Abstract
New Zealand (NZ) has a diversity of large river ecosystems that provide essential ecosystem services but are impaired by multiple ecological impacts. River restoration is an active field worldwide and there is good potential for river restoration practitioners in NZ to draw on lessons from elsewhere, although there is also a need to tailor approaches to national and local contexts. Here, we provide a critical review of large floodplain river restoration to guide environmental management in NZ and inform research and management priorities. The review is structured using a driver-pressure-state-impact-response framework, with a focus on responses, i.e. large river restoration methods. Thirty-one river restoration methods aligned with 14 broad restoration goals were evaluated collaboratively and semi-quantitatively. Evaluation outcomes are presented to inform regional and national scale restoration planning. Recommendations were identified to address eight key knowledge or policy gaps: (1) understanding cumulative impacts facing large river systems, (2) prioritising restoration measures at the landscape-scale, (3) promoting lateral connectivity in large river floodplains, (4) incorporating knowledge of geomorphology into river management, (5) enhancing understanding of cultural priorities and community aspirations, (6) assessing how costs and benefits of river restoration vary among timescales, (7) understanding the feasibility of restoration methods that have received limited application in NZ and (8) improving protection of threatened native fish species.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Large rivers and their floodplains provide essential ecosystem services that support a diversity of life and have allowed human civilisations to prosper on fertile alluvial soils (Postel and Carpenter 1997; Schindler et al. 2014). Globally, aquatic ecosystems face multiple stressors that degrade ecological services (Dudgeon et al. 2006; Vörösmarty et al. 2010; Arthington et al. 2016; Reid et al. 2019). Large rivers and their floodplains are particularly threatened, reflecting their status as focal points for human development, as well as lowland receptors for upstream changes to water quality and quantity (Tockner et al. 2008). For example, only 37% of rivers > 1000-km-long remain free-flowing over their entire length (Grill et al. 2019) and most large rivers in North America, Europe, Africa and Australasia are ‘strongly affected’ by flow regulation (Nilsson et al. 2005). In recent decades, there have been notable ecological improvements in some large rivers in areas such as western Europe (e.g. Lamouroux et al. 2015). However, the rate at which stressors are causing adverse changes is increasing among large rivers in general, requiring increasingly urgent action to avoid crossing resilience thresholds and facing ecosystem collapse (Best 2019; Best and Darby 2020). The applied science of river restoration has emerged to address ecological degradation in rivers worldwide and involves human interventions to river channels, riparian zones, floodplains and inflows that are designed to enhance hydrological and biogeochemical processes, and restore environmental elements that have been degraded (Wohl et al. 2005, 2015).
New Zealand (NZ) is an environmentally diverse island country, 268,000 km2 in area, with the two largest islands spanning subtropical and temperate zones (34–47°S; Fig. 1). Prominent mountain ranges are present in the centres of the North Island (maximum elevation = 2797 m) and South Island (maximum elevation = 3764 m) that strongly influence climate and headwater characteristics (Winterbourn et al. 1981; Snelder and Biggs 2002). Annual rainfall varies from < 600 mm for parts of the east coast to > 4000 mm on the west coast of the South Island (NIWA 2012). Dominant land uses by area are pastoral grassland (39%), indigenous forest (23%) and exotic forest (7%), whereas urban areas account for only ~ 1% of the land area (Landcare Research 2020).
There are 27 large river systems in NZ (Fig. 1, Table 1) classified as stream order 7 or greater (Johnson et al. 1995), based on the 2010 NZ River Environment Classification (Snelder et al. 2010). Here, we expand our focus to include 6th order rivers to reflect that these larger medium-sized rivers include numerous nationally important waterways with large floodplains and important socio-ecological values. Rivers with order ≥ 6 comprise ~ 9000 river km (Table 1) and vary substantially with geology and land cover (Table 2). Dominant geologies underlying medium-large river systems include hard sedimentary (47%), which characterises many southern and central South Island rivers such as central reaches of the Clutha River (8th order). Volcanic acidic geology (25%) characterises central North Island rivers such as the upper reaches of the Waikato River (8th order), whereas alluvial geology (7%) characterises the lower reaches of many braided rivers, such as the Rakaia River (7th order) and the Waitaki River (8th order) on the east coast of the South Island. Land adjacent to large rivers comprises a higher proportion of pastoral land cover (50%) and a lower proportion of indigenous forest (23%; Table 2) than in NZ generally, reflecting the lowland setting of large rivers.
As is the case for developed regions generally, lotic ecosystems face considerable pressures in NZ, and there is growing demand there for enhanced restoration to support adaption to environmental change and address degraded ecological values (Gluckman 2017; Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ 2020). Proponents of enhanced restoration include indigenous Māori, who highlight ongoing impacts of freshwater degradation to their traditional values and ability to enact traditional customary practices (Te Aho 2019; Stewart-Harawira 2020). The increasing emphasis on river restoration in NZ reflects greater awareness of the fundamental importance of freshwater and its protection; this is a component of Te Mana o te Wai, which was recently adopted as a concept that underpins national freshwater management policy (Ministry for the Environment 2020).
