&EPA
www.epa.gov/research
EPA/600/F-14/300
science in ACTION
INNOVATIVE RESEARCH FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
Aesthetic Considerations for Stream Restoration
Stream restoration projects provide
social, environmental, and economic
benefits which account for the three
pillars of landscape sustainability. Of
these, EPA focuses on the
environmental aspects including water
quality protection and restoration.
Anthropogenic activities exacerbate
the problems encountered in stream
restoration activities. In rural areas
nutrients, sediments, and pesticide
stream loadings result from
agricultural use while urban expansion
increases flash flooding and nonpoint
pollutant loading (Allan, 2004; Palmer
& Bernhardt, 2006).
EPA is exploring the use of stream
restoration for water quality protection
to promote cooperation with local
stakeholders, to encourage sustainable
environmental management
(RESTORE Partnership, 2013) and to
ensure that social and economic
considerations be incorporated in
environmental planning (National
Research Council, 2001; Eden &
Tunstall, 2006). Although stream
restoration projects may be based on
sound science, strong social support is
needed if the restoration projects are
to be funded, implemented, and
sustainably maintained (Kondolf &
Yang, 2008). To this end, aesthetics
are an integral component of the social
and economic benefits of stream
restoration and must be considered in
stream restoration projects for
sustainable management.
Aesthetics in stream restoration
Aesthetics is one of the frequently
listed goals for stream restoration in
the US (Bernhardt et al., 2005).
Besides environmental benefits (in
terms of water quality control, flood
control, creation of habitat, and
biodiversity increase), high quality
restoration designs could create
attractive aquatic environments and
promote economic benefits associated
with aesthetics, such as urban
regeneration, business growth, and
increased land and property values
(RESTORE Partnership, 2013).
This document introduces the
aesthetic considerations for stream
restoration. According to literature on
landscape aesthetics, visual landscape
indicators associated with stream
systems (stream channel, riparian
wetland or floodplain, and upland
landscape) are categorized into three
groups as shown in Table 1. Visual
indicators with positive, negative, and
mixed aesthetic effects are described
and case studies illustrate the aesthetic
considerations of several restoration
projects.
projects for sustainable management
of stream systems. It should be noted
that there is no "universal" aesthetic
preference to guide restoration
designs. The visual indicators
presented here are not universally
applicable. Each restoration site has its
particular site environmental and
social conditions that could influence
aesthetics. It should also be noted that
aesthetic and environmental benefits
could not always be aligned in stream
restorations. A visually appealing
stream landscape might not be an
ecologically healthy ecosystem. Based
on information provided, project
designers could involve the public in
design charrettes and survey local
opinions to develop designs that meet
optimized aesthetics and
Table 1. Landscape visual indicators associated with stream systems
Positive aesthetic effects
Openness and open water
Water clarity
Water movement
Curved or meandering shape
Desirable wildlife (e g. birds)
Colorful plants
Negative aesthetic
effects
In-channel debris A
Reduced proportion of
water in channel
Signs of erosion
Undesirable plants
Mixed aesthetic
effects
Man-made features
Water flow and area
Trees B
Wild systems c
A: There could be exceptions: people
in Oregon did not perceive in-channel
woody debris negatively (Piegay et al.,
2005).
B: Trees generally contribute to
aesthetics in a waterscape as long as
they don't block views.
C: Designed wild systems, as
imitations of natural systems, could
provide natural aesthetics. They can
be visually pleasing when
appropriately designed and managed.
The purpose of this document is to
provide information needed to
encourage and incorporate aesthetic
thinking into stream restoration
environmental restoration objectives.
Openness and open water view.
People have a general preference for
open views in landscapes (Nassauer,
1989; Rogge, Nevens, & Gulinck,
2007) and open water views are
desired (Nassauer, 2004). River view
was among the most frequently
mentioned benefits provided by a
stream, in a study on the Chicago
River Corridor (Gobster & Westphal,
2004). Figures 1A and B show a
stream restoration project with open
water views. Designed for aesthetic
and habitat value, the stream has a
meandering course with sloped (4:1)
vegetated banks. Nearly 300,000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
-------
plants (including more than 640 trees)
were planted to control erosion, soften
the hard urban landscapes, buffer
noise, cool the water, and enhance
wildlife habitat. The improved
aesthetics and connectivity for park
users could potentially lead to
economic benefits. The regional
employment increased after project
completion during 2008-2012 and
there was a four-fold increase (54 to
236) in the number of establishments
and a five-fold increase ($10,467,000
to $57,281,000) in total retail sales
(Ozdil, Modi, Stewart, & Dolejs,
2013). It should be noted that these
changes might not be attributed
specifically to the stream restoration
project, other factors could be
involved.
