Social success of in-stream habitat improvement: from fisheries enhancement to the delivery of multiple ecosystem services

Copy igh © 2016 by he au ho (s). Published he e unde license by he Resilience Alliance. Ma ila, M., K. Kyllönen, and T. P. Ka jalainen. 2016. Social success o in-s eam habi a imp o emen : om ishe ies enhancemen o he deli e y o mul iple ecosys em se ices. Ecology and Socie y 21(1):4. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.5751/ES-08118-210104 Resea ch, pa o a Special Fea u e on Ecological Res o a ion, Ecosys em Se ices, and Land Use Social success o in-s eam habi a imp o emen : om ishe ies enhancemen o he deli e y o mul iple ecosys em se ices Maa e Ma ila 1,2, Ki si Kyllönen 3 and Timo P. Ka jalainen 4 ABSTRACT. S eam es o a ion o en aims o enhance ishe ies by imp o ing s eam condi ions o a ge ish species. Howe e , i e es o a ion has a po en ial impac on a a ie y o ecosys em se ices. Among s akeholde s, he eme ging expec a ions abou es o a ion a ain di e en p io i ies. How well hese expec a ions a e me in luences social pe cep ions o success o ailu e. Al hough public suppo o es o a ion is known o ha e a signi ican impac on he sus ainabili y and o e all success o es o a ion, social aspec s a e a ely conside ed in his con ex . To add ess hese issues, we conduc ed a ques ionnai e s udy among he esiden s and ishe men o h ee ecen ly es o ed i e s in Finland. Resul s indica e ha bo h use g oups highly suppo ed he es o a ion goals, bu hey we e no always sa is ied wi h he es o a ion ou comes. The changes in landscape alue and ameni y and ish p o isioning had he highes in luence on he use g oups’ a i udes. Res o a ion-induced changes in ecosys em se ices showed clea a ia ion be ween he di e en loca ions, bu he di e ences in he pe cep ions o he wo use g oups we e less e iden . Compa ing pe cep ions be ween he use g oups and loca ions and applying he ecosys em se ices app oach a e a no el con ibu ion o he deba e on es o a ion success. Ou s udy highligh s he impo ance o pe spec i e, social-ecological con ex , and adequa e communica ion o success. Key Wo ds: bene i s; cul u al alue; e alua ion; pe cep ion su eys; public sa is ac ion; es o a ion; i e INTRODUCTION In ecen yea s, ecological- es o a ion schola s ha e accep ed he idea o conside ing s akeholde sa is ac ion as pa o he e alua ion o es o a ion success (Woolsey e al. 2007, Shackel o d e al. 2013). Fo example, Palme e al. (2005) ha e sugges ed ha ecological, s akeholde , and lea ning success o m he main co ne s ones o e ec i e i e es o a ion. Despi e inc easing in e es , ecosys em se ices and o he socioeconomic ou comes ha e a ely been iden i ied in his con ex , limi ing ou unde s anding o he ull bene i s and cos s o ecological es o a ion (Acuña e al. 2013, Wo ley e al. 2013). Res o a ion is a alue-d i en p ocess in which di e en expec a ions abou he es o ed ecosys ems p o ide he socie al amewo k o he es o a ion p ojec (Bliss and Fische 2011). Socioeconomic d i e s o en mo i a e he decision o s a he es o a ion p ojec (Hagen e al. 2013). Acco ding o he social- ecological sys ems app oach (e.g., Os om 2009), he suppo o s akeholde s and he e icacy o he socioeconomic and poli ical se ings a e also e lec ed in he ini ial success and long- e m sus ainabili y o es o a ion (Naiman 2013, Pe u sdo i e al. 2013, Me cal e al. 2015). To unde s and he easons o he (non) accep ance o a es o a ion p ojec , i is c ucial o examine public iews (Buijs 2009) and o conside he commonali ies and di e si y o local expe iences (Connelly e al. 2002, Schaich 2009, Ba hélémy and A mani 2015). The ecosys em se ices app oach p o ides a ool o acknowledge wha es o ed ecosys ems can deli e o humans (Schul z e al. 2012, De G oo e al. 2013). In addi ion o a ange o ecosys em unc ions, i e s p o ide a ious social bene i s, such as a anspo medium o ou is a ac ions, ha ing hus a high en i onmen al and social alue (Pe ni e al. 2012, Che e al. 2014). The deg ada ion o i e ecosys ems has in luenced he in e ac ions be ween people and na u e, and as a esul , he ecosys em goods and se ices ha a e p o ided by i e s o socie y ha e declined o e ime (De G oo e al. 2013, Gil ea e al. 2013). Ideally, es o a ion can imp o e bo h ecosys em heal h and impo an se ices (Gole e al. 2006, Rey Benayas e al. 2009, Åbe g and Tapsell 2013). Howe e , many o hese po en ial bene i s and hei alue o socie y a e gene ally igno ed, la gely because he scien i ic e idence base o hese bene i s is o en lacking (A onson e al. 2010, Gil ea e al. 2013). S eam es o a ion may enhance biodi e si y, biodi e si y’s in insic alues, and he sus ainable use o aqua ic and ipa ian ecosys ems by eco e ing ecosys em se ices. Al hough e idence o ecological bene i s is o en lacking, socioeconomic s udies indica e ha changes in imma e ial se ices (e.g., aes he ics, sounds, scene y, and landscape) ha e been pe cei ed as success ul (Jähnig e al. 2011, Åbe g and Tapsell 2013). Na u alized i e ecosys ems a e p e e ed and ound mo e a ac i e o he aes he ic ou come, which may in u n inc ease he cul u al alue o he i e by a ec ing use g oups’ a i udes and ac ions (Junke and Buchecke 2008, Seidl and S au ache 2013, Åbe g and Tapsell 2013). This s udy iden i ies he possible e ec s o s eam es o a ion on i e ecosys em se ices and use g oups’ sa is ac ion. We compa ed he pe cep ions o es o a ion ou comes be ween local esiden s and ec ea ional ishe men on h ee ecen ly es o ed i e s in No he n Finland. To ou knowledge, such compa isons ha e no been conduc ed unde he ecosys em se ices app oach, pa icula ly in i e ecosys ems. In Finland, s eam es o a ion has ocused on main channels and ibu a ies ha we e channelized o acili a e imbe loa ing, mainly be ween he la e 19 h cen u y and mid-20 h cen u y. Since he 1970s, imbe loa ing was g adually abandoned, and e o s o es o e s eams close o hei na u al s a e we e ini ia ed (Y jänä 1998). A p ima y goal o he es o a ion e o s has been o enhance ishing oppo uni ies by ec ea ing he s eam habi a , especially o salmonid ishes. A numbe o s udies e alua ing he ecological and hyd omo phological es o a ion success ha e been ca ied ou (e.g,. Vehanen e al. 2010, Ma ila e al. 2015), bu 1Na u al Resou ces Ins i u e Finland (Luke), Managemen and P oduc ion o Renewable Resou ces, 2Uni e si y o Oulu, Depa men o Ecology, 3Uni e si y o Oulu, Thule Ins i u e, 4Uni e si y o Oulu, Wa e Resou ces and En i onmen al Enginee ing Resea ch G oup E a um: This pape was o iginally published wi h a da e o 2015, he e o was co ec ed on 18 Janua y 2016. Ecology and Socie y 21(1): 4 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol21/iss1/a 4/ he sys ema ic e alua ion o social, cul u al, and economic aspec s is gene ally lacking in his con ex . Thus a , how he di e en use s o i e s pe cei e he success o es o a ion and he changes in ecosys em se ices is la gely unknown. The e o e, ou s udy ocused on he ollowing ques ions: (1) Which ecosys em se ices a e impac ed h ough s eam es o a ion? (2) How do changes in hese se ices a ec gene al sa is ac ion and i e use? (3) Does he deg ee o sa is ac ion and pe cep ion o changes a y be ween use g oups and s udy i e s? METHODS S udy si es Ou s udy i e s, Kiiminkijoki (170 km in leng h; 65°19 N, 25°30 E), Kos onjoki (35 km; 65°57 N, 28°18 E), and Simojoki (193 km; 65°62 N, 25°04 E) a e loca ed in he no he n pa o Finland and d ain in o he Gul o Bo hnia (Kos onjoki ia he i e Iijoki). All h ee i e s a e p o ec ed om hyd opowe cons uc ion, bu he i e low in Kos onjoki is egula ed o he use o he hyd opowe s a ions in he i e Iijoki. Al hough he wa e quali y o he i e s is al e ed by inc eased humic subs ances and nu ien loading o igina ing om local land-use p ac ices, he ecological s a us o he i e s is classi ied as good o excellen ( he same s a us gi en in he e alua ions o 2008 and 2014). The i e s a e popula ishing and ec ea ion si es, a ac ing isi o s om a a , and hei na u al and ec ea ional alue is he e o e signi ican . Simojoki is home o one o he wo emaining o iginal and na u ally ep oducing Bal ic salmon (Salmo sala ) s ocks in Finland. In Kiiminkijoki, he na i e Bal ic salmon popula ion was los by he end o he 1970s, and he salmon was la e ein oduced o he i e . The mig a ion o salmonids o Kos onjoki is cu en ly enabled om he ups eam lake a ea bu no om he Bal ic Sea, hus excluding he salmon om he expec ed ca ch. By he la e 1950s, all o he s udy i e s we e channelized o imbe loa ing. Floa ing was ended in he 1960s in Kiiminkijoki and Simojoki and in he la e 1980s in Kos onjoki. Pa o he i e channels and salmonid habi a s we e es o ed in Kiiminkijoki and Simojoki be ween he la e 1970s and he la e 1980s. Mo e comp ehensi e es o a ion was conduc ed on all h ee i e s in he 21s cen u y (Kiiminkijoki 2003-2004, Kos onjoki 2005-2009, and Simojoki 2002-2006) wi h he p ima y aim o imp o e in- s eam habi a condi ions o he salmonid popula ions and he o e all ecological s a e. The es o a ion measu es we e conduc ed conside ing also canoeing oppo uni ies and local p oblems ela ed o low and ice condi ions. The es o a ion measu es we e implemen ed ai ly ecen ly, allowing us o assume ha he p e es o a ion s a e was well ecalled by he di e en use g oups. The p o ocol o in-s eam habi a es o a ion (Roni e al. 2008) applied on he s udy i e s includes e u ning la ge boulde s and spawning g a el o he s eam channel and eopening he side channels. As a esul , channel and hyd aulic complexi y, channel wid h, and mean wa e dep hs will gene ally inc ease, whe eas low eloci ies will dec ease (Ma ila e al. 2015). These changes a e expec ed o inc ease species di e si y and he p oduc ion o he a ge ish species. Al hough in-s eam es o a ions ha e gene ally o e looked he ipa ian ecosys ems and he i e landscape (Nilsson e al. 2005), hei e ec s on ecosys em se ice deli e y each a beyond he s eam banks. The biological esponses o s eam es o a ion ha e been la gely a iable (Luh a e al. 2012, Nilsson e al. 2015) o ha e shown li le e idence o ecological success (Louhi e al. 2011). Fo example, he sho - e m e alua ion o es o a ion success on he i e Kiiminkijoki showed no esponse o one-yea -old salmon o es o a ion. A signi ican inc ease in he amoun o sui able habi a s unde summe condi ions was obse ed, bu he imp o emen o o e win e ing habi a s was only ma ginal (Koljonen e al. 2012). De ailed biological su eys wi h a longe imescale ha e been conduc ed on ou s udy i e s, bu he analyses o hese da a ha e no been comple ed, and he alida ion o he ques ionnai e da a by biological esul s was no possible in his pape . The e o e, he s udy elies la gely on iews o he s akeholde s, which may o some ex en be inconsis en wi h he esul s conce ning ecological success. Ques ionnai e The opinions o he ishe men and esiden s on he es o a ion e ec s we e in es iga ed by conduc ing a ques ionnai e s udy in 2013-2014. An in o ma i e pos ca d encou aging he ecipien o pa icipa e in an In e ne su ey (Ha a a empla e, © Dimen eq Oy, h ps://www.eha a a. i/en/) was sen o all ishe men ( o al 1462) ha had bough a ishing licence in 2013 o one o ou s udy i e s. A sample o esiden s ( o al 719) was compiled by i s ou lining all he p ope ies in close p oximi y o he es o ed i e sec ions; maximum dis ance om a s udy s eam was 150 m and maximum dis ance om any es o ed i e sec ion 5 was km. Nex , all o he add esses a Kos onjoki, whose o al popula ion was smalle han ha a he wo o he i e s, and e e y hi d one a Kiiminkijoki and Simojoki ecei ed a pos al su ey. Bo h use g oups we e in o med ha hey could answe ei he on pape o ia he In e ne . They we e eminded abou he su ey wo weeks a e he i s ound. O all sen ques ionnai es, he ishe men e u ned 26% and he esiden s e u ned 42% (Table 1; ishe men n = 380, esiden s n = 302). Table 1. Sen and e u ned ques ionnai es, including he achie ed e u n a e om he h ee s udy i e s. The be o e-a e g oups include esponden s who knew abou he es o a ions and had li ed nea o isi ed he i e be o e he es o a ions. Kiiminki Kos o Simo To al Fishe men Sen 735 166 561 1462 Re u ned (%) 199 (27) 70 (42) 111 (20) 380 (26) Be o e-a e (%) 51 (26) 57 (79) 41 (37) 149 (39) Residen s Sen 465 46 208 719 Re u ned (%) 167 (37) 25 (54) 110 (53) 302 (42) Be o e-a e (%) 73 (44) 22 (88) 77 (70) 172 (57) In he ques ionnai e, we used a combina ion o ixed-choice and open ques ions. The ques ions o he ishe men ocused mainly on es o a ion-induced changes in ishing habi s, oppo uni ies, and he ca ch, and o he esiden s on he changes in a ious social and ecosys em unc ions and ec ea ional oppo uni ies. We c ea ed a block o s a emen s measu ing pe cei ed change in, o example, he s eam ecosys em, ec ea ion, landscape aes he ics, and he a ac i eness o he i e a e he es o a ion; Ecology and Socie y 21(1): 4 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol21/iss1/a 4/ Table 2. Fac o s e ealed in he ac o analysis, pe cen ages o explained a iance, and loadings o he s a emen s on o he ac o s. Ecosys em se ices we e de i ed om he ac o s o he wo use g oups sepa a ely. Fac o s % o a iance S a emen s Loadings Fishe men 1. Landscape alue and ameni y 37.4 Ri e landscape has become mo e na u al 0.759 Ri e landscape has become mo e beau i ul 0.842 Ri e sounds ha e become mo e pleasan 0.656 2. Fish p o isioning 8.6 Fish communi y has become mo e di e se 0.779 Valuable ish species ha e become mo e abundan 0.699 3. Habi a s uc u al di e si y 7.2 Dep h a iabili y is app op ia e 0.646 The amoun o boulde s is app op ia e 0.594 Boulde s a e well placed 0.666 4. Fishe ies oppo uni ies 6.6 The e is a p ope amoun o spinning and ly- ishing spo s 0.708 Sui abili y o ishing has imp o ed 0.793 Residen s 1. Landscape alue and ameni y 41.0 The amoun o boulde s is app op ia e 0.650 Boulde s a e well placed 0.565 Residen ial ameni y has inc eased 0.504 Ri e has become mo e a ac i e 0.520 Ri e landscape has become mo e na u al 0.802 Ri e landscape has become mo e beau i ul 0.873 Ri e sounds ha e become mo e pleasan 0.565 Ri e and i s su oundings ha e become mo e sui able o ou doo ac i i ies 0.604 Fishing oppo uni ies ha e imp o ed 0.558 2. Fish p o isioning 8.9 Fish communi y has become mo e di e se 0.736 Fish s ocks ha e inc eased 0.884 3. T a el on wa e 7.2 Wa e le els ha e imp o ed also du ing summe low- low condi ions 0.503 Boa ing hasn' become mo e di icul 0.655 Canoeing has become mo e in e es ing 0.635 4. Ri e ice p ocesses 5.7 Fo ma ion o ice jams du ing he ice b eak up hasn' inc eased 0.629 Fo ma ion o azil ice hasn' inc eased 0.596 he e we e 24 s a emen s o esiden s and 18 o ishe men. The esponden s had o answe hese s a emen s using a i e-poin Like scale anging om comple ely ag ee o comple ely disag ee. Da a analysis The da a collec ed by ixed-choice (ques ions and answe choice g ids) ques ions we e analysed using SPSS e sion 21 (IBM, A monk, New Yo k, USA). The ishe men’s and esiden s’ answe s we e analyzed sepa a ely. All s a emen s we e ans o med in o a posi i e o m o enable compa isons be ween he s a emen s. We c ea ed a subsample including he esponden s who knew abou he es o a ions and had li ed nea o isi ed he i e be o e he es o a ions. This g oup was assumed o be able o compa e he condi ion o he i e a ea be o e and a e he es o a ion (Table 1). Gene al sa is ac ion and pe cei ed changes in ec ea ional oppo uni ies and he ishe men’s ca ch we e quan i ied o he g oup be o e and a e . The o he analyses we e conduc ed using he da a om all esponden s. The answe s o he block o s a emen s we e ed in o a ac o analysis (p incipal axis ac o ing me hod using o a ion wi h Va imax wi h Kaise no maliza ion), which e ealed ou ac o s o he esiden s and i e o he ishe men. The i h ac o o he ishe men was excluded om u he analysis because i consis ed o only one a iable. O he ac o s con ained mul iple su ey s a emen s ( a iables) ha had simila pa e ns o esponses. Each ac o was hen associa ed wi h an in e p e able ecosys em se ice acco ding o he a iables clea ly loading on o hem (>0.5 a he o a ion ac o ; Table 2). Mean ac o sco es o he di e en use g oups and s udy i e s we e compu ed o summa ize he pe cei ed changes in he gi en ecosys em se ices. Finally, we classi ied he se ices using he ca ego ies de ined by he Millennium Ecosys em Assessmen (2005) as cul u al, p o isioning, egula ing, and suppo ing se ices. A quali a i e app oach was used o he analysis o he open ques ions. The ansc ibed answe s we e clus e ed by use g oup, s udy i e , and pe cei ed di ec ion o change o inc ease he unde s anding o he easons o he commonali ies and di e ences be ween he esponden g oups. RESULTS A i udes and gene al sa is ac ion The majo i y o he esponden s pe cei ed he s eam es o a ion as ul ima ely impo an o he s eam biology (84% o ishe men, 86% o esiden s), ec ea ional/ ishe ies oppo uni ies (91% o ishe men, 83% o esiden s), and esiden ial ameni y (76% o esiden s). Howe e , hey we e no always sa is ied wi h he es o a ion ou comes (Fig. 1). Mos o he esiden s (76%) and Ecology and Socie y 21(1): 4 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol21/iss1/a 4/ Table 3. Mean ac o sco es o each ecosys em se ice o he h ee s udy i e s and he wo use g oups. The ac o sco es indica e he ela i e posi ion o he esponden ’s pe cep ion on each ac o . Kiiminki Kos o Simo Ca ego y Ecosys em se ice Fishe men Residen s Fishe men Residen s Fishe men Residen s Cul u al Landscape alue and ameni y 0.03 0.1 0.15 0.53 -0.15 -0.27 Cul u al Habi a s uc u al di e si y -0.03 - 0.11 - -0.02 - Cul u al Fishe ies oppo uni ies 0 - -0.05 - 0.04 - Cul u al T a el on wa e - 0.08 - -0.16 - -0.08 P o isioning Fish p o isioning 0.01 0 0.11 0.32 -0.09 -0.07 Regula ing Ri e ice p ocesses - -0.05 - 0.04 - 0.06 ishe men (72%) a he i e Kos onjoki we e sa is ied wi h he es o a ion, whe eas a he i e Simojoki ewe han hal o he ishe men (46%) and only 39% o he esiden s we e sa is ied. A he i e Kiiminkijoki, he esiden s (65%) we e mo e o en sa is ied han he ishe men (51%). Fig. 1. Dis ibu ion o answe s o he s a emen “I am sa is ied wi h he es o a ions,” compa ing he ishe men’s (n = 129) and he esiden s’ (n = 158) pe cep ions abou he h ee s udy i e s. In addi ion o se e al commen s exp essing s ong app o al, some esponden s claimed in he open ques ions ha he es o a ion e ec s emained unclea o we e nega i e. A Simojoki and Kiiminkijoki, many conside ed he in-s eam habi a es o a ions insu icien o imp o e he i e condi ions; hey hough ins ead ha ishing egula ions, wa e quali y, and low egime should be he main conce n. Co espondingly, a Kos onjoki, he s ong egula ion o wa e low and mig a o y obs uc ions on he i e Iijoki we e men ioned. Only i hese p oblems we e i s mi iga ed could in-s eam es o a ion show posi i e esponses in he bio a and e en ually in he ishe men’s ca ch. Some imes dissa is ac ion was ela ed o un es o ed si es, and addi ional es o a ion measu es we e demanded. The e we e also men ions ha local opinions had no been aken in o accoun and ha in o ma ion abou bo h he expec ed and obse ed ou comes had been insu icien . Cul u al se ices The esiden s pe cei ed ha he ec ea ional oppo uni ies had changed ela i ely li le a e he es o a ion, “no change” being he mos common answe o almos all o he gi en ac i i ies (Fig. 2). Mos posi i e changes we e ela ed o enjoying he landscape, bo h isually and au ally, and elaxing and hiking on he i e side. Al hough oppo uni ies o c ay ishing seemed o ha e wo sened a e he es o a ion, in he commen s his was associa ed mainly wi h he land-use impac s and he c ay ish plague. Fig. 2. Changes in ec ea ional oppo uni ies a e he es o a ion ha we e pe cei ed by he esiden s (n = 43-136). Rec ea ional ac i i ies om le o igh a e lis ed om he mos sa is ying changes o he leas sa is ying. The i s se ice de i ed om he ac o analysis explained a signi ican p opo ion o he a ia ion among he su eyed a iables (Table 3). The se ice was deno ed by landscape alue and ameni y o bo h he esiden s and he ishe men (Table 2); a iables included aes he ic appea ance and na u alness, and o he esiden s also he s uc u al di e si y o he i e and he sui abili y o he si e o ec ea ional pu poses. Pe cei ed changes we e he mos posi i e a Kos onjoki and he mos nega i e a Simojoki, bu he di e ence was no as no able among he ishe men as i was among he esiden s. Ecology and Socie y 21(1): 4 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol21/iss1/a 4/ The ishe men pe cei ed ha habi a s uc u al di e si y ( hi d se ice, Table 2) had imp o ed a Kos onjoki, whe eas a Kiiminkijoki and Simojoki he changes we e seen as sligh ly nega i e (Table 3). They saw he changes in he ishe ies oppo uni ies ( ou h se ice, Table 2) as sligh ly posi i e a Simojoki and sligh ly nega i e a Kos onjoki, whe eas he opinions om Kiiminkijoki we e a e agely neu al. The changes in he esiden s’ hi d se ice, a el on wa e , we e seen a e agely as posi i e a Kiiminkijoki bu nega i e a Simojoki and Kos onjoki. Imp o ed na u alness, a ac i eness, and access o he i e we e o en men ioned in he answe s o he open ques ions. Especially, he i e Kiiminkijoki was cu en ly seen o o e good and amily- iendly ec ea ional oppo uni ies, al hough wa e quali y was pa ly hinde ing he use o wa e om Kiiminkijoki and Simojoki. Al hough he es o a ions on all h ee i e s we e gene ally p aised o imp o ing he salmonid habi a s and hei a iabili y, some o he esponden s we e disappoin ed in he cu en appea ance o he es o ed si es in e ms o wa e dep h, low eloci y, and ege a ion. A ew Simojoki esiden s c i icized he changes in he s eam banks and he unna u al appea ance o he apids. These undesi ed changes we e seen as ha m ul o ec ea ional use, ou ism, and ishing. Se e al esiden s s a ed ha boa ing and canoeing had become mo e di icul a e he es o a ion, and hey demanded a clea passage o boa ing. On he o he hand, some esiden s men ioned ha Kiiminkijoki had become mo e a ac i e o canoeing. Inc eased wa e le els we e seen ei he as a posi i e o a nega i e change, depending on he si e. Conce