Goals and principles for programmatic river restoration monitoring and evaluation: collaborative learning across multiple projects

River restoration is a relatively recent undertaking, with high levels of complexity and uncertainty involved. Many restoration projects have been monitored over the past three decades, however, results have rarely been compared across projects thereby limiting our ability to identify factors that influence restoration outcomes. Programmatic monitoring and evaluation (ProME) that builds on standardized surveys and systematic cross-project comparison allows for collaborative learning, transfer of results across restoration projects and for adaptive management and monitoring. We present a conceptual framework for ProME consisting of four goals and nine principles. First, ProME accounts for complexity, uncertainty, and change in order to contribute to sustainable river management over the long term. Second, ProME promotes collaborative learning and adaptation by standardizing the sampling design for the field surveys at multiple projects and by disseminating findings across stakeholders. Third, ProME verifies to what extent restoration has been achieved, i.e., it must quantify the size and direction of change. Fourth, ProME identifies why the observed effects were present, thereby improving our mechanistic understanding of river functioning. We conclude with potential extensions of the framework (e.g., evaluating cumulative effects of projects within a catchment). Our conceptual framework presents a structured approach toward a more systematic learning and evidence-based action in river restoration, while taking into account the wider picture of environmental change within which river restoration projects will inevitably operate. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

[1]  Catherine Allan,et al.  Adaptive Environmental Management: A Practitioner's Guide , 2009 .

[2]  Charles Gowan,et al.  Long‐Term Demographic Responses of Trout Populations to Habitat Manipulation in Six Colorado Streams , 1996 .

[3]  W. Adams,et al.  The challenges of integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services monitoring and evaluation at a landscape-scale wetland restoration project in the UK , 2016 .

[4]  Margaret A. Palmer,et al.  Reforming Watershed Restoration: Science in Need of Application and Applications in Need of Science , 2009 .

[5]  P. Verdonschot,et al.  Chapter Eleven – Effective River Restoration in the 21st Century: From Trial and Error to Novel Evidence-Based Approaches , 2016 .

[6]  Paul H. Whitfield,et al.  Designing monitoring programs for water quality based on experience in Canada II. Characterization of problems and data-quality objectives , 2010 .

[7]  Dave Huitema,et al.  Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Realizing Water Transitions: The Role of Policy Entrepreneurs in Water Policy Change Realizing water transitions: the role of policy entrepreneurs in water policy change , 2010 .

[8]  Karen D. Holl,et al.  Paying for Restoration , 2000 .

[9]  J. Silvertown A new dawn for citizen science. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[10]  Gary Brierley,et al.  Restoring uncertainty: translating science into management practice , 2008 .

[11]  Klement Tockner,et al.  Stating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: A comment on Palmer et al. (2005) , 2005 .

[12]  John C. Schmidt,et al.  Large-Scale Flow Experiments for Managing River Systems , 2011 .

[13]  Stefan Schmutz,et al.  Monitoring and Evaluation of Restoration Actions , 2012 .

[14]  Gene E. Likens,et al.  Who needs environmental monitoring , 2007 .

[15]  Hervé Piégay,et al.  Turbulence and train wrecks : using knowledge strategies to enhance the application of integrative river science to effective river management , 2008 .

[16]  P. Verdonschot,et al.  Chapter Three - From Natural to Degraded Rivers and Back Again: A Test of Restoration Ecology Theory and Practice , 2011 .

[17]  J. Meyer,et al.  Standards for ecologically successful river restoration , 2005 .

[18]  Brendan G. McKie,et al.  Linking Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning and Services, and Ecological Resilience: Towards an Integrative Framework for Improved Management , 2015 .

[19]  Mark E. Borsuk,et al.  Concepts of decision support for river rehabilitation , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[20]  K. Winemiller,et al.  Historical Impacts on River Fauna, Shifting Baselines, and Challenges for Restoration , 2009 .

[21]  Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette,et al.  How to structure and prioritize information needs in support of monitoring design for Integrated Coastal Management , 2014 .

[22]  T. Beechie,et al.  Prioritization of Watersheds and Restoration Projects , 2012 .