Figure 1. Buffalo Bayou Promenade,
Houston, Texas. A) Birdseye view of
the site (shows openness and a bridge
to increase connectivity); B) Stream
riparian area allows water view.
Permission from SWA Group.
Water clarity and color. Water
clarity and color influence the
attractiveness of a waterscape
(Gregory & Davis, 1993; Pfluger,
Rackham, & Lamed, 2010). There is a
preference for clear water rather than
brown water. Suspended solids,
phytoplankton, or substances
dissolved in the water could be among
factors that influence water clarity.
Water clarity and color could indicate
tidiness to layman and are often used
as indicators of the perceived
environmental health (Cottet, Piegay,
&Bornette, 2013).
Water movement. People prefer
rushing waters than stagnant creeks
(Herzog, 1985). Movement (caused by
gravity, wind, or both) is an exciting
visual aspect of water that contributes
to the vividness of a landscape setting.
Gravity is the primary factor
influencing water movement in
streams, which is described as
disturbed water surfaces (falling and
turbulent) and undisturbed surfaces in
a stream channel. Visually desirable
water settings could be achieved by
creating a mix of disturbed and
undisturbed water flow, as shown in
Figure 2 (Litton & Tetlow, 1974).
Figure 2. Flow control structures in
large rivers provide a more dynamic
appeal to the water flow,
Uncompahgre River, CO (Rosgen,
2007). Permission from Wildland
Hydrology.
Curved, meandering shape. Streams
with meandering shapes improve the
scenic quality of a landscape
(Nassauer, 1989). The meandering
channel is a more organic, natural
shape that is more aesthetically
appealing. The preference for
serpentine lines was recognized in the
18th century and this preference was
shown in serpentine channels on the
English estates designed by a popular
18th century landscape designer,
Capability Brown (Kondolf & Yang,
2008). Figure 3A and B show restored
streams with meandering channel.
Figure 3. Boneyard Creek Restoration,
Champaign, Illinois. A) Stream
meander restored; B) Stream meander
and riparian flowerings. Permission
from Hitchcock Design Group. Photo
source: A: Rob Kowalski with the
City of Champaign; B: Hitchcock
Design Group.
Desirable wildlife. The presence of
desirable wildlife, such as birds,
turtles, and butterflies, could enhance
visual appeal of a shoreline landscape.
The bird species richness indicates
habitat value of wetlands. It is
positively associated with the
attractiveness of wetland landscapes
(Hu, 2013; Nassauer, 2004).
Plant color and form. Restored
wetlands with flowering plants were
perceived as more attractive than ones
that aimed to achieve enhanced
ecological value only (Nassauer,
2004). Techniques for making a
vegetated landscape colorful include
selecting plants with showy leaf or
flower colors in different seasons,
using evergreen species for winter
look, and installing a diversity of plant
species. Together with other plant
characteristics such as size (low
height), texture (medium to coarse),
and form (clumping plant form with
broad leaves), they can make a
riparian landscape more visually
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
-------
pleasing (Hu, 2013). Therefore, using
colorful plants in stream riparian
wetlands or upland areas could
potentially enhance aesthetics of the
site. Figure 3-B shows flowering
riparian plants in a stream restoration
project.
In-channel debris. In-channel woody
debris is an important stream
restoration measure that provides
functions such as increasing water
retention time in channel, promoting
sedimentation, and enhanced
conditions for denitrification. Studies
found in-channel woody debris
decreases attractiveness of a stream
landscape and perceptions toward
streams with wood debris are
associated with cleanness and human
care (Gregory & Davis, 1993; Piegay
et al., 2005; Vought & Lacoursiere,
2010). Figure 4 is an example stream
restoration project with insufficient
consideration for the visual impacts of
the use of woody debris; the wood
piles indicate a lack of maintenance or
care for the landscape (Nassauer,
2004). Gravel bars are also disliked in
streams with possible explanation that
they reduce the proportion of water in
the channel (Le Lay, Piegay, &
Riviere-Honegger, 2013). However,
large boulders are perceived as more
attractive and low-maintenance
compared to small size gravel (Le Lay
et al., 2013). Logs and large boulders,
considered as "native materials", are
promoted by Natural Channel Design
methods (Lave, 2014; Rosgen, 1997,
2007). Figure 5 shows the use of large
boulders for stream flow control.
