x
J L E S
Make A Submission

Current Issue

  • Home
  • Current Issue Details

Most Popular

ECOLOGICAL REHABILITATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM A CREEK REHABILITATION SCHEME NEAR COLOGNE, GERMANY

By: Boris Braun, A. Z. M. Shoeb

Key Words: Rehabilitation, restoration, awareness, public participation, river, Germany.

JLES-Vol-6-No-P-1-11, December 2011

Abstract

Ecological rehabilitation of rivers and streams has become a common practice in environmental planning and water management throughout Europe. With regard to rehabilitation projects public participation and bottom-up planning processes are favoured by state and local regulations alike. However, there are mixed experiences about public support of rehabilitation schemes. Whereas people support environmental improvements on a general level, acceptance is dwindling when conflicts of use arise or access to certain areas is going to be restricted. This study focuses on the assessment of public attitudes to rehabilitation and on improving the understanding of people’s preferences. The results of a representative questionnaire survey conducted in three villages along a rehabilitated creek in a densely populated suburban area near Cologne show that local support for rehabilitation is generally high. More than two thirds of all residents support the rehabilitation scheme even when considering the costs involved. This support, however, varies between different age groups, with young adults being more sceptical than older people. The reasons for the fact that the younger generation is less supportive with regard to rehabilitation schemes might be related to their lesser interest in local affairs in general as well as their involvement in leisure activities that cannot be performed in rehabilitation sites along a small creek. Moreover, the findings reveal that many people want to have unlimited access to rehabilitated areas for recreational activities. This reflects a trend towards the perception of nature as an individual consumer good and has to be considered by environmental managers – not only in Europe, but in other parts of the world as well.

Download cover Download the full paper

Atchia M and Tropp S (eds.) 1995. Environmental Management: Issues and Solutions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Boehmer HJ. 2011. Biologische Invasionen. Muster, Prozesse und Mechanismen der Bioglobalisierung. Geograph. Rundschau 63(3): 4-10.

Boon PJ, Davies, BR and Petts GE. 2000. Global Perspectives on River Conservation: Science, Policy, and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Box TW. 1978. The significance and responsibility of rehabilitating drastically disturbed land. In: Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Lands (eds. Schaller FW and Sutton P), pp. 1-10. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.

Bradshaw AD. 2002. Introduction and philosophy. In: Handbook of Ecological Restoration, Vol. 1 (eds. MR Perrow and AJ Davy), pp. 3-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Buijs AJ. 2009. Public support for river restoration. A mixed- method study into local residents’ support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. J. Environ. Management 90: 2680-2689.

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) 2006. Natursport und Kommunikation. BfN, Bonn.

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) 2010. FFH- Gebietsanmeldungen für Deutschland gemäß Art. 4 Abs. 1 der FFH-Richtlinie. BfN, Bonn.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) and Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) 2010. Naturbewusstsein 2009. Bevölkerungsumfrage zu Natur und biologischer Vielfalt. BMU, Berlin, Bonn.

Cairns J. 2002. Rationale for restoration. In: Handbook of Ecological Restoration, Vol. 1 (eds. Perrow MRand and Davy AJ), pp. 10-23. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Choi YD. 2004. Theories for ecological restoration in changing environment: toward ‘futuristic’ restoration. Ecol. Res. 19: 75-81.

Choi YD. 2007. Restoration ecology to the future: a call for new paradigm. Restor. Ecol. 15: 351-353.

Connelly NA, Knuth BA and Kay DL. 2002. Public support for ecosystem restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA. Environ. Management 29: 467-476.

Davis MA. 2000. “Restoration” – a misnomer? Science 287:

1203.

Diggelen RV, Grootjans AP and Harris JA. 2001. Ecological restoration: state of the art or state of the science? Restor. Ecol. 9: 115-118.

European Union 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 23 October 2000 Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive). www.europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ agriculture/ environment/l28002b_en.htm.

Goodbody A. 2002. The Culture of German Environmentalism: Anxieties, Visions, Realities. Berghahn, New York.

Hobbs RJ. 2004. Restoration ecology: The challenge of social values and expectations. Ecol. Environ. 2: 43-44.

Holdgate M. 1996. From Care to Action – Making a Sustainable World. Earthscan Publications, London.

Junker B and Buchecker M. 2008. Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landsc. Urban Plan. 85: 141-154.

Leech S, Wiensczyk A and Turner J. 2009. Ecosystem Management: A Practioners’ Guide. BC J. Ecosyst. Management 10(2): 1-12.

LNV (Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management, and Fisheries) 1990. Nature Policy Plan of the Netherlands. LNV, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Loos GH and Schmitt T. 2011. Dynamik und Diversität invasiver Pflanzen in Deutschland. Geographische Rundschau 63 (3): 12-21.

Paavola J. 2004. Protected areas governance and justice: Theory and the European Union’s Habitats Directive. Environ. Sci. 1: 59-77.

Schaich R. 2009. Local residents’ perceptions of floodplain restoration measures in Luxembourg’s Syr Valley. Landsc. Urban Plan. 93: 20-30.

Seeger H. 1999. The history of German waste water treatment. Euro. Water Management 2(5): 51-56

Shell D. (ed.) (2010). Jugend 2010: Eine pragmatische Generation behauptet sich. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main.

SER (Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group) 2004. The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration, Version 2 (www.ser.org/ content/ ecological_restoration_primer.asp).

Van den Belt H. 2008. The local implementation of nature policy. In: Legitimacy in European Nature Conservation Policy – Case Studies in Multilevel Governance (eds. Keulartz J and Leistra G), pp. 227-

  1. Springer, Heidelberg.

Wali MK. 1992. Ecology of the rehabilitation process. In: Ecosystem Rehabilitation (ed. Wali MK), pp. 3-26. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague/Netherlands. Wali MK. 1999. Ecological succession and the rehabilitation of disturbed terrestrial ecosystems. Plant and Soil 213: 195-220.

Wurzel R. 2008. European Union environmental policy and Natura 2000. In: Legitimacy in European Nature Conservation Policy – Case Studies in Multilevel Governance (ed. Keulartz J. and Leistra G), pp. 259-

  1. Springer, Heidelberg.

Manuscript received on 12 April 2011 and revised on 18

September 2011

Boris Braun, A. Z. M. Shoeb

ECOLOGICAL REHABILITATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM A CREEK REHABILITATION SCHEME NEAR COLOGNE, GERMANY

JLES-Vol-6-No-P-1-11, December 2011

https://jlescience.com/les-publish/ecological-rehabilitation-and-public-participation-general-considerations-and-empirical-evidence-from-a-creek-rehabilitation-scheme-near-cologne-germany/

Copyright © 2022
By Authors and Journal of Life and Earth Science (JLES)
https://jlescience.com