[23]  C. Townsend,et al.  Reconceptualizing synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors , 2015, Ecology and evolution.

[24]  Janine M. Castro,et al.  Developing, Designing, and Implementing Restoration Projects , 2012 .

[25]  G. Mathias Kondolf,et al.  Five Elements for Effective Evaluation of Stream Restoration , 1995 .

[26]  C. Nilsson,et al.  Effects of stream restoration on dispersal of plant propagules , 2009 .

[27]  Brian Richter,et al.  River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making , 2003 .

[28]  How sampling influences the statistical power to detect changes in abundance: an application to river restoration , 2015 .

[29]  Joseph E. A. Huddart,et al.  Citizen science: from detecting pollution to evaluating ecological restoration , 2016 .

[30]  K. Suding Toward an Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead , 2011 .

[31]  B. Richardson,et al.  Restoration dialogues: improving the governance of ecological restoration , 2016 .

[32]  S Behmel,et al.  Water quality monitoring strategies - A review and future perspectives. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[33]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms , 2012, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

[34]  Brian Richter,et al.  Climate Change and River Ecosystems: Protection and Adaptation Options , 2009, Environmental management.

[35]  P. Verdonschot,et al.  Effective restoration of aquatic ecosystems: scaling the barriers , 2017 .

[36]  S. Schmutz,et al.  Re‐establishing and assessing ecological integrity in riverine landscapes , 2002 .

[37]  Daniel E. Schindler,et al.  Prediction, precaution, and policy under global change , 2015, Science.

[38]  Paul H. Whitfield,et al.  Designing monitoring programs for water quality based on experience in Canada I. Theory and framework , 2009 .

[39]  Rebecca K. Smith,et al.  What Works in Conservation: 2017 , 2017 .

[40]  P. Roni Basin Scale Monitoring of River Restoration: Recommendations from Case Studies in the Pacific Northwest USA , 2012 .

[41]  R. Jansson,et al.  Enhanced ecosystem functioning following stream restoration: The roles of habitat heterogeneity and invertebrate species traits , 2018 .

[42]  Hervé Piégay,et al.  How is success or failure in river restoration projects evaluated? Feedback from French restoration projects. , 2014, Journal of environmental management.

[43]  Sharon Woolsey,et al.  A strategy to assess river restoration success , 2007 .

[44]  Leslie M. Reid,et al.  THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF MONITORING 1 , 2001 .

[45]  F. Lepori,et al.  DOES RESTORATION OF STRUCTURAL HETEROGENEITY IN STREAMS ENHANCE FISH AND MACROINVERTEBRATE DIVERSITY , 2005 .

[46]  David B Lindenmayer,et al.  Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[47]  S. D. Cooper,et al.  How to Avoid Train Wrecks When Using Science in Environmental Problem Solving , 2002 .

[48]  Katie A. Barnas,et al.  Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts , 2005, Science.

[49]  A. Underwood On Beyond Baci: Sampling Designs That Might Reliably Detect Environmental Disturbances , 1994 .

[50]  David W. Macdonald,et al.  The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK , 2006 .

[51]  A. Peter,et al.  Habitat diversity and fish assemblage structure in local river widenings: A case study on a swiss river , 2009 .

[52]  A. Pullin,et al.  Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach , 2003 .

[53]  K. Brabec,et al.  The effect of river restoration on fish, macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes: A meta-analysis , 2015 .

[54]  Isabelle Durance,et al.  Recommendations for the next generation of global freshwater biological monitoring tools , 2016 .

[55]  Chris E. Jordan,et al.  Progress and Challenges of Testing the Effectiveness of Stream Restoration in the Pacific Northwest Using Intensively Monitored Watersheds , 2016 .

[56]  G. Likens,et al.  Improved probability of detection of ecological “surprises” , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[57]  Laura E. McMullen,et al.  Are large‐scale flow experiments informing the science and management of freshwater ecosystems? , 2014 .

[58]  T. Beechie,et al.  Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques , 2008 .

[59]  Jos G. Timmerman,et al.  The Information Cycle as a Framework for Defining Information Goals for Water-Quality Monitoring , 2000 .

[60]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere , 2012, Nature.