There is extensive experience of undertaking river restoration in developed northern temperate regions (e.g. see reviews by Wohl et al. (2005, 2015)) but examples of large river restoration projects and associated literature are more limited for ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere. While river restoration is an active field in NZ (e.g. Caruso 2006), restoration projects have tended to focus on smaller rivers or upland areas, and there is a need for greater focus on the restoration of large floodplain rivers, albeit with a catchment-scale (mountains to the sea) perspective. Designing and implementing appropriate restoration actions for large rivers is particularly challenging due to multiple interacting stressors (Wohl et al. 2015), stakeholders with conflicting viewpoints or aspirations (McLain and Lee 1996), constraints imposed by upstream flow regulation (Palmer and Ruhi 2019), the requirement to undertake habitat restoration across large areas (Schmutz et al. 2014), the importance of considering socio-economic aspects in densely populated lowland floodplains (Woolsey et al. 2007) and challenges in measuring success (Palmer et al. 2005). When planning large river restoration projects in NZ, there are benefits to drawing on lessons learned elsewhere, but there is uncertainty about how transferable approaches used overseas are to catchments in NZ with different physical, sociocultural and ecological contexts. While larger rivers in NZ have much in common with other rivers at similar latitudes, there are several unique or unusual biophysical and sociocultural characteristics within or among classes of NZ rivers. These features mean it is appropriate to screen or adapt restoration methods developed and applied elsewhere before applying them in NZ. Key biophysical and sociocultural characteristics of NZ rivers are discussed in the Supplementary Information, summarised as follows:
-
Morphologically, NZ’s island status and physical geography limit the maximum size of lowland rivers relative to continental regions such as mainland Europe or North America.
-
Ecologically, NZ has a unique fish fauna characterised by high levels of endemism, particularly among non-migratory species (McDowall 2010). Over one-third of NZ’s native fish species are diadromous, i.e. they have a life history that involves migration between marine and freshwater environments (McDowall 1998). Life history characteristics of native NZ fishes generally differ from those of fish species in the northern hemisphere and require careful consideration during restoration planning.
-
Māori are the indigenous people of NZ and recognising values of tangata whenua (people of the land connected to a place through ancestral linkages; Harmsworth et al. 2016) and associated traditional perspectives is critical for freshwater management in NZ (Brierley et al. 2019; Ministry for the Environment 2020). Integration of indigenous knowledge can enhance river restoration projects (Fox et al. 2017; Collier 2017), and acknowledging and respecting the value that indigenous worldviews and knowledge bring, and integrating socio-ecological values into river restoration, are imperative for restoration practitioners in NZ and elsewhere (Pingram et al. 2019). Such integration needs to consider local contexts (Collier 2017) and the potential for co-governance and co-management arrangements to support recognition of Māori rights and interests (Fisher and Parsons 2020).
-
Land development and related pressures on aquatic ecosystems have increased in NZ since European colonisation in the mid-1800s and have therefore occurred relatively recently when compared to temperate regions in the northern hemisphere (King 2003). This has led to commonalities in land development pressures throughout NZ catchments (discussed further below).
Multiple studies have evaluated river restoration methods either generally or with focus on regions in the northern hemisphere (e.g. Buijse et al. 2002; Bernhardt et al. 2005; Wohl et al. 2005, 2015; Lamouroux et al. 2015; Mondal and Patel 2018; Erős et al. 2019; Palmer and Ruhi 2019). Considering the above, there is need for a critical review of large floodplain river restoration to guide environmental management in NZ and to inform the strategic direction of research nationally. Accordingly, this review addresses the following research questions in a NZ context:
-
1)
What are the main threats to the ecological values of large floodplain rivers?
-
2)
What methods are available to restore large floodplain rivers?
-
3)
What is the potential for restoration methods to enhance large floodplain river ecosystems?
-
4)
What are key research priorities to support improved river restoration outcomes?
Methods
The review focuses on larger medium-sized and large rivers, defined as rivers with stream order ≥ 6 (Johnson et al. 1995), although much information is relevant to smaller rivers. Furthermore, the review focuses on mainstem and adjacent floodplain habitats in large rivers, rather than smaller tributaries in upland areas; this reflects the key research gap identified, although we recognise that successful river restoration requires a catchment-scale approach (Fausch et al. 2002; Wohl et al. 2005).
This review is structured based on a driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) framework, which is an effective way to present information to support environmental management and decision-making (OECD 2003; Ness et al. 2010; Tscherning et al. 2012). This suitability of the DPSIR framework applies to floodplain river management (Schindler et al. 2016), for which the DPSIR framework is well-suited for parsing the complex causal interactions that apply to large river catchments. All components of the DPSIR framework were reviewed, although the focus here is on responses, i.e. methods to restore large floodplain rivers in NZ. Consequently, detailed information about other components of the DPSIR framework is presented in Supplementary Information. All applicable river types were considered, although we attempted to identify whether responses were more relevant to certain river types. Braided rivers were included in the review; however, we recognise that braided rivers have distinctive physical and ecological characteristics that can warrant unique management approaches (Piégay et al. 2006) and this review is not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of braided river restoration.
Literature concerning drivers, pressures, states, and impacts was first compiled and reviewed (research question 1). Key river restoration methods were then identified based on the literature (Bernhardt et al. 2005; Hornung et al. 2019) to address research question 2. Next, evaluation criteria were developed by researchers with experience of ecological restoration in NZ. These criteria were then used to evaluate river restoration methods to assess the potential for each approach to address the impacts identified (research question 3). Evaluation was undertaken at a workshop in December 2020 attended by 11 scientists and environmental managers who have experience of freshwater restoration and are predominantly affiliated with academic and government organisations in NZ (see author list and acknowledgements). Relative costs and the timescale to achieve benefits were also assessed for individual methods. Discussions at the workshop led to identification of key uncertainties and research priorities (research question 4).
Results and discussion
Drivers: root causes of impacts
Drivers are the social, economic or environmental developments that exert pressures on the environment (Tscherning et al. 2012) and may therefore be considered the root causes of ecological impacts (Fig. 2). Key drivers of ecological changes to large floodplain rivers are agricultural intensification (including changing land cover to agricultural land), climate change, flood protection, hydropower, invasion of non-indigenous species, and urbanisation (Joy and Death 2013; Matthaei and Piggott 2019; Collier et al. 2019), as described in Table S1.
Pressures: mechanisms that cause impacts
Matthaei and Piggott (2019) identify the following key pressures to rivers in NZ: water contaminants; changes to flow regimes associated with abstraction, climate change, urbanisation or flow regulation; competition by non-indigenous species with native biota; and warming of rivers. In addition, floodplain disconnection is a major pressure in large lowland rivers generally (Tockner et al. 2010), affecting several large rivers in NZ due to riverbank modifications, drainage or channel alterations caused by sand extraction (e.g. Collier et al. 2019). Changes to sediment supply can have major effects on geomorphology, particularly in association with dam construction, which reduces coarse sediment supply and can lead to bed armouring and channel incision downstream (Tonkin and Death 2014). Fish passage obstruction due to impoundments such as dams, weirs or floodgates is also a pressure in many NZ river catchments (Allibone 1999). Key pressures (Fig. 2) are described further in Table S2.
Pressures can interact in synergistic, additive or antagonistic ways. In NZ, such interactions have not been widely studied for large floodplain rivers (but see Collier et al. 2019), although work undertaken in streams has highlighted the potential for interactions between water contaminants and increased water temperatures to affect invertebrate and periphyton communities in complex ways, with synergistic interactions possible (Piggott et al. 2012, 2015). For large rivers in the North Island such as the Waikato River, water contaminants and climate change are expected to interact synergistically to enhance the colonisation of invasive fish species such as cyprinids and Gambusia affinis that are tolerant of poor water quality and increased water temperatures (Collier et al. 2015; Pingram et al. 2021).
States: ecosystem services provided by large floodplain rivers
Ecosystem services can be defined as the goods and services provided by natural ecosystems to sustain human life (Daily 1997). In the context of the DPSIR framework, ‘states’ can be defined in different ways (e.g. Ness et al. 2010); however, for this review, we contend that states can be considered to be the quality of the ecosystem services that large floodplain rivers provide.
Large floodplain rivers provide a range of ecosystem services that can be broadly grouped into three categories: (1) provisioning, (2) regulating and maintenance and (3) cultural services (Schindler et al. 2014). Key ecosystem services provided by large floodplain rivers in NZ (Fig. 2) are described in Table S3, which focuses on the services that are generally most associated with large rivers and are often the focus of restoration. Large rivers provide other ecosystem services such as maintenance of soil quality and atmospheric regulation (Schindler et al. 2014); these are generally sensitive to similar pressures as the values listed, and they may be enhanced by common restoration approaches. Ecosystem services are aligned with the three broad categories listed above, although some services align with two categories, e.g. mahinga kai—defined as traditional resource harvesting (Phillips et al. 2016) and freshwater species traditionally used as food or another resource (Ministry for the Environment 2020)—provides nutrition (a provisioning service), as well as fulfills social, cultural and spiritual needs (a cultural service) (King et al. 2013).
Impacts: effects to large floodplain river ecosystems
There is wide variability in the extent to which ecological services provided by large floodplain river ecosystems in NZ have been affected by pressures. Numerous large rivers such as the Buller (7th order) and Rakaia are renowned for their ‘wild and scenic’ characteristics, protected by statutory Water Conservation Orders that are designed to preserve their ‘outstanding’ status (Hughey et al. 2014). By contrast, other rivers have suffered extensive ecological degradation due to multiple pressures, as is particularly the case for several rivers in the North Island such as the Whanganui and the Waikato (Gluckman 2017; Brierley et al. 2019; Collier et al. 2019). Despite this variability, to some degree all large rivers in NZ face a common set of key impacts (Fig. 2), described in Table S4: loss of biodiversity, water quality decline, reduced production of mahinga kai species, increased flood risk, loss of spiritual values, loss of recreational opportunities and reduced scenic values.
The interactions between pressures and impacts to aquatic ecosystems are particularly well-researched in NZ (Matthaei and Piggott 2019). Notably, there have been several studies that describe the decline in endemic freshwater fish abundance and distribution (e.g. Weeks et al. 2016; Joy et al. 2019), as well as trends in river water quality (e.g. Ballantine and Davies-Colley 2014; Larned et al. 2016). Nonetheless, there are several key uncertainties, especially in relation to how impacts to large rivers compare with impacts to other freshwater ecosystems. Furthermore, there has been limited study of cumulative impacts on NZ rivers, including the potential for impacts to interact to undermine the resilience of large river ecosystems, as well as to initiate regime shifts that result in accelerated decline in ecosystem services (Tockner et al. 2010; Angeler et al. 2014; Grantham et al. 2019). These gaps partly reflect shortcomings in understanding reference (natural baseline) conditions in medium–large NZ rivers, as well as gaps in understanding of the causal links between land use/land change and ecological impacts (Larned et al. 2020).