Figure 4. Latchmore Brook
Restoration, Latchmore Brook, UK.
Permission from Friends of
Latchmore,
http://friendsoflatchmore.org/.
Figure 5. Paint Creek, West Virginia.
Permission from Decota Consulting
Company Inc.; photographer: James
Stanton.
Proportion of water in channel. One
study found a preference toward
stream landscapes with a high
proportion of water in the stream
channel. Streams with a low
proportion of water in the channel
were perceived as poorly maintained
(Le Lay et al., 2013). The perceived
proportion of water in the stream
channel could be decreased by the
presence of wood debris and deposits.
Signs of erosion. People dislike signs
of erosion in shoreline landscapes
(Hu, 2013). Signs of erosion (such as
un-vegetated substrate on a stream
bank) and sediment deposits
negatively influence visual appeal of a
stream (Cottet et al., 2013). In rural
landscapes, no erosion indicates the
soil and water conservation work of
farmers and is associated with
aesthetic quality of a landscape
(Nassauer, 1989).
Undesirable plants. Although
uncontrolled vegetation could be
visually pleasing in undisturbed
natural areas, in human modified
landscapes people often expect to see
landscape settings with well-kept
vegetation (even when the
organization of landscape settings
appears "natural"). Unmanaged
vegetation could decrease visual
quality in wetland systems, especially
when they block water views or cover
large areas of water surface. A plant
maintenance plan is critical to the long
term success of a project. It should be
established during the design process
and include maintenance
responsibilities, weed control protocol,
and funding sources (Howley, 2011;
Hu, 2013; Nassauer, 2004).
Water flow and area. The aesthetic
appeal of a waterscape increases with
increasing amounts of visible water
(Arriaza, Canas-Ortega, Canas-
Madueno, & Ruiz-Aviles, 2004;
Dobbie, 2013). However in a stream
landscape there is a concave
relationship between water flow
(amount of water) and landscape
aesthetic quality. The attractiveness of
water flow in a waterscape increases
with increasing flow to a point and
then decreases with further flow
increases. However, relatively high
flows are generally preferred in small
streams while flow preferences for
large streams are more varied (Brown
&Daniel, 1991; Pfluger et al., 2010).
Pflugeretal. (2010) suggested
exposed stream banks and channel
areas could be the reason for low
visual appeal at low flows while
suspended debris and turbidity might
cause the low preference for extremely
high flows.
Figure 6 shows a daylighted stream
designed to keep sufficient water flow
in channel for aesthetic appeal. Water
from an adjacent river is pumped to
this stream channel for consistent
water flow. In-channel boulders make
the water in a straight channel more
interesting. They can function as flow
control structures as well as stepping
stones used by park visitors. The
aesthetic and recreational (attracts
-64,000 visitors daily) benefits
promoted regional economic
development. This project achieved a
land price (properties within 50 meters
of restoration site) increase of 30-
50%, double the rates of other areas of
the city. It served as a catalyst for
~$1.98 billion US dollar's worth of
investment in urban redevelopment
(Robinson & Hopton, 2011).
Figure 6. Cheonggyecheon Stream
Restoration Project, Seoul, South
Korea. Permission from Alexander
Robinson.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
-------
Man-made features. Man-made
features can either positively or
negatively affect the visual appeal of a
landscape. The presence of built
environments could contribute to
stream aesthetic appeal in a high-
density urban context (Gobster &
Westphal, 2004). Man-made elements
such as farm houses increase
attractiveness of a rural landscape
while roads and power lines decrease
aesthetic appeal (Arriaza et al., 2004).
Well-designed man-made features,
such as walking paths and structures
for water viewing, enhance aesthetics
and people's contact with streams by
providing water views (Figure 1A, 3 A,
and Figure 5).
