Assessing the societal benefits of river restoration using the ecosystem services approach

Vermaat, J. E., et al., 2016. Hydrobiologia

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

The success of river restoration was estimated using the ecosystem services approach. In eight pairs of restored–unrestored reaches and floodplains across Europe, we quantified provisioning (agricultural products, wood, reed for thatching, infiltrated drinking water), regulating (flooding and drainage, nutrient retention, carbon sequestration) and cultural (recreational hunting and fishing, kayaking, biodiversity conservation, appreciation of scenic landscapes) services for separate habitats within each reach, and summed these to annual economic value normalized per reach area. We used locally available data and literature, did surveys among inhabitants and visitors, and used a range of economic methods (market value, shadow price, replacement cost, avoided damage, willingness-to-pay survey, choice experiment) to provide final monetary service estimates. Total ecosystem service value was significantly increased in the restored reaches (difference 1400 ± 600 € ha?1 year?1; 2500 ? 1100, p = 0.03, paired t test). Removal of one extreme case did not affect this outcome. We analysed the relation between services delivered and with floodplain and catchment characteristics after reducing these 23 variables to four principal components explaining 80% of the variance. Cultural and regulating services correlated positively with human population density, cattle density and agricultural N surplus in the catchment, but not with the fraction of arable land or forest, floodplain slope, mean river discharge or GDP. Our interpretation is that landscape appreciation and flood risk alleviation are a function of human population density, but not wealth, in areas where dairy farming is the prime form of agriculture.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-028-6
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    River restoration: implies that a river has been converted into a state that more closely resembles a historical form and functioning, and is appreciated more highly Site specific actions:Enhanced minimal flow with hydraulic measures, added gravel beds, facilitated upstream fish migration

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Freshwater flooding  No effect Avoided in-reach and downstream flood damage: area flooded times crops lost, reduced forest tree growth, property damage
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Morrumsan river

  • Country: Sweden
  • Habitat/Biome type: Streams, rivers, riparian |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: n/a
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: Yes
  • Impacts on GHG: Unclear
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: n/a
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-028-5
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    River restoration: implies that a river has been converted into a state that more closely resembles a historical form and functioning, and is appreciated more highly Site specific actions: Re-meandered, re-connected old arms, reduced depth in main channel, re-landscaped and lowered the floodplain

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Freshwater flooding  Positive Avoided in-reach and downstream flood damage: area flooded times crops lost, reduced forest tree growth, property damage
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Skjema river

  • Country: Denmark
  • Habitat/Biome type: Streams, rivers, riparian |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Not reported
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: n/a
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-028-4
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    River restoration: implies that a river has been converted into a state that more closely resembles a historical form and functioning, and is appreciated more highly Site specific actions: Re- meandered, re- landscaped and lowered the floodplain

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Freshwater flooding  Positive Avoided in-reach and downstream flood damage: area flooded times crops lost, reduced forest tree growth, property damage
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Regge river

  • Country: Netherlands
  • Habitat/Biome type: Streams, rivers, riparian |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Not reported
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: n/a
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-028-3
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    River restoration: implies that a river has been converted into a state that more closely resembles a historical form and functioning, and is appreciated more highly Site specific actions: Allow natural channel development and migration after unprecedented flood event in summer 1997

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Freshwater flooding  Positive Avoided in-reach and downstream flood damage: area flooded times crops lost, reduced forest tree growth, property damage
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Becva river

  • Country: Czech Republic
  • Habitat/Biome type: Streams, rivers, riparian |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Not reported
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: Yes
  • Impacts on GHG: Unclear
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: n/a
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-028-2
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    River restoration: implies that a river has been converted into a state that more closely resembles a historical form and functioning, and is appreciated more highly Site specific actions: Stream bed widened and side arm re-opened

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Freshwater flooding  Positive Avoided in-reach and downstream flood damage: area flooded times crops lost, reduced forest tree growth, property damage
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Enns river

  • Country: Austria
  • Habitat/Biome type: Streams, rivers, riparian |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Not reported
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: Yes
  • Impacts on GHG: Unclear
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: n/a
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-028-1
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    River restoration: implies that a river has been converted into a state that more closely resembles a historical form and functioning, and is appreciated more highly Site specific action: Returned large boulders into the river bed, reconstructed gravel beds for spawning salmonids

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Freshwater flooding  Negative Avoided in-reach and downstream flood damage: area flooded times crops lost, reduced forest tree growth, property damage
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Vaarajoki

  • Country: Finland
  • Habitat/Biome type: Streams, rivers, riparian |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Not reported
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: Yes
  • Impacts on GHG: Unclear
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: n/a
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic: