Environmental Management

, Volume 48, Issue 4, pp 847–864 | Cite as

Restoring Ecological Integrity in Highly Regulated Rivers: The Role of Baseline Data and Analytical References

  • Peter W. Downs
  • Maia S. Singer
  • Bruce K. Orr
  • Zooey E. Diggory
  • Tamara C. Church
Article

Abstract

The goal of restoring ecological integrity in rivers is frequently accompanied by an assumption that a comparative reference reach can be identified to represent minimally impaired conditions. However, in many regulated rivers, no credible historical, morphological or process-based reference reach exists. Resilient restoration designs should instead be framed around naturalization, using multiple analytical references derived from empirically-calibrated field- and model-based techniques to develop an integrated ecological reference condition. This requires baseline data which are rarely collected despite increasing evidence for systematic deficiencies in restoration practice. We illustrate the utility of baseline data collection in restoration planning for the highly fragmented and regulated lower Merced River, California, USA. The restoration design was developed using various baseline data surveys, monitoring, and modeling within an adaptive management framework. Baseline data assisted in transforming conceptual models of ecosystem function into specific restoration challenges, defining analytical references of the expected relationships among ecological parameters required for restoration, and specifying performance criteria for post-project monitoring and evaluation. In this way the study is an example of process-based morphological restoration designed to prompt recovery of ecosystem processes and resilience. For the Merced River, we illustrate that project-specific baseline data collection is a necessary precursor in developing performance-based restoration designs and addressing scale-related uncertainties, such as whether periodic gravel augmentation will sustain bed recovery and whether piecemeal efforts will improve ecological integrity. Given the numerous impediments to full, historical, restoration in many river systems, it seems apparent that projects of naturalization are a critical step in reducing the deleterious impacts of fragmented rivers worldwide.

Keywords

River restoration Naturalization Fragmentation Baseline data Analytical references Downscaling Chinook salmon Merced California 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program Grant ERP-02-P12-D, and was undertaken in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game, especially Bill Loudermilk, Patricia Brantley, and Tim Heyne. The authors are solely responsible for the views expressed in this paper, but numerous individuals contributed their skills, expertise and field labor to the project. In particular we thank Scott Dusterhoff, Yantao Cui, Noah Hume, Cliff Riebe, AJ Keith, George Strnad, Seth Gentzler, Susie Loadholt, Josh Weinstein, Kris Nehmer, Chris Neudeck, Darrell Slotten, Shaun Ayers, Nicolas Bloom, Julian Wood, Tom King, and David Bean. We also thank those who have peer reviewed various technical reports from this project, including Kris Vyverberg, Scott McBain, Jen Vick, Bill Trush, Johnnie Moore, Bill Dietrich, and Matt Kondolf. We are grateful for feedback received from the Merced River Stakeholders group, and for cooperation, insight, and data assistance from the Merced Irrigation District, particularly Ted Selb. This manuscript was improved considerably by the comments of three anonymous referees.

