Stream restoration and the surprisingly social dynamics of science

Stream restoration is deeply shaped by social influences. A substantial body of literature has demonstrated the ways in which social dynamics shape myriad aspects of restoration practice. After illustrating these findings via brief reviews of existing research on public participation and environmental justice, I turn to the less commonly addressed influence of social dynamics on the practice and content of river science. I first review the approach and some of the key findings of Science and Technology Studies, a body of research that takes the practice of science as its empirical object of study. I then use the Rosgen Wars, a conflict that has strongly influenced the development of stream restoration science and practice in the United States, as a case study for examining the impacts of social dynamics on the practice of river scientists, the redistribution of scientific authority, and on fluvial landscapes more broadly. Given that is impossible to avoid social influences, I argue that it is crucial that we examine them, and that we choose research and implementation practices that reflect our ecological, scientific, and political commitments rather than passively accepting the existing commitments embedded in our work. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

[1]  J. Salmond,et al.  Cultivating critical practices in physical geography , 2015 .

[2]  Marc Babut,et al.  How ecological indicators construction reveals social changes—The case of lakes and rivers in France , 2009 .

[3]  P. Wilcock Friction between science and practice: The case of river restoration , 1997 .

[4]  David N. Wear,et al.  Challenges to Interdisciplinary Discourse , 1999, Ecosystems.

[5]  N. Schuelke,et al.  The Place and Time of the Political in Urban Political Ecology: Contested Imaginations of a River's Future , 2015 .

[6]  Martin P. Ward,et al.  The Role of Observer Variation in Determining Rosgen Stream Types in Northeastern Oregon Mountain Streams 1 , 2008 .

[7]  Rebecca Lave,et al.  The Future of Environmental Expertise , 2015 .

[8]  D. Merritts,et al.  Natural Streams and the Legacy of Water-Powered Mills , 2008, Science.

[9]  E. Bernhardt,et al.  Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[10]  E. Herricks,et al.  Interaction Between Scientists and Nonscientists in Community-Based Watershed Management: Emergence of the Concept of Stream Naturalization , 1999, Environmental management.

[11]  Louise J. Bracken,et al.  How to make sense of our rivers: using assemblage to understand angling , 2014 .

[12]  S. Gould,et al.  Deconstructing the "Science Wars" by Reconstructing an Old Mold , 2000, Science.

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

[14]  B. Mansfield Race and the new epigenetic biopolitics of environmental health , 2012 .

[15]  Gary Brierley,et al.  River classification: theory, practice, politics , 2014 .

[16]  M. Doyle,et al.  Historical perspectives on river restoration design in the USA , 2012 .

[17]  Sean M. C. Smith,et al.  Hydraulic performance of a morphology‐based stream channel design , 2005 .

[18]  David Malakoff,et al.  The River Doctor , 2004, Science.

[19]  S. Railsback,et al.  Design and Performance of a Channel Reconstruction Project in a Coastal California Gravel-Bed Stream , 2001, Environmental management.

[20]  M. Rains,et al.  Hydrological Connectivity of Headwaters to Downstream Waters: Introduction to the Featured Collection , 2007 .

[21]  W. Shumar,et al.  Structure and agency in the neoliberal university , 2008 .

[22]  J. Mant,et al.  The changing nature of river restoration , 2014 .

[23]  E. Bernhardt,et al.  Testing the field of dreams hypothesis: functional responses to urbanization and restoration in stream ecosystems. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[24]  S. B. Emery,et al.  Negotiating river restoration: The role of divergent reframing in environmental decision-making , 2013 .

[25]  M. Urban Values and Ethical Beliefs Regarding Agricultural Drainage in Central Illinois, USA , 2005 .

[26]  B. Latour Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern , 2004, Critical Inquiry.

[27]  Kyle E. Juracek,et al.  LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF STREAM CLASSIFICATION 1 , 2003 .

[28]  Rebecca Lave,et al.  Neoliberalism and the Production of Environmental Knowledge , 2012 .

[29]  Sally Eden,et al.  Ecological versus Social Restoration? How Urban River Restoration Challenges but Also Fails to Challenge the Science – Policy Nexus in the United Kingdom , 2006 .

[30]  Rebecca Lave,et al.  The Controversy Over Natural Channel Design: Substantive Explanations and Potential Avenues for Resolution 1 , 2009 .

[31]  Stuart N. Lane,et al.  Imagining flood futures: risk assessment and management in practice , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[32]  S. Tunstall,et al.  Translating nature: river restoration as nature – culture , 2000 .

[33]  S. Moran Cities, Creeks, and Erasure: Stream Restoration and Environmental Justice , 2010 .

[34]  M. Palmer,et al.  River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[35]  Jim Sinner,et al.  Measure, model, optimise: Understanding reductionist concepts of value in freshwater governance , 2014 .

[36]  S. Lane Acting, predicting and intervening in a socio-hydrological world , 2013 .

[37]  M. Arquette,et al.  Holistic risk-based environmental decision making: a Native perspective. , 2002, Environmental health perspectives.

[38]  J. Meyer,et al.  Restoring Rivers One Reach at a Time: Results from a Survey of U.S. River Restoration Practitioners , 2007 .

[39]  L. Bracken,et al.  Interdisciplinary research: framing and reframing , 2009 .

[40]  F. Bombardelli,et al.  INTEGRATING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPORT STREAM NATURALIZATION NEAR CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 1 , 2002 .

[41]  F. D. Shields,et al.  Critical Evaluation of How the Rosgen Classification and Associated “Natural Channel Design” Methods Fail to Integrate and Quantify Fluvial Processes and Channel Response 1 , 2007 .

[42]  Rebecca Lave,et al.  Neoliberal Confluences: The Turbulent Evolution of Stream Mitigation Banking in the US , 2014 .

[43]  Gabrielle Bouleau,et al.  The Co-production of Science and Waterscapes: the Case of the Seine and the Rhône Rivers, France , 2014 .

[44]  Rebecca Lave,et al.  The morphology of streams restored for market and nonmarket purposes: Insights from a mixed natural‐social science approach , 2015 .

[45]  M. Nedeva,et al.  Changing Science: The Advent of Neo‐liberalism , 2006 .