Morandi Bertrand, Kail Jochem, Toedter Anne, Wolter Christian, Piégay Hervé
Université de Lyon, UMR 5600 EVS - CNRS, ENS de Lyon, 15 Parvis René Descartes, F-69362 Lyon cedex 07, France.
Department of Aquatic Ecology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstrasse 5, 45141, Essen, Germany.
Environ Manage. 2017 Nov;60(5):931-946. doi: 10.1007/s00267-017-0923-3. Epub 2017 Aug 21.
River restoration is a main emphasis of river management in European countries. Cross-national comparisons of its implementation are still rare in scientific literature. Based on French and German national censuses, this study compares river restoration practices and monitoring by analysing 102 French and 270 German projects. This comparison aims to draw a spatial and temporal framework of restoration practices in both countries to identify potential drivers of cross-national similarities and differences. The results underline four major trends: (1) a lag of almost 15 years in river restoration implementation between France and Germany, with a consequently higher share of projects in Germany than in France, (2) substantial similarities in restored reach characteristics, short reach length, small rivers, and in "agricultural" areas, (3) good correspondences between stressors identified and restoration measures implemented. Morphological alterations were the most important highlighted stressors. River morphology enhancement, especially instream enhancements, were the most frequently implemented restoration measures. Some differences exist in specific restoration practices, as river continuity restoration were most frequently implemented in French projects, while large wood introduction or channel re-braiding were most frequently implemented in German projects, and (4) some quantitative and qualitative differences in monitoring practices and a significant lack of project monitoring, especially in Germany compared to France. These similarities and differences between Germany and France in restoration application and monitoring possibly result from a complex set of drivers that might be difficult to untangle (e.g., environmental, technical, political, cultural).
河流修复是欧洲国家河流管理的重点。科学文献中关于其实施情况的跨国比较仍然很少。基于法国和德国的全国普查,本研究通过分析102个法国项目和270个德国项目,比较了河流修复实践和监测情况。这种比较旨在勾勒两国修复实践的时空框架,以确定跨国异同的潜在驱动因素。结果突显了四个主要趋势:(1)法国和德国在河流修复实施上相差近15年,因此德国的项目占比高于法国;(2)在修复河段特征方面存在大量相似之处,如河段长度短、河流规模小以及在“农业”地区;(3)所确定的压力源与实施的修复措施之间有良好的对应关系。形态改变是最突出的压力源。增强河流形态,尤其是河道内增强措施,是最常实施的修复措施。在具体修复实践中存在一些差异,例如法国项目中最常实施河流连续性修复,而德国项目中最常实施引入大型木材或河道重新辫状化;(4)监测实践存在一些定量和定性差异,而且项目监测明显不足,尤其是德国与法国相比。德国和法国在修复应用和监测方面的这些异同可能源于一系列复杂的驱动因素,这些因素可能难以理清(例如环境、技术、政治、文化)。