Trees. Trees have mixed effects on
landscape aesthetic quality. Trees can
positively affect the appeal of a
waterscape. Wetlands with trees are
more appreciated than wetlands with
no trees (Dobbie, 2013; Nassauer,
2004; van Marwijk et al., 2012). There
is a preference for agricultural
landscapes with scattered large trees,
however, treeless landscapes are
disliked (Ives & Kendal, 2013). In
urban settings, trees could either
positively or negatively influence
stream landscape visual quality. A
study on restored stream landscapes
showed that trees bring visual appeal
to the landscapes and provide privacy;
but they can also block views of the
landscape and caused complaints from
local residents (Purcell, Friedrich, &
Resh, 2002).
Wild systems (natural aesthetics).
Visually mimicking local wild
systems is an important approach in
restoration landscape design. Natural
aesthetics, provided by representations
of local natural systems, is
emphasized by designers and
managers of constructed wetland
systems. If not designed or managed
appropriately, criticisms can rise due
to un-kept looks (Hu, 2013).
Indication of human control (mowed
grass or trimmed trees) in a landscape
is important to enhance aesthetics of a
constructed natural system.
Figure 7 shows how a restoration
project imitates aesthetics of a wild
system. In this landscape setting,
openness, a curved walkway,
boulders, different shades of green,
diverse plant species, and appropriate
management, are factors that
contribute to aesthetics of the
landscape. Aesthetics and habitat
value are main concerns in the
planting design. A pre-vegetated
contract-grown (if booking plant
materials in advance, nurseries would
grow plant materials that will be
installed in the long term, so the
quantity and quality of plants could be
ensured) woody and herbaceous
species mix was used to achieve quick
establishment, providing aesthetic and
habitat value from early time periods
and after completion. The project uses
85% native and naturalized plant
species and low maintenance was
considered in plant selection. This
stream day lighting project removed
over 4,000 linear feet of culverts. It
improved the site's water conveyance
capacity from 1,500 cfs (cubic feet per
second) to 6,000 cfs (from 28% to
113% of predicted 100-year flood
flow). The result of this restoration
work is a sustainable constructed
natural system that protects water
quality of downstream fluvial systems,
is resilient to flooding, creates habitat
value, serves recreational purposes,
and is attractive (Canfield, Koehler, &
Cunningham, 2011).
Figure 7. Westerly Creek Restoration,
Denver, Colorado. Permission from
Forest City Stapleton; photographer:
Ken Redding.
Educational signs. Although not
directly associated with aesthetics of a
landscape, educational signs could
increase people's knowledge of
streams and potentially promote their
visual acceptance for restorations
(Figure 8). Educational techniques,
such as onsite signs or local social
media, could be used to improve
people's ecological understanding and
guide perceptions of in-channel wood
debris (Chin et al., 2008). Guided on-
site educational tours could be used to
explain project objectives to local
property owners, and to strengthen
their emotional affinity for in-stream
elements like wood debris and gravel
bars (Le Lay et al., 2013).
Figure 8. On-site sign delivering
educational message on stream
restoration, Dunes Creek, Indiana.
Permission from Dan Mecklenburg
Maximizing synergies
Restorations should consider
incorporating visual thinking into
projects and maximize synergies
among aesthetic considerations and
environmental benefits. Table 2
summarizes visual and environmental
influences of some commonly used
restoration measures, including
construction of woody debris dams,
creation of meandering channels,
channel widening and bank grading,
and restoration of riparian wetlands
and bank vegetation. These restoration
measures have a range of functions,
such as reducing peak water velocity,
increasing base flow, increasing water
retention time, and increasing
biodiversity (Craig et al., 2008;
Vought & Lacoursiere, 2010). The
visual quality information of the
measures is generated based on visual
indicators mentioned previously. For
example, the construction of debris
dam increases in-channel debris
(decrease visual quality), results in
decreased proportion of water in
channel (decrease visual quality), and
increase stream water flow (increase
visual quality). It provides
environmental functions such as to
increase groundwater-surface water
exchange, promote sedimentation and
nutrient cycling, and enhance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
-------
conditions for denitrification.
Considering the potential aesthetic and
environmental alternatives for stream
restoration, eclectic planning measures
and options including; dam
construction, debris removal, riparian
wetlands restoration, and buffer zone
initiation, must be coordinated to
achieve maximal community benefits
as well as landscape sustainability.
Conclusions
Aesthetics is an important aspect of
sustainable stream restoration. It is
often associated with recreational and
economic benefits in urban settings.
Water aesthetics (interrelated with a
variety of landscape elements,
including riparian plantings, bank
slope, and manmade features) is a key
concern in promoting the aesthetics of
stream-wetland systems. The
environmental functions streams
provide (flood control, water quality
control, and creation of wildlife
habitats) also influence aesthetics of
stream landscapes (water flow, water
clarity, and desirable wildlife).
Connectivity of the site can be
increased with bridges, pathways, and
overlooks to promote people's contact
with the stream landscape and help
them learn more and care more about
water systems. Besides design
techniques, other factors affect the
long-term aesthetic performance of a
restoration site, such as use of a
maintenance plan, public involvement
and education, and funding support.
Contact for More Information:
Shangchun Hu, NRC, US EPA,
GWERD, Ada, OK: 580-436-8739,
hu.shangchun@epa.gov
Ann Keeley, US EPA, GWERD,
Ada, OK: 580-436-8890,
keeley.ann@epa.gov
References
Allan, J. D. (2004). Landscapes and
riverscapes: the influence of land use on
stream ecosystems. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics,
257-284.
Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J. F., Canas-
Madueno, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004).
Assessing the visual quality of rural
landscapes. Landscape and Urban
Table 2. Stream restoration measures and associated visual guality and
environmental functions ("+" represents positive aesthetic effects;"-" represents
negative aesthetic effects;"+/ -" represents mixed aesthetic effects; "*" represents
environmental functions provided)
Visual and environmental
considerations associated with
restoration measures
Visual indicator-
negative
Visual indicator-
positive
Visual indicator-
mixed
Environmental
functions
In-channel debris
Reduced proportion
of water in channel
Signs of erosion
Undesirable plants
Water view
Meandering shape
Colorful plants
Desirable wildlife
Water flow
Trees
wild systems
Reduce (peak) water
velocity
Increase base flow
Increase water
retention time in
stream valley
Increase
g ro u n d wate r-s u rf ace
water exchange
Erosion control
Reduce nutrients
and sediment
entering stream
Promote
sedimentation
Nutrient recycling
Increase retention of
organic matter
Enhance conditions
for denitrification
Increase biodiversity
and support wildlife
Restoration Measures
Construction
of woody
debris dam
-
-
+
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Creation of
channel
meanders
+
+
*
*
*
*
*
Channel
widening
and bank
grading
+
+
+
*
*
*
*
Restoration
of riparian
wetlands
and buffer
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
+/-
+/-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Planning, 69(1), 115-125. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029
Bernhardt, E. S., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D.,
Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S.,...
Sudduth, E. (2005). Synthesizing US river
restoration efforts. Science, 308, 636-
637.
Brown, T. C, & Daniel, T. C. (1991).
Landscape aesthetics of riparian
environments: relationship of flow
quantity to scenic quality along a wild
and scenic river. Water Resources
Research, 27(8), 1787-1795. doi:
10.1029/91wr00975
Canfield, J., Koehler, K., & Cunningham, K.
(2011). Westerly Creek at Stapleton.
from
http://www.lafoundation.org/resea
rch/landscape-performance-
series/case-studies/case-studv/357/
Cottet, M., Piegay, H., & Bornette, G.
(2013). Does human perception of
wetland aesthetics and healthiness
relate to ecological functioning? Journal
of Environmental Management, 128,
1012-1022. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.056
Craig, L. S., Palmer, M. A., Richardson, D.
C., Filoso, S., Bernhardt, E. S., Bledsoe, B.
P.,... Wilcock, P. R. (2008). Stream
restoration strategies for reducing river
nitrogen loads. Frontiers in Ecology and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
-------
the Environment, 6(10), 529-538. doi:
10.1890/070080
Dobbie, M. F. (2013). Public aesthetic
preferences to inform sustainable
wetland management in Victoria,
Australia. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 120,178-189. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.018
Eden, S., & Tunstall, S. (2006). Ecological
versus social restoration? How urban
river restoration challenges but also fails
to challenge the science-policy nexus in
the United Kingdom. Environment and
Planning C, 24(5), 661.
Gobster, P. H., & Westphal, L. M. (2004).
The human dimensions of urban
greenways: planning for recreation and
related experiences. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 68(2), 147-165.
Gregory, K. J., & Davis, R. J. (1993). The
Perception of Riverscape Aesthetics: an
Example from Two Hampshire Rivers.
Journal of Environmental Management,
39(3), 171-185. doi:
10.1006/jema.1993.1062
Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis
of preference for waterscapes. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 5(3), 225-
241.
Howley, P. (2011). Landscape aesthetics:
Assessing the general publics'
preferences towards rural landscapes.
Ecological Economics, 72,161-169. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026
Hu, S. (2013). Planting Design in Urban
Residential Stormwater Systems
Aligning Visual Quality and
Environmental Function through Codes.
(Doctoral dissertation), University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Ives, C. D., & Kendal, D. (2013). Values and
attitudes of the urban public towards
peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use
Policy, 34, 80-90. doi:
10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.02.003
Kondolf, G. M., & Yang, C. (2008). Planning
river restoration projects: Social and
cultural dimensions River restoration:
Managing the uncertainty in restoring
physical habitat (pp. 41-60): John Wiley
&Sons, Ltd.
Lave, R. (2014). Freedom and constraint:
Generative expectations in the US
stream restoration field. Geoforum,
52(0), 236-244. doi:
http://dx.doi.0rg/10.1016/i.geoforu
m.2013.03.005
Le Lay, Y.-F., Piegay, H., & Riviere-
Honegger, A. (2013). Perception of
braided river landscapes: Implications
for public participation and sustainable
management. Journal of Environmental
Management, 119,1-12. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.006
Litton, R. B., & Tetlow, R. J. (1974). Water
and landscape: An aesthetic overview of
the role of water in the landscape. Port
Washington, New York: Water
Information Center.
Nassauer, J. I. (1989). Agricultural policy
and aesthetic objectives. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, 44(5), 384-
387.
Nassauer, J. I. (2004). Monitoring the
success of metropolitan wetland
restorations: Cultural sustainability and
ecological function. Wetlands, 24(4),
756-765.
National Research Council. (2011).
Sustainability and the U.S. EPA: The
National Academies Press.
Ozdil, T. R., Modi, S., Stewart, D., & Dolejs,
M. (2013). Buffalo Bayou Promenade.
from
http://www.lafoundation.org/resea
rch/landscape-performance-
series/case-studies/case-study/623/
Palmer, M. A., & Bernhardt, E. S. (2006).
Hydroecology and river restoration: Ripe
for research and synthesis. Water
Resources Research, 42(3).
Pfluger, Y., Rackham, A., & Larned, S.
(2010). The aesthetic value of river
flows: An assessment of flow
preferences for large and small rivers.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(1-2),
68-78. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.12.004
Piegay, H., Mutz, M., Gregory, K. J.,
Rinaldi, M., Bondarev, V., Chin, A.,...
Joshi, V. (2005). Public perception as a
barrier to introducing wood in rivers for
restoration purposes. Environmental
Management, 36(5), 665-674. doi:
10.1007/S00267-004-0092-Z
Purcell, A. H., Friedrich, C., & Resh, V. H.
(2002). An assessment of a small urban
stream restoration project in northern
California. Restoration Ecology, 10(4),
685-694. doi: 10.1046/J.1526-
100X.2002.01049.X
RESTORE Partnership. (2013). Rivers by
Design: Rethinking development and
river restoration. Bristol, UK:
Environment Agency (UK).
Robinson, A., & Hopton, M. (2011).
Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration
Project, from
http://www.lafoundation.org/resea
rch/landscape-performance-
series/case-studies/case-study/382/
Rogge, E., Nevens, F., & Gulinck, H. (2007).
Perception of rural landscapes in
Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(4),
159-174. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006
Rosgen, D. L. (1997). A geomorphological
approach to restoration of incised rivers.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of
the conference on management of
landscapes disturbed by channel
incision.
Rosgen, D. L. (2007). Rosgen geomorphic
channel design. In J. Bernard, J. F. Fripp
& K. R. Robinson (Eds.), Part 654 Stream
Restoration Design National Engineering
Handbook. Washington, D.C.: USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
van Marwijk, R. B. M., Elands, B. H. M.,
Kampen, J. K., Terlouw, S., Pitt, D. G., &
Opdam, P. (2012). Public perceptions of
the attractiveness of restored nature.
Restoration Ecology, 20(6), 773-780. doi:
10.1111/J.1526-100X.2011.00813.X
Vought, L. B.-M., & Lacoursiere, J. 0.
(2010). Restoration of Streams in the
Agricultural Landscape. In M. Eiseltova
(Ed.), Restoration of Lakes, Streams,
Floodplains, and Bogs in Europe:
Principles and Case Studies (Vol. 3, pp.
225-242).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
------- |