COS 6-5
Critical evaluation of stream restoration practice using semi-structured interviews, surveys and field case studies
To address degradation caused by past anthropogenic actions (e.g., stream channelization, installation of dams), stream restoration activities have occurred in the U.S. and worldwide with the goal of returning ecosystem functions and services. As the number of projects has increased, a divide between practitioners and research scientists has developed. Issues of contention include methods used, lack of engineering rigor, and effectiveness of stream restoration, both individual projects and the entire practice. It is uncertain whether the large annual U.S. expenditures spent on stream restoration is justified. Previous evaluations have cast doubt that stream restoration actions, primarily form-based, are improving ecological functions and social ecosystem services provided by streams. To address challenges facing stream restoration, the divide between the practice and the science must be narrowed, however first it needs to be understood. A mixed methods approach, using field investigations, an online survey and semi-structured interviews, was used to critically evaluate the practice of stream restoration at a regional-scale. The intention was to evaluate the entire stream restoration process, including design, regulatory, construction and monitoring processes. The research characterized 1) the general practice using online survey and interview results; and 2) individual case study sites using field investigations and interview results.
Results/Conclusions
Incorporation of qualitative methods led to new insights on stream restoration practice by considering practitioner perspectives and experiences. Although it was determined that WNY is not a site of innovation for SR, inhibitors of innovation were identified. Major inhibitors included: 1) fear of failure/liability concerns; 2) poor communication between academic and practitioner circles; 3) poor riparian management practices and other space constraints; 4) inaccurate stereotypes; and 5) local politics. One of the emerging themes is that “science” is perceived differently by different individuals. To narrow the divide, requires research scientists to better job communicate how they define science and disseminate research through mechanisms easily available to practitioners. Communication is needed between different organizations/agencies, and individuals working on and/or researching streams to break down some strong stereotypes held about different parties. It is further recommended that stream bank stabilization should be separated from stream restoration as both serve different purposes, especially in light of recent mitigation policy changes favoring stream restoration as a mitigation strategy. In addition, results suggest that focusing on riparian and watershed restoration over installation of in-stream structures may ease some of the tensions stemming from liability concerns, but requires the additional hurdle of getting municipalities on board.