References

  1. Akagi Y (1994) Sediment transport at sites of spawning gravel enhancement on the Merced River below the Crocker-Huffman Dam. Unpublished MS thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander GG, Allan JD (2007) Ecological success in stream restoration: case studies from the Midwestern United States. Environmental Management 40:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman RJ (2006) The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16:1311–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnard K, McBain S (1994) Standpipe to determine permeability, dissolved oxygen, and vertical particle size distribution in salmonid spawning gravels. Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin, USDA Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks K, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouse RM, Hornberger MD, Luoma SN (1996) Sr and Nd compositions and trace element concentrations in San Francisco Bay cores to distinguish sediment deposited from hydraulic gold mining and mercury mining (abstract). Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 77:201Google Scholar
  7. Brittain JE, Saltveit SJ (1989) Review of the effect of river regulation on Mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 3:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brookes A (1987) Restoring the sinuosity of artificially managed streams. Environmental Geology and Water Science 10:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brookes A (1996) Floodplain restoration and rehabilitation. In: Anderson MG, Walling DE, Bates PD (eds) Floodplain Processes. Wiley, Chichester, England, pp 553–576Google Scholar
  10. Brown LR, May JT (2000) Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and their relations with environmental variables in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River drainages, California, 1993–1997. US geological survey water-resources investigations report 00-4125. National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  11. Buffington J, Montgomery D (1999) A procedure for classifying textural facies in gravel bed rivers. Water Resources Research 35:1903–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30:492–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bunte K (2004) State of the Science review—gravel mitigation and augmentation below hydroelectric dams: a geomorphological perspective. Draft report submitted to Stream Systems Technology Center—USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  14. Cairns J Jr (1995) Ecological integrity of aquatic systems. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11:313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Camp C (1915) Field notes: journal and catalog: Yosemite National Park, California. Volume 557, Section 3. Archives of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  16. Colombini M, Seminara G, Tubino M (1987) Finite-amplitude alternate bars. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 181:213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cui Y, Parker G (2005) Numerical model of sediment pulses and sediment-supply disturbances in mountain rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering ASCE 131:646–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Downs PW, Gregory KJ (2004) River Channel Management: Towards Sustainable Catchment Hydrosystems. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Downs PW, Kondolf GM (2002) Post-project appraisals in adaptive management of river channel restoration. Environmental Management 29:477–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Downs PW, Thorne CR (2000) Rehabilitation of a lowland river: reconciling flood defence with habitat diversity and geomorphological sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management 58:249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duda JJ, Frellich JE, Schreiner EG (2008) Baseline studies in the Elwha River ecosystem prior to dam removal: introduction to the special issue. Northwest Science 82:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ebersole JL, Liss WJ, Frissell CA (1997) Restoration of stream habitats in the western United States: restoration as reexpression of habitat capacity. Environmental Management 21:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fausch KD (1984) Profitable stream positions for salmonids: relating specific growth rate to net energy gain. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Florsheim JL, Mount JF (2002) Restoration of floodplain topography by sand-splay complex formation in response to intentional levee breaches, Lower Consumnes River, California. Geomorphology 44:67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frothingham KM, Rhoads BL, Herricks EE (2002) A multiscale conceptual framework for integrated eco-geomorphological research to support stream naturalization in the agricultural Midwest. Environmental Management 29:16–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gallagher SP, Gard MF (1999) Relationship between chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) redd densities and PHABSIM-predicted habitat in the Merced and Lower American rivers, California. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:570–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graf WL (1999) Dam nation: a geographic census of American dams and their large-scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resources Research 35:1305–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Graf WL (2001) Damage control: restoring the physical integrity of America’s rivers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graf WL (2006) Downstream hydrologic and geomorphic effects of large dams on American rivers. Geomorphology 79:336–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenfield BK, Davis JA, Fairey R, Roberts C, Crane D, Ichikawa G (2005) Seasonal interannual, and long-term variation in sport fish contamination, San Francisco Bay. Science of the Total Environment 336:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grinnell J (1915) Field notes: mixed: Yosemite region, California, 1915 (summer). Volume 484, Section 2. Archives of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. Grinnell J (1921) Field notes: journal and catalog: Merced and Stanislaus counties, California, 1921. Volume 1323, Section 6. Archives of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  33. Gunderson LH (2000) Ecological resilience—in theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:425–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hankin DG, Reeves GH (1988) Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:834–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harrington JM (1999) California stream bioassessment procedures. California Department of Fish and Game, Water Pollution Control Laboratory, Rancho Cordova, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 4:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  38. Holling CS (1996) Engineering resilience vs. ecological resilience. In: Schulze PC (ed) Engineering within ecological constraints. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 31–43Google Scholar
