Author(s): Ewelina Szalkiewicz; Joanna Sucholas; Mateusz Grygoruk

Linked Author(s):

Keywords: No Keywords

Abstract: Although river restoration is used in practice for many years, there are still many problematic issues related to the endeavor. We consider these problems in fundamental components of river restoration science. First one is related to confusion over terminology. Originally, river restoration was understood as returning ecosystem to the pristine state. But, it was recognized that it is impossible to achieve the state before disturbances sensu stricto. For this reason restoration was distinguished from rehabilitation, in which pristine state was not required. Nevertheless, after many years of restoration practice term “restoration” is more common, what may lead to misunderstandings, especially among new local practitioners. Correspondingly to terminology, at the beginning restoration was focused on static (pristine) state of the environment, which was referred to recovery of habitats of organisms and water quality. But it was recognized that the restoration of static state is referred only to the result of degradation instead the roots of disturbances (Whol et al. 2005). For this reason approach was changed from habitat-state to process-based, in which measures are addressed to dynamic conditions of the environment. Al though, process-based approach was introduced by scientist several years ago, still most of projects are oriented at measures used within the channel (Szalkiewicz et al. 2018). Thus, we notice significant delay between science and practice. Beside changes in approach, next problematic matter may be found in defining of restoration results. It is assumed that the goal of restoration actions should be defined on the basis of appropriate model of ecological responses. This model may be defined using e. g. historical data, which may provide information about past trajectories and future changes (Suding et al. 2015). However, using this data structure and composition of the environment may be unknown. Moreover many lacks of data are possible. An alternative may be a reference side, which may be nearby existing undegraded system. Again, this solution is not without stake, because apparent structure may mask differences in functions (Hobbs and Harris 2001). The prepared model of ecological response should be used to assessment of restoration project. But, what improvement is enough good to call restoration as successful (Collier 2017)? Still, there is a problem with definition of parameters values used to assessment of river restoration. Thus, we highlight that during planning restoration results some information may be misinterpreted and in the final stage of evaluation, assessment is not clear and bias.

DOI:

Year: 2018