Societal drivers for the integration of hydrogeomorphology and human benefits in river restoration projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Integrating hydrogeomorphological (HGM) principles into the restoration of degraded rivers can achieve sustainable results and provide various human benefits. HGM principles mainly involve understanding the context and processes that shape a fluvial system before any intervention, in order to support its dynamism and to align with its potential functioning and uses. Despite recent management approaches inspired by HGM principles, most restoration projects carried out in Quebec (Canada) are not process‐based and target specific one‐dimensional objectives. Although there is an overall lack of post‐project monitoring, several projects appear to have failed or had mixed success. This research aims to shed light on the diversity of societal drivers behind river restoration projects and to examine how they influence the integration of HGM principles and human benefits. Four restoration projects were characterized through participant observation and interviews with the organizations running them. Representatives of two ministries involved in river restoration and management were also interviewed. The results show that projects were mainly shaped by public acceptance disregarding HGM principles, which can lead to poorly‐informed action. Project funding and stakeholders' expertise have also challenged project implementation and played a key role in defining their objectives. The addition of these components improve the current analytical frameworks for identifying river restoration objectives. Depending on specific sociocultural, political and legislative contexts, funding programs and stakeholders' expertise may either facilitate or restrict the integration of HGM principles and human benefits in the projects. Recognizing these key drivers reframes river restoration as a fundamentally social activity and enlightens how they could impel innovative approaches towards more sustainable results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".