  39. Hunerlach MP, Rytuba JJ, Alpers CN (1999) Mercury contamination from hydraulic placer-gold mining in the Dutch Flat Mining District, California. Water resources investigations report 99-4018B. US Geological Survey, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Jacobson RB, Galat DL (2008) Design of a naturalized flow regime—an example from the Lower Missouri River, USA. Ecohydrology 1:81–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jungwirth M, Muhar S, Schmutz S (2002) Re-establishing and assessing ecological integrity in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47:867–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Karr JR, Dudley DR (1981) Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Karr JR, Fausch KD, Angermeier PL, Yant PR, Schlosser IJ (1986) Assessing biological integrity in running waters—a method and its rationale. Special Publication 5. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  44. Karrenberg S, Edwards PJ, Kollmann J (2002) The life history of Salicaceae living in the active zone of floodplains. Freshwater Biology 47:733–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Katibah EF (1984) A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California. In: Warner RE, Hendrix KM (eds) California Riparian Systems: ecology, conservation, and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp 23–29Google Scholar
  46. Kershner JL (1997) Monitoring and adaptive management. In: Williams JE, Wood CA, Dombeck MP (eds) Watershed restoration: principles and practice. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp 116–131Google Scholar
  47. Kondolf GM (2001) Historical change to the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed: implications for ecosystem restoration. In: Nijland HJ and Cals MJR (eds) River restoration in europe: practical approaches—proceedings of the conference on river restoration, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2000. Institute for Inland Water Management and Waster Water Treatment / RIZA, Lelystad pp 327–338Google Scholar
  48. Kondolf, GM, Minear T, McBain S, Krause A, Falzone A and Lutrick E (2006) Gravel augmentation to improve salmonid habitat in rivers: general geomorphic considerations and experiences from northern California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed ScienceGoogle Scholar
  49. Kondolf GM, Micheli ER (1995) Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environmental Management 19:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kondolf GM, Wolman MG (1993) The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water Resources Research 29:2275–2285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kondolf GM, Vick JC, Ramirez TM (1996) Salmon spawning habitat rehabilitation on the Merced River, California: an evaluation of project planning and performance. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:899–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kondolf GM, Smeltzer MW, Railsback S (2001) Design and performance of a channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel-bed stream. Environmental Management 28:761–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kondolf GM, Anderson S, Lave R, Pagano L, Merelander A, Bernhardt ES (2007) Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn? Restoration Ecology 15:516–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lisle TE, Eads RE (1991) Methods to measure sedimentation of spawning gravels. USDA Forest Service Research, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Note PSW-411, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  55. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB (2001) Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecological Applications 11:530–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McCain M, Fuller D, Decker L, Overton K (1990) Stream habitat classification and inventory procedures for Northern California. FHR currents, vol 1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  57. McCuddin ME (1977) Survival of salmon and trout embryos and fry in gravel-sand mixtures, unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, IDGoogle Scholar
  58. McHenry ML, Pess GR (2008) An overview of monitoring options for assessing the response of salmonids and their aquatic ecosystems in the Elwha River following dam removal. Northwest Science 82:29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Montgomery DR, Macdonald LH (2002) Diagnostic approach to stream channel assessment and monitoring. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Montgomery DR, Grant GE, Sullivan K (1995) Watershed analysis as a framework for implementing ecosystem management. Water Resources Bulletin 31:369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Muhar S, Schmutz S, Jungwirth M (1995) River restoration concepts—goals and perspectives. Hydrobiologica 303:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mulder BS, Noon B, Spies T, Raphael M, Palmer C, Olsen A, Reeves G, Welsh H (1999) The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the northwest forest plan. General technical report PNW-GTR-437. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  63. National Research Council (NRC) (1992) Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology and public policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  64. Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Parker G (1990) Surface-based bedload transport relation for gravel rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Research, ASCE 28:417–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Power ME, Dietrich WE, Sullivan KO (1998) Experimentation, observation, and inference in river and watershed investigations. In: Resetarits WJ Jr, Bernardo J (eds) Experimental ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp 113–132Google Scholar
  67. Ralph CJ, Geupel GR, Pyle P, Martin TE, DeSante DF (1993) Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-144. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  68. RHJV (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture) (2004) The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. Version 2.0 California Partners in Flight. www.prbo.org/CPIF/Riparian/Riparian.html
  69. Rhoads BL, Herricks EE (1996) Naturalization of headwater streams in Illinois: challenges and possibilities. In: Brookes A, Shields FD Jr (eds) River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable projects. Wiley, Chichester, England, pp 331–367Google Scholar