Responses: large floodplain river restoration methods
In total, 31 restoration methods were identified, aligned with 14 restoration goals (Fig. 2; Table 3). For each method, NZ context and examples were discussed and identified during workshop discussions (Table 3). Key themes of these discussions included:
-
The unique importance to freshwater management in NZ of the concept of Te Mana o te Wai, which refers to restoring and protecting the integrity of water (Te Aho 2019), and is a fundamental concept that underpins national policy (Ministry for the Environment 2020);
-
The importance of considering how the function of a river restoration project changes through time, recognising that a floodplain is a time-dependent concept (Junk et al. 1989), and floodplains continue to respond to historical changes. Certain restoration actions can provide short-term benefits but they can also ‘fossilise’ morphology and prevent geomorphic changes necessary for floodplain functioning (Biron et al. 2014). A pertinent example is riparian planting, which has long been promoted as a stream restoration tool in NZ (e.g. McKergow et al. 2016), but can be incompatible with the need to leave space for lateral channel migration in floodplains (Biron et al. 2014) in areas where introduced willow (Salix spp.) and poplar (Populus spp.) species are used, which are superior to native riparian vegetation for stabilising river banks (Phillips and Daly 2008). The need for wide riparian buffers and more natural floodways is now being considered for floodplain management in regions such as Wellington (Death 2018);
-
Increasing severity of flooding in NZ due to climate change (Table S1) necessitates river restoration projects that increase lateral connectivity to provide greater floodwater storage, while also providing ecological enhancements (Hutchings et al. 2019);
-
The fundamental importance of providing ‘room for the river’ to support effective floodplain functioning has been established internationally (e.g. Buffin-Bélanger et al. 2015) and there are multiple examples in NZ of river restoration projects that increase lateral connectivity (Table 3). Nonetheless, the importance of promoting lateral connectivity has not been well recognised in NZ river management policy. Managing coordination among multiple landowners and stakeholders in large river floodplains can be a challenge to enhancing lateral connectivity, e.g. as experienced in systems such as the lower Rakaia River. However, this challenge is not unique to NZ (e.g. Hand et al. 2018).
The potential for each restoration method to address key impacts (Table S4) was qualitatively assessed as either ‘no potential’, ‘low to moderate’ or ‘high’. River restoration methods were then further evaluated based on six criteria (Table 4) that encompassed effectiveness, achievability and sustainability. The potential for implementation to be hindered by socio-political impediments was considered (criterion A2; Table 4) but criteria to evaluate social or cultural benefits of river restoration methods were not included, although social (Druschke and Hychka 2015) and cultural (see above) aspects are nonetheless critical considerations to ensure successful restoration outcomes. These issues were not included in the scope of evaluation because it was recognised that social and cultural considerations and priorities can vary widely among projects and are not necessarily specific to restoration methods. Furthermore, there was uncertainty regarding cultural priorities, reflecting a knowledge gap among workshop attendees. For each method, overall confidence in the evaluation scores was also assessed to help identify knowledge gaps.
Expected outcomes and evaluation scores varied among restoration methods, as summarised in Table 5, which provides a reference for NZ river restoration practitioners (individual scores are reported in Table S5). Some restoration methods (e.g. wastewater treatment plants) address a narrow range of impacts, whereas others (e.g. wetland creation) address multiple impacts (Table 5); clearly, the performance and scope of restoration methods are important to consider during restoration planning. Furthermore, cost and the timescale to achieve benefits were identified as crucial considerations as summarised in Fig. 3, which provides an additional tool to support NZ river restoration practitioners in identifying appropriate restoration methods.
Given that all large river systems in NZ face a range of impacts, Table 5 highlights that a suite of restoration methods is generally required to achieve multiple objectives. When planning restoration at the catchment scale, factors such as spatial scale, economic cost, timescales of restoration trajectories, sustainability, expected benefits and sociocultural values need to be strategically evaluated to ensure successful and enduring outcomes. Detailed spatial planning and analysis are therefore required to optimise where and when restoration actions are implemented. To this end, it was identified that there is a need to enhance large river restoration planning in NZ by considering tools developed and successfully applied elsewhere to screen the suitability of restoration action and guide strategic planning (Guida et al. 2015, 2016; Remo et al. 2017). Outputs from such tools can potentially inform participatory processes that allow managers, tangata whenua and stakeholders to explore trade-offs among potentially conflicting objectives, such as restoring ecosystem services and protecting assets from floods (Halbe et al. 2018).
Conclusion
This review has described drivers, pressures, states, impacts and responses relevant to large floodplain river restoration in NZ (Fig. 2). As such, this review can inform regional and national scale restoration planning by clarifying the key threats to the ecological values of large floodplain rivers in NZ (Research Question 1), as well as identifying restoration methods available to restore large floodplain rivers (Research Question 2), aligned with 14 broad restoration goals (Table 3, Fig. 2). The potential for restoration methods to enhance large floodplain river ecosystems in NZ (Research Question 3) varies depending on the impacts facing a catchment (Table 5), and there are marked differences among methods in the potential for landscape scale and transformative benefits to occur, as well as the timescale and response trajectory to achieve improvements (Fig. 3). The variability among restoration methods in factors such as scope and timescales, as well as the crucial importance of recognising sociocultural values (Harmsworth and Awatere 2013), underline the well-established importance of adopting a catchment-based approach to restoration planning (Fausch et al. 2002; Wohl et al. 2005). Outcomes of our evaluation (Table 5, Fig. 3) are intended to support catchment-scale restoration planning, potentially supported by applying spatial planning tools such as those developed in NZ (e.g. spatial conservation prioritisation software applied by West et al. 2019) or elsewhere (e.g. Erős and Bányai 2020) to inform decision-making. We expect therefore that our research can directly inform work by river restoration practitioners in NZ. We also hope our work can benefit practitioners in other jurisdictions, including regions such as temperate areas in South America, Australia and British Columbia (Canada) that share commonalities with NZ such as a rapid yet relatively recent history of land development, rich indigenous cultures, prevalence of diadromy among fish communities and dependence on hydroelectric power.
This work has highlighted several gaps or shortcomings that could be addressed with research or new policy to improve river restoration outcomes (research question 3). Broadly, we identified 11 recommendations to address the following eight key knowledge or policy gaps: (1) understanding cumulative impacts facing large river systems, (2) prioritising restoration measures at the landscape-scale, (3) promoting lateral connectivity in large river floodplains, (4) incorporating knowledge of geomorphology into river management policy, (5) enhancing understanding of cultural priorities and community aspirations, (6) assessing how costs and benefits of river restoration vary among timescales, (7) understanding the feasibility of restoration methods that have received limited application in NZ and (8) improving protection of threatened native fish species (Table 6). Recommendations and research priorities (Table 6) are intended to provide direction for researchers and policy makers, although they are not intended to be exhaustive. In particular, the recommendations and research priorities identified here reflect the experiences and worldviews of workshop participants. Although we sought to include experts with a breadth of experience, we recognise that participants’ backgrounds were grounded in conventional science and there are major benefits to better including Indigenous knowledge systems into river restoration (Harmsworth et al. 2016; Fox et al. 2017; Wilkinson et al. 2020). We also recognise that we predominantly focused on fish and aquatic ecology, reflecting the authors’ experience; however, additional research that further evaluates restoration from the perspective of other important aspects of biodiversity such as wildfowl and riparian flora is important.
References
Allibone RM (1999) Impoundment and introductions: their impacts on native fish of the upper Waipori River, New Zealand. J R Soc New Zeal 29:291–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014223.1999.9517598
Angeler DG, Allen CR, Birgé HE, Drakare S, McKie BG, Johnson RK (2014) Assessing and managing freshwater ecosystems vulnerable to environmental change. Ambio 43:113–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0566-z
Arthington AH, Dulvy NK, Gladstone W, Winfield IJ (2016) Fish conservation in freshwater and marine realms: status, threats and management. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 26:838–857. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2712
Baillie BR, Hicks BJ, van den Heuvel MR, Kimberley MO, Hogg ID (2013) The effects of wood on stream habitat and native fish assemblages in New Zealand. Ecol Freshw Fish 22:553–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12055
Ballantine DJ, Davies-Colley RJ (2014) Water quality trends in New Zealand rivers: 1989–2009. Environ Monit Assess 186:1939–1950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3508-5
Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K et al (2005) Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308(80):636–637. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109769
Best J (2019) Anthropogenic stresses on the world’s big rivers. Nat Geosci 12:7–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0262-x
Best J, Darby SE (2020) The pace of human-induced change in large rivers: stresses, resilience, and vulnerability to extreme events. One Earth 2:510–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.021
Biggs BJF, Ibbitt RP, Jowett IG (2008) Determination of flow regimes for protection of in-river values in New Zealand: an overview. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 8:17–29. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10104-009-0002-3
Biron PM, Buffin-Belanger T, Larocque M, Choné G, Cloutier C-A et al (2014) Freedom space for rivers: a sustainable management approach to enhance river resilience. Environ Manage 54:1056–1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0366-z
Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA (2005) Geomorphology and river management: applications of the river styles framework. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford
Brierley G, Tadaki M, Hikuroa D, Blue B, Šunde C, Tunnicliffe J, Salmond A (2019) A geomorphic perspective on the rights of the river in Aotearoa New Zealand. River Res Appl 35(10):1640–1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3343
Buffin-Bélanger T, Biron PM, Larocque M, Demers S, Olson T, Choné G, Ouellet MA, Cloutier CA, Desjarlais C, Eyquem J (2015) Freedom space for rivers: an economically viable river management concept in a changing climate. Geomorphology 251:137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.05.013
Buijse AD, Coops H, Staras M, Jans LH, Van Geest GJ, Grift RE, Ibelings BW, Oosterberg W, Roozen FCJM (2002) Restoration strategies for river floodplains along large lowland rivers in Europe. Freshw Biol 47:889–907. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00915.x
Caruso BS (2006) Project River Recovery: Restoration of braided gravel-bed river habitat in New Zealand’s high country. Environ Manage 37:840–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-3103-9
Collares-Pereira MJ, Cowx IG (2004) The role of catchment scale environmental management in freshwater fish conservation. Fish Manag Ecol 11:303–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2004.00392.x
Collier KJ (2017) Editorial: Measuring river restoration success: are we missing the boat? Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 27:572–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2802
Collier KJ, Baker C, David BO, Górski K, Pingram MA (2019) Linking ecological science with management outcomes on New Zealand’s longest river. River Res Appl 35:476–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3181
Collier KJ, Leathwick J, Ling N, Rowe D (2015) Determining invasion risk for non-indigenous fish. In: New Zealand Invasive Fish Management Handbook. ake Ecosystem Restoration New Zealand (LERNZ; The University of Waikato) and Department of Conservation, Hamilton, New Zealand, pp 137–153
Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C
David BO, Closs GP (2003) Seasonal variation in diel activity and microhabitat use of an endemic New Zealand stream-dwelling galaxiid fish. Freshw Biol 48:1765–1781. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01127.x
David BO, Hamer MP (2012) Remediation of a perched stream culvert with ropes improves fish passage. Mar Freshw Res 63:440–449. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF11245
David BO, Özkundakci D, Pingram M, Bergin D, Bergin M (2018) “The CarP-N neutral Project”: Removal, processing and reuse of invasive fish in local terrestrial conservation projects. J Appl Ecol 55:1567–1574. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13155
Death R (2018) Buffer management– benefits and risks. Palmerston North, NZ
Department of Conservation (2010) River of life - explore the ecology of braided rivers in the Mackenzie Basin. Christchurch, NZ
Druschke CG, Hychka KC (2015) Manager perspectives on communication and public engagement in ecological restoration project success. Ecol Soc 20
Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z-I, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
Erős T, Bányai Z (2020) Sparing and sharing land for maintaining the multifunctionality of large floodplain rivers. Sci Total Environ 728:138441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138441
Erős T, Kuehne L, Dolezsai A, Sommerwerk N, Wolter C (2019) A systematic review of assessment and conservation management in large floodplain rivers – actions postponed. Ecol Indic 98:453–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.026
Failing L, Gregory R, Higgins P (2013) Science, uncertainty, and values in ecological restoration: a case study in structured decision-making and adaptive management. Restor Ecol 21:422–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00919.x
Fausch KD, Torgersen CE, Baxter CV, Li HW (2002) Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes: a continuous view of the river is needed to understand how processes interacting among scales set the context for stream fishes and their habitat. Bioscience 52:483–498. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0483:LTRBTG]2.0.CO;2
Fisher K, Parsons M (2020) River co-governance and co-management in Aotearoa New Zealand: enabling indigenous ways of knowing and being. Transnatl Environ Law 9:455–480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S204710252000028X
Fox CA, Reo NJ, Turner DA, Cook J, Dituri F et al (2017) “The river is us; the river is in our veins”: re-defining river restoration in three Indigenous communities. Sustain Sci 12:521–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0421-1
Franklin PA, Bartels B (2012) Restoring connectivity for migratory native fish in a New Zealand stream: effectiveness of retrofitting a pipe culvert. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 22:489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2232
Franklin PA, Hodges M (2015) Modified tide gate management for enhancing instream habitat for native fish upstream of the saline limit. Ecol Eng 81:233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.04.004
Ginders MA, Collier KJ, Duggan IC, Hamilton DP (2016a) Influence of hydrological connectivity on plankton communities in natural and reconstructed side-arms of a large New Zealand river. River Res Appl 32:1675–1686. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3008
Ginders MA, Collier KJ, Hamilton DP (2016b) Spatial and temporal changes in water quality along natural and restored side-arms of a large New Zealand river. Freshw Biol 61:411–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12716
Gluckman P (2017) New Zealand’s fresh waters: values, state, trends and human impacts. Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Auckland
Grantham TE, Matthews JH, Bledsoe BP (2019) Shifting currents: managing freshwater systems for ecological resilience in a changing climate. Water Secur 8:100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2019.100049
Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (2012) Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester
Grill G, Lehner B, Thieme M, Geenen B, Tickner D (2019) Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569:215–221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9
Guida RJ, Swanson TL, Remo JWF, Kiss T (2015) Strategic floodplain reconnection for the Lower Tisza River, Hungary: opportunities for flood-height reduction and floodplain-wetland reconnection. J Hydrol 521:274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.11.080
Guida RJ, Remo JWF, Secchi S (2016) Tradeoffs of strategically reconnecting rivers to their floodplains: the case of the Lower Illinois River (USA). Sci Total Environ 572:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.190
Halbe J, Knüppe K, Knieper C, Pahl-Wostl C (2018) Towards an integrated flood management approach to address trade-offs between ecosystem services: insights from the Dutch and German Rhine, Hungarian Tisza, and Chinese Yangtze basins. J Hydrol 559:984–994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.001
Hand BK, Flint CG, Frissell CA, Muhlfeld CC, Devlin SP, Kennedy BP, Crabtree RL, McKee WA, Luikart G, Stanford JA (2018) A social–ecological perspective for riverscape management in the Columbia River Basin. Front Ecol Environ 16:S23–S33. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1752
Harmsworth GR, Awatere S (2013) Indigenous Māori knowledge and perspectives of ecosystems. Ecosystem services in New Zealand - Conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, pp 274–286
Harmsworth G, Awatere S, Robb M (2016) Indigenous Māori values and perspectives to inform freshwater management in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Ecol Soc 21.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08804-210409
Hornung LK, Podschun SA, Pusch M (2019) Linking ecosystem services and measures in river and floodplain management. Ecosyst People 15:214–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1656287
Hughey KFD, Rennie HG, Williams NJ (2014) New Zealand’s ‘wild and scenic rivers’: geographical aspects of 30 years of water conservation orders. N Z Geog 70:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/nzg.12037
Hutchings J, Williams J, Lawson L (2019) Central government co-investment in river management for flood protection: critical adaptation to climate change for a more resilient New Zealand. Report prepared for the New Zealand Government. 59 p.
Johnson BL, Richardson WB, Naimo TJ (1995) Past, present, and future concepts in large river ecology: how rivers function and how human activities influence river processes. Bioscience 45:134–141. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312552
Jones HF, Hamilton DP (2014) Assessment of the Waikato River estuary and delta for whitebait habitat management: field survey, GIS modelling and hydrodynamic modelling. TR 2014/35 and Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton, New Zealand
Joy MK, Death RG (2013) Freshwater biodiversity. In: Dymond J (ed) Ecosystem services in New Zealand - Conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, pp 448–459
Joy MK, Foote KJ, McNie P, Piria M (2019) Decline in New Zealand’s freshwater fish fauna: effect of land use. Mar Freshw Res 70:114–124. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF18028
Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 106:110–127
King M (2003) The Penguin history of New Zealand. Penguin, Auckland
King NJ, Lake RJ, Kerr GN (2013) Wild foods. Ecosystem services in New Zealand - Conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, pp 387–399
Kopf RK, Finlayson CM, Humphries P, Sims NC, Hladyz S (2015) Anthropocene Baselines: Assessing Change and Managing Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Aquatic Ecosystems. BioScience 65(8):798–811. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv092
Lamouroux N, Gore JA, Lepori F, Statzner B (2015) The ecological restoration of large rivers needs science-based, predictive tools meeting public expectations: an overview of the Rhône project. Freshw Biol 60:1069–1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12553
Landcare Research (2020) Land Cover Database version 5.0, Mainland New Zealand. Class cover summary
Larned ST, Snelder T, Unwin MJ, McBride GB (2016) Water quality in New Zealand rivers: current state and trends. New Zeal J Mar Freshw Res 50:389–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2016.1150309
Larned ST, Moores J, Gadd J, Baille B, Schallenberg M (2020) Evidence for the effects of land use on freshwater ecosystems in New Zealand. New Zeal J Mar Freshw Res 54:551–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2019.1695634
Martin DM, Mazzotta M, Bousquin J (2018) Combining ecosystem services assessment with structured decision making to support ecological restoration planning. Environ Manage 62:608–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1038-1
Matthaei CD, Piggott JJ (2019) Chapter 13 - multiple stressors in Australia and New Zealand: key stressors and interactions. In: Sabater S, Elosegi A, Ludwig RBT-MS in RE (eds). Elsevier, pp 221–233
McDonald AE (2007) Improving the success of a translocation of black mudfish (Neochanna diversus). University of Waikato
McDowall RM (1998) Driven by diadromy: its role in the historical and ecological biogeography of the New Zealand freshwater fish fauna. Ital J Zool 65:73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/11250009809386799
McDowall RM (2010) New Zealand freshwater fishes: an historical and ecological biogeography. Springer Science and Business Media
McKergow LA, Matheson FE, Quinn JM (2016) Riparian management: a restoration tool for New Zealand streams. Ecol Manag Restor 17:218–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12232
McLain RJ, Lee RG (1996) Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environ Manage 20:437–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01474647
Ministry for the Environment, Stats NZ (2020) New Zealand’s environmental reporting series: our freshwater 2020
Ministry for the Environment (2020) National Policy Statement for freshwater management 2020. August 2020. 70 pages
Miskelly CM (2016) Legal protection of New Zealand’s indigenous aquatic fauna – an historical review. Tuhinga 27:81–115
Mondal S, Patel PP (2018) Examining the utility of river restoration approaches for flood mitigation and channel stability enhancement: a recent review. Environ Earth Sci 77:195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7381-y
Ness B, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2010) Structuring problems in sustainability science: the multi-level DPSIR framework. Geoforum 41:479–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.005
Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science (80-) 308:405–408. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107887
NIWA (2012) New Zealand median annual rainfall 1981–2010. Accessed 5 June 2020
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) (2003) OECD Environmental indicators development measurement and use. OECD reference paper, p 37
Palmer M, Ruhi A (2019) Linkages between flow regime, biota, and ecosystem processes: implications for river restoration. Science 365:eaaw2087. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2087
Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G et al (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol 42:208–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x
Parsons M, Nalau J, Fisher K, Brown C (2019) Disrupting path dependency: making room for Indigenous knowledge in river management. Glob Environ Chang 56:95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.008
Phillips C, Jackson A-M, Hakopa H (2016) Creation narratives of mahinga kai. Mai J 5:63–75. https://doi.org/10.20507/MAIJournal.2016.5.1.5
Phillips C, Daly C (2008) Use of willows and natives for stream bank control in New Zealand: a survey of regional councils. Motueka Integrated Catchment Management (Motueka ICM) Programme Report Series 2009.01. Lincoln, New Zealand
Phillips C, Marden M (2006) Use of plants for ground bioengineering and erosion and sediment control in New Zealand. In: Proceedings of “Soil water. Too good to lose”. Joint Annual Conference NSW Stormwater Industry Association and the International Erosion Control Association. Lincoln, NZ
Piégay H, Grant G, Nakamura F, Trustrum N (2006) Braided river management: from assessment of river behaviour to improved sustainable development. In: Jarvis I, Sambrook Smith GH, Best JL, et al. (eds) Braided Rivers, pp 257–275
Piggott JJ, Lange K, Townsend CR, Matthaei CD (2012) Multiple stressors in agricultural streams: a mesocosm study of interactions among raised water temperature, sediment addition and nutrient enrichment. PLoS One 7:e49873. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049873
Piggott JJ, Salis RK, Lear G, Townsend CR, Matthaei CD (2015) Climate warming and agricultural stressors interact to determine stream periphyton community composition. Glob Chang Biol 21:206–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12661
Pingram M, Price J, Thoms M (2019) Integrating multiple aquatic values: perspectives and a collaborative future for river science. River Res Appl 35:1607–1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3562
Pingram MA, Collier KJ, Williams AK, David BO, Garrett-Walker J et al (2021) Surviving invasion: regaining native fish resilience following fish invasions in a modified floodplain landscape. Water Resour Res 57:e2020WR029513. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029513
Postel S, Carpenter S (1997) Freshwater ecosystem services. Nature’s Services - Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C., pp 195–214
Pranjoto S, Orgian S, Tate D (2017) Anzac Cliffs –geotechnical aspects of cliff stabilisation works. In: Proceedings of the 20th New Zealand Geotechnical Society Symposium
Rayne A, Byrnes G, Collier-Robinson Ngāi Tahu Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, Ngāti Porou, Levi NA ki te rā tō, et al (2020) Centring Indigenous knowledge systems to re-imagine conservation translocations. People Nat 2:512–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10126
Rebergen AL, Woolmore CB (2015) Project River Recovery Strategic Plan 2012–2019. Twizel, NZ
Reid AJ, Carlson AK, Creed IF, Eliason EJ, Gell PA, Johnson PTJ, Kidd KA, MacCormack TJ, Olden JD, Ormerod SJ, Smol JP, Taylor WW, Tockner K, Vermaire JC, Dudgeon D, Cooke SJ (2019) Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol Rev 94:849–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12480
Remo JWF, Guida RJ, Secchi S (2017) Screening the suitability of levee protected areas for strategic floodplain reconnection along the LaGrange segment of the Illinois River, USA. River Res Appl 33:863–878. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3055
Robinson JM, Gellie N, MacCarthy D, Mills JG, O'Donnell K, Redvers N (2021) Traditional ecological knowledge in restoration ecology: a call to listen deeply, to engage with, and respect Indigenous voices. Restor Ecol 29(4):e13381. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13381
Schindler S, Sebesvari Z, Damm C, Euller K, Mauerhofer V et al (2014) Multifunctionality of floodplain landscapes: relating management options to ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 29:229–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-9989-y
Schindler S, O’Neill FH, Biró M, Damm C, Gasso V et al (2016) Multifunctional floodplain management and biodiversity effects: a knowledge synthesis for six European countries. Biodivers Conserv 25:1349–1382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1129-3
Schmutz S, Kremser H, Melcher A. Jungwirth M, Muhar S, Waidbacher H, Zauner G (2014) Ecological effects of rehabilitation measures at the Austrian Danube: a meta-analysis of fish assemblages. Hydrobiologia 729:49–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1511-z
Smith P (2009) Genetic principles for freshwater restoration in New Zealand. New Zeal J Mar Freshw Res - N Z J MAR Freshw RES 43:749–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330909510039
Snelder TH, Biggs BJF (2002) Multiscale river environment classification for water resources management. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 38:1225–1239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb04344.x.
Snelder TH, Biggs BJF, Woods RA (2005) Improved eco-hydrological classification of rivers. River Res Appl 21:609–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.826
Snelder T, Biggs B, Weatherhead M (2010) New Zealand river environment classification user guide. Wellington, New Zealand
Stewart-Harawira MW (2020) Troubled waters: Maori values and ethics for freshwater management and New Zealand’s fresh water crisis. Wires Water 7:e1464. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1464
Te Aho L (2019) Te Mana o te Wai: an indigenous perspective on rivers and river management. River Res Appl 35:1615–1621. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3365
Tempero GW, Hicks BJ, Ling N, Morgan D, Daniel AJ, Özkundakci D, David B (2019) Fish community responses to invasive fish removal and installation of an exclusion barrier at Lake Ohinewai, Waikato. New Zeal J Mar Freshw Res 53:397–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2019.1579101
Tockner K, Bunn SE, Gordon C, Naiman RJ, Quinn GP et al (2008) Flood plains: critically threatened ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems. Trends and Global Prospects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 45–61
Tockner K, Pusch M, Borchardt D, Lorang MS (2010) Multiple stressors in coupled river–floodplain ecosystems. Freshw Biol 55:135–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02371.x
Tonkin JD, Death RG (2014) The combined effects of flow regulation and an artificial flow release on a regulated river. River Res Appl 30:329–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2650
Tscherning K, Helming K, Krippner B, Sieber S, Paloma SGy (2012) Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making? Land Use Policy 29:102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.009
Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Reidy Liermann C, Davies PM (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467:555–561. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09440
Watson AS, Hickford MJH, Schiel DR (2021) Freshwater reserves for fisheries conservation and enhancement of a widespread migratory fish. J Appl Ecol 58:2135–2145. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13967
Weeks ES, Death RG, Foote K, Anderson-Lederer R, Joy MK, Boyce P (2016) Conservation Science Statement. The demise of New Zealand’s freshwater flora and fauna: a forgotten treasure. Pacific Conserv Biol 22:110–115. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC15038
West DT, Moore RD (2020) Influences of upstream reservoir stratification and downstream tidal fluctuations on the summer thermal regime of a regulated coastal river. Hydrol Process 34:4660–4674. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13906
West DW, Leathwick JR, Dean-Speirs TL (2019) Approaches to the selection of a network of freshwater ecosystems within New Zealand for conservation. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 29:1574–1586. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3060
Wheeler N, Pingram M, David B, Marson W, Tunnicliffe J, et al. (2022) River adjustments, geomorphic sensitivity and management implications in the Waipā catchment. Aotearoa New Zealand Geomorph 410:108263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2022.108263
Wilkinson C, Hikuroa DCH, Macfarlane AH, Hughes MW (2020) Mātauranga Māori in geomorphology: existing frameworks, case studies, and recommendations for incorporating Indigenous knowledge in Earth science. Earth Surf Dynam 8:595–618. https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-8-595-2020
Winterbourn MJ, Rounick JS, Cowie B (1981) Are New Zealand stream ecosystems really different? New Zeal J Mar Freshw Res 15:321–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1981.9515927
Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf M, MacDonnell L, Merritt DM, Palmer MA, Poff NL, Tarboton D (2005) River restoration. Water Resour Res 41(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR003985
Wohl E, Lane SN, Wilcox AC (2015) The science and practice of river restoration. Water Resour Res 51:5974–5997. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016874
Woolsey S, Capelli F, Gonser T, Hoehn E, Hostmann M, Junker B, Paetzold A, Roulier C, Schweizer S, Tiegs SD, Tockner K, Weber C, Peter A (2007) A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshw Biol 52:752–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01740.x
Acknowledgements
Kevin Collier participated in the workshop and we are grateful for his insights. We thank an anonymous reviewer for providing constructive comments.
Funding
This review was funded by Waikato Regional Council (New Zealand).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by James D. Ford
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Abell, J.M., Pingram, M.A., Özkundakci, D. et al. Large floodplain river restoration in New Zealand: synthesis and critical evaluation to inform restoration planning and research. Reg Environ Change 23, 18 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01995-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01995-z