River Restoration. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ U.K., Christensen, J., and Niemann, M. (eds) (2017). The Routledge Companion to the Environmental Humanities. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

      96 Heldt, S., Budryte, P., Ingensiep, H.W., et al. (2016). Social pitfalls for river restoration: how public participation uncovers problems with public acceptance. Environmental Earth Sciences 75(13): 1053.

      97 Hidalgo, M.C. and Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(3): 273–281.

      98 Hill, M.R., McMaster, D.G., Harrison, T., et al. (2011). A reverse auction for wetland restoration in the Assiniboine River Watershed, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(2): 245–258.

      99 Holmes, N.T. and Nielsen, M.B. (1998). Restoration of the rivers Brede, Cole and Skerne: a joint Danish and British EU‐LIFE demonstration project, I: setting up and delivery of the project. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8(1): 185–196.

      100 Honey‐Rosés, J., Acuña, V., Bardina, M., et al. (2013). Examining the demand for ecosystem services: the value of stream restoration for drinking water treatment managers in the Llobregat river, Spain. Ecological Economics 90: 196–205.

      101 Hong, C. and Chun, H. (2018). Barriers, challenges, conflicts, and facilitators in environmental decision‐making: a case of An’Yang Stream restoration. River Research and Applications 34(5): 472–480.

      102 Hong, C.Y., Chang, H., and Chung, E.S. (2019). Comparing the functional recognition of aesthetics, hydrology, and quality in urban stream restoration through the framework of environmental perception. River Research and Applications 35(6): 543–552.

      103 Hull, R.B. and Robertson, D.P. (2000). Which nature? In: Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities (eds P.H. Gobster and R.B. Hull), 299–307. Washington DC: Island Press.

      104 IPBES (Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) (2020). Ecosystem services: glossary. https://ipbes.net/glossary/ecosystem‐services (accessed 8 December 2020).

      105 Jähnig, S.C., Lorenz, A.W., Hering, D., et al. (2011). River restoration success: a question of perception. Ecological Applications 21(6): 2007–2015.

      106 Januchowski‐Hartley, S.R., Moon, K., Stoeckl, N., et al. (2012). Social factors and private benefits influence landholders’ riverine restoration priorities in tropical Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 110: 20–26.

      107 Jia, H., Dong, N., and Ma, H. (2010). Evaluation of aquatic rehabilitation technologies for polluted urban rivers and the case study of the Foshan Channel. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China 4(2): 213–220.

      108 Jordan, W.R., III (2000). Restoration, community, and wilderness. In: Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities (eds P.H. Gobster and R.B. Hull), 23–36. Washington DC: Island Press.

      109 Junker, B. and Buchecker, M. (2008). Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning 85(3–4): 141–154.

      110 Junker, B., Buchecker, M., and Müller‐Böker, U. (2007). Objectives of public participation: which actors should be involved in the decision making for river restorations? Water Resources Research 43(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005584.

      111 Kail, J., Hering, D., Muhar, S., et al. (2007). The use of large wood in stream restoration: experiences from 50 projects in Germany and Austria. Journal of Applied Ecology 44(6): 1145–1155.

      112 Kaiser, F.G., Wölfing, S., and Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19(1): 1–19.

      113 Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19(1): 3–32.

      114 Kendy, E., Aylward, B., Ziemer, L.S., et al. (2018). Water transactions for streamflow restoration, water supply reliability, and rural economic vitality in the western United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 54(2): 487–504.

      115 Kenney, M.A., Wilcock, P.R., Hobbs, B.F., et al. (2012). Is urban stream restoration worth it? Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48(3): 603–615.

      116 Kern, K. (1992). Rehabilitation of streams in south‐west Germany. In: River Conservation and Management (eds P.J. Boon and P. Calow, G.E. Petts), 321–335. Chichester: Wiley.

      117 Kim, J.H., Kim, H.J., and Yoo, S.H. (2018). A cost–benefit analysis of restoring the ecological integrity of Jeonju Stream, Korea. Water and Environment Journal 32(3): 476–480.

      118 Kim, M., Gim, T.H.T., and Sung, J.S. (2017). Applying the concept of perceived restoration to the case of Cheonggyecheon Stream Park in Seoul, Korea. Sustainability 9(8): 1368.

      119 Kondolf, G.M. (2000). Process vs form in restoration of rivers and streams. Annual Meeting Proceedings of the American Society of Landscape Architects. Washington DC: American Society of Landscape Architects.

      120 Kristensen, E.A., Baattrup‐Pedersen, A., Jensen, P.N., et al. (2012). Selection, implementation and cost of restorations in lowland streams: a basis for identifying restoration priorities. Environmental Science & Policy 23: 1–11.

      121 Lamouroux, N., Gore, J.A., Lepori, F., et al. (2015). The ecological restoration of large rivers needs science‐based, predictive tools meeting public expectations: an overview of the Rhône project. Freshwater Biology 60(6): 1069–1084.

      122 Langhans, S.D., Hermoso, V., Linke, S., et al. (2014). Cost‐effective river rehabilitation planning: optimizing for morphological benefits at large spatial scales. Journal of Environmental Management 132: 296–303.

      123 Larned, S.T., Suren, A.M., Flanagan, M., et al. (2006). Macrophytes in urban stream rehabilitation: establishment, ecological effects, and public perception. Restoration Ecology 14(3): 429–440.

      124 Lave, R. (2016). Stream restoration and the surprisingly social dynamics of science. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 3(1): 75–81.

      125 Lave, R., Doyle, M., and Robertson, M. (2010). Privatizing stream restoration in the US. Social Studies of Science 40(5): 677–703.

      126 Lave, R., Wilson, M.W., Barron, E., et al. (2014). Critical physical geography. The Canadian Geographer 58(1): 1–10.

      127 Lebart, L., Salem, A., and Berry, L. (1998). Exploring Textual Data. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

      128 Lee, J.S. (2012). Measuring the economic benefits of the Youngsan River Restoration Project in Kwangju, Korea, using contingent valuation. Water International 37(7): 859–870.

      129 Lee, M. and Jung, I. (2016). Assessment of an urban stream restoration project by cost–benefit analysis: the case of Cheonggyecheon stream in Seoul, South Korea. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 20(1): 152–162.

      130 Lee, S. and Choi, G.W. (2012). Governance in a river restoration project in South Korea: the case of Incheon. Water Resources Management 26(5): 1165–1182.

      131 Le Floc’h, É. and Aronson, J. (1995). Ecologie de la restauration: définition de quelques concepts de base. Natures Sciences Sociétés СКАЧАТЬ