  70. Rhoads BL, Wilson D, Urban M, Herricks EE (1999) Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environmental Management 24:297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rhoads BL, Garcia MH, Rodriguez J, Bombardelli F, Abad J, Daniels M (2008) Methods for evaluating the geomorphological performance of naturalized rivers: examples from the Chicago metropolitan area. In: Sear DA, Darby SE (eds) Uncertainty in river restoration. Wiley, Chichester, England, pp 209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rood SB, Braatne JH, Hughes FMR (2003) Ecophysiology of riparian cottonwoods: stream flow dependency, water relations and restoration. Tree Physiology 23:1113–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rosgen DL (1996) Applied river morphology. Wildlife Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, COGoogle Scholar
  74. Schwartz JS, Herricks EE (2007) Evaluation of pool-riffle naturalization structures on habitat complexity and the fish community in an urban Illinois stream. River Research and Applications 23:451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Simon A, Doyle M, Kondolf GM, Shields FD Jr, Rhoads BL, McPhillips M (2007) Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen classification and associated “natural channel design” methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Skinner KS, Shields FD Jr, Harrison S (2008) Measures of success: uncertainty and defining the outcomes of river restoration schemes. In: Darby SE, Sear AD (eds) River restoration: managing the uncertainty in restoring physical habitat. Wiley, Chichester, England, pp 187–208Google Scholar
  77. Smith EP (2002) BACI Design. In: El-Shaarawi AH, Piegorsch WW (eds) Encyclopedia of environmetrics, vol 1. Wiley, Chichester, England, pp 141–148Google Scholar
  78. Smith SM, Prestegaard KL (2005) Hydraulic performance of a morphology-based stream channel design. Water Resources Research 41, W11413. doi: 10.1029/2004WR003926
  79. Soar PJ, Thorne CR (2001) Channel restoration design for meandering rivers. Coastal and hydraulics laboratory ERDC/CHL CR-01-1. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  80. SRAC (Sacramento River Advisory Council) (2000) Sacramento river conservation area handbook. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  81. Stella JC, Vick J, Orr BK (2003) Riparian vegetation dynamics on the Merced River. In: Faber P (ed) California riparian systems: processes and floodplain management, ecology, and restoration. 2001 Riparian habitat and floodplain conference proceedings. The Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA, pp 301–314Google Scholar
  82. Stella JC, Battles JJ, Orr BK, McBride JR (2006) Synchrony of seed dispersal, hydrology and local climate in a semi-arid river reach in California. Ecosystems 9:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stewart-Oaten A, Bence JR (2001) Temporal and spatial variation in environmental impact assessment. Ecological Monographs 71(2):305–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stillwater Sciences (2002) Merced River corridor restoration plan. California Bay-Delta Authority Ecosystem Restoration Program, Sacramento, CA. http://www.stillwatersci.com/case_studies.php?cid=18
  85. Stillwater Sciences (2006) Baseline monitoring of the Merced River Dredger Tailings Reach. California Bay-Delta Authority Ecosystem Restoration Program, Sacramento, CA. http://merced.stillwatersci.com
  86. Tagart JV (1976) The survival from egg deposition to emergence of coho salmon in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington, unpublished MS thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  87. Thompson K (1961) Riparian forests of the Sacramento Valley, California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 51:294–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Underwood AJ (1996) On beyond BACI. Sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. In: Schmitt RJ, Osenberg CW (eds) Detecting ecological impacts. Concepts and applications in coastal habitats. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 151–175Google Scholar
  89. URS Corporation (2004) Hydraulic model of the Merced River Dredger Tailings Reach. California Bay-Delta Authority Ecosystem Restoration Program, Sacramento, CA. http://merced.stillwatersci.com
  90. Vaghti MG, Greco SE (2007) Riparian vegetation of the Great Valley. In: Barbour M, Keeler-Wolf T, Major J (eds) Terrestrial vegetation of California, 3rd edn. The University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  91. Vannote RL, Minshall GM, Cummins KW, Sidel JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Vick JC (1995) Habitat rehabilitation in the lower Merced River: a geomorphological perspective. Unpublished MS thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  93. Wade RJ, Rhoads BL, Newell MD, Wilson D, Garcia M, Herricks EE (2002) Integrating science and technology to support stream naturalization near Chicago, Illinois. Journal of American Water Resources Association 38:931–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Walters C (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. MacMillan, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  95. Walters C, Korman J (1999) Cross-scale modeling of riparian ecosystem responses to hydrologic management. Ecosystems 2:411–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Whitlow TH, Bahre CJ (1984) Plant succession on Merced River dredge spoils. In: Warner RE, Hendrix KM (eds) California Riparian Systems: biology, conservation, and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp 68–74Google Scholar
  97. Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf GM, MacDonnell L, Merritt DM, Palmer MA, Poff NL, Tarbuoton D (2005) River restoration. Water Resources Research 41:W10301. doi: 10.1029/2005WR003985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wolman GM (1954) A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 35:951–956Google Scholar
  99. Wolman MG, Miller JP (1960) Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes. Journal of Geology 68:54–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Woodward A, Schreiner EG, Crain P, Brenkman SJ, Happe P, Acker SA, Hawkins-Hoffman C (2008) Conceptual models for research and monitoring of Elwha dam removal—management perspective. Northwest Science 82:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter W. Downs
    • 1
  • Maia S. Singer
    • 2
  • Bruce K. Orr
    • 2
  • Zooey E. Diggory
    • 2
  • Tamara C. Church
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Geography, Earth & Environmental SciencesUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  2. 2.Stillwater SciencesBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental PlanningUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations