
Gurnell A M, Gregory K J and Petts G E 1995 The role of
coarse woody debris in forest aquatic habitats: implications
for management Aquatic Conservation 5 143–66
Gurnell A M, Piégay H, Swanson F and Gregory S 2002 Large
wood and fluvial processes Freshwater Biology 74 601–19
Gurnell A M, Tockner K, Petts G E and Edwards P J 2005
Effects of deposited wood on biocomplexity of river corridors
Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 3 377–82
Halliday S 1999 The great stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazal-
gette and the cleansing of the Victorian metropolis Sutton
Publishing Ltd, Stroud
Hancock M 2000 Artificial floating islands for nesting Black-
throated Divers (Gavia arctica) in Scotland: construction,
use and effect on breeding success Bird Study 47 165–75
Herborg L M, Rushton S P, Clare A S and Bentley M G 2005
The invasion of the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis)
in the United Kingdom and its comparison to continental
Europe Biological Invasions 7 959–68
Karaus U, Alder L and Tockner K 2005 Concave islands:
diversity and dynamics of parafluvial ponds in a gravel-bed
river Wetlands 25 26–37
Kinniburgh J 1998 Physical and chemical characteristics in Attrill
M J ed A rehabilitated estuarine ecosystem: the environment
and ecology of the Thames estuary Kluwer, London 27–48
Kostylev V E, Erlandsson J, Ming M Y and Williams G A 2005
The relative importance of habitat complexity and surface
area in assessing biodiversity: fractal application on rocky
shores Ecological Complexity 2 272–86
Lampman K P, Taylor M E and Blokpoel H 1996 Caspian
Terns (Sterna caspia) breed successfully on a nesting raft
Colonial Waterbirds 19 135–8
Larson M G, Booth D B and Morley S A 2001 Effectiveness
of large woody debris in stream rehabilitation projects in
urban basins Ecological Engineering 18 211–26
Lavery S and Donovan B 2005 Flood risk management in the
Thames Estuary looking ahead 100 years Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society 363 1455–74
LBP (London Biodiversity Partnership) 2000 The London
biodiversity audit: part 1 of the London biodiversity action
plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/07library.html#to_as) Accessed
6 September 2007
LCC 2006 Biodiversity and waterfront development: supple-
mentary planning document Leeds County Council, Leeds
Area Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 435–445, 2008
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2008
View publication stats
445
Lehane B M, Giller P S, O’Halloran J, Smith C and Murphy J
2002 Experimental provision of large woody debris in streams
as a trout management technique Aquatic Conservation –
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12 289–311
Lepori F, Palm D, Brannas E and Malmqvist B 2005 Does
restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance
fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications
15 2060–71
Maser C and Sedell J R 1994 From the forest to the sea: the
ecology of wood in streams, rivers, estuaries and oceans St
Lucie Press, Delary Beach
Mourato S, Atkinson G, Ozdemiroglu E, Newcombe J and de
Garis Y 2005 Does a cleaner Thames pass an economic
appraisal? The value of reducing sewage overflows in the
River Thames Water International 30 174–83
PLA nd Applying for a River Works Licence (http://portoflondon.
co.uk/display_fixedpage.cfm/id/2271) Accessed 8 September
2007
Porter J L, Kingsford R T and Brock M A 2007 Seed banks in
arid wetlands with contrasting flooding, salinity and turbidity
regimes Plant Ecology 188 215–34
Power M, Attrill M J and Thomas R M 2000 Temporal abundance
patterns and growth of juvenile herring and sprat from the
Thames estuary 1977–1992 Journal of Fish Biology 56
1408–26
Pullin A S and Knight T M 2001 Effectiveness in conservation
practice: pointers from medicine and public health Conser-
vation Biology 15 50–4
Steele J 1999 Deptford Creek: surviving regeneration Deptford
Forum Publishing, London
TEP 2004 Tidal Thames habitat and species audit Thames
Estuary Partnership, London
TEP 2005 State of the Thames Estuary report, phase 1 Thames
Estuary Partnership, London
TEP nd Thames Research Library (http://www.thamesweb.com/
terf_search.php) Accessed 8 August 2007
Tinsley D 1998 The Thames estuary: a history of the impact
of humans on the environment and a description of the
current approach to environmental management in Attrill
M J ed A rehabilitated estuarine ecosystem: the environment
and ecology of the Thames estuary Kluwer, London 5–26
Tittley I 2001 Changes in the marine algal flora of the tidal Thames:
a millennium review The London Naturalist 80 135–46
Tockner K, Malard F and Ward J V 2000 An extension of the
flood pulse concept Hydrological Processes 14 2861–83
Tockner K, Karaus U, Paetzold A, Claret C and Zettel J 2006
Ecology of braided rivers in Sambrook Smith G, Best J,
Bristow C and Petts G E eds Braided rivers: process, deposits,
ecology and management IAS Special Publication 36
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 339–59
Wiens J A 2002 Riverine landscapes: taking landscape
ecology into the water Freshwater Biology 47 501–15
Wood L B 1982 The restoration of the tidal Thames Adam
Hilger, Bristol
Yarnell S M, Mount J F and Larsen E W 2006 The influence
of relative sediment supply on riverine habitat heterogeneity
Geomorphology 80 310–24