ns abou wa e le els also ex ended o issues beyond he s eam channel and i s es o a ion, such as ongoing land-use p ac ices and possible d inking wa e up ake in he u u e. Many ishe men pe cei ed ishing as being mo e in e es ing a e he es o a ions, and some saw he es o a ion o Kos onjoki as he mos success ul o all es o a ion e o s so a . Some le el o dissa is ac ion was ela ed o ishing du ing he summe low lows. The e we e se e al men ions ha wading had become mo e di icul a e es o a ion because o una ached and la ge boulde s and unexpec edly deep spo s, especially in Kos onjoki, bu also in some apid a eas o Simojoki. A desi e o addi ional es o a ion and he c ea ion o spawning g ounds eme ged among he commen s om Simojoki and Kiiminkijoki. P o isioning se ices Fo bo h he ishe men and he esiden s, he second ac o e ealed in he ac o analysis was ish p o isioning (Table 2). The change in his se ice was pe cei ed as a e agely posi i e a Kos onjoki, somewha neu al a Kiiminkijoki, and nega i e a Simojoki (Table 3). Pe cei ed changes in he ca ch o he h ee mos desi ed ish species a ied highly among he esponden s (Table 4), wi h mo e nega i e changes (28%-37%) han posi i e changes (16%-22%) epo ed. Also, he op ion “no change in he ca ch” was equen ly chosen (one hi d o he esponses). The mos e iden inc ease was epo ed o g ayling (Thymallus hymallus) ca ch a Kos onjoki (41% o he esponses), al hough a nea ly simila pe cen age o ishe men (37%) epo ed no change. On he con a y, hal o he esponden s a Kiiminkijoki and Simojoki pe cei ed ha he g ayling ca ch had dec eased a e he es o a ion. Also, b own ou (Salmo u a) and A lan ic salmon (Salmo sala ) ca ches a Kiiminkijoki and Simojoki we e mo e o en epo ed o ha e dec eased (16%-50% o he esponses) han inc eased (2%-13%), wi h many ishe men (16%-39%) pe cei ing ha he ca ches had emained simila . A Kos onjoki, he pe cei ed change in he b own ou ca ch was as o en posi i e as nega i e (27% o he esponses), whe eas “no change” was he mos equen answe (35%). Table 4. Pe cei ed changes in he ishe men’s ca ch o he h ee mos desi ed ish species a e he es o a ion o he s udy i e s. Kiiminki Kos o Simo To al B own ou (Salmo u a) Inc ease in ca ch % 13 27 3 16 No change % 39 35 16 32 Dec ease in ca ch % 35 27 20 28 No ca ch % 13 11 61 24 N 46 52 31 129 G ayling (Thymallus hymallus) Inc ease in ca ch % 9 41 9 22 No change % 23 37 38 33 Dec ease in ca ch % 49 18 50 37 No ca ch % 19 4 3 8 N 43 54 34 131 A lan ic salmon (Salmo sala ) Inc ease in ca ch % 2 - 9 22 No change % 19 - 38 33 Dec ease in ca ch % 16 - 50 37 No ca ch % 63 - 3 8 N 43 - 34 131 Al hough some esponden s epo ed in he open ques ions an inc eased abundance o aluable ish species, many ishe men, especially a Simojoki, we e disappoin ed in he es o a ion ou comes (no change o nega i e change pe cei ed). Commen s om Kiiminkijoki included an app oxima ely simila amoun o posi i e and nega i e iews. Acco ding o he esponden s a Kos onjoki, g aylings had no only inc eased in amoun bu also in a e age size o indi iduals a e he es o a ion, whe eas he esponden s a Simojoki pe cei ed ha he es o a ion had caused he mos ha m o his species. A common conce n o he ishe men on bo h Kos onjoki and Simojoki was he ish communi y s uc u e wi h an inc eased amoun o pike, pe ch, and oach. This was hough o esul om he dec eased low eloci y ha a o s hese species. On he o he hand, many esponden s pe cei ed ha he es o a ion had imp o ed he salmonid habi a , e en i hey had no seen desi ed changes in he ca ches. These esponden s showed ca e ul op imism and wished o see posi i e esul s some ime in he u u e. Besides he es o a ion, mul iple o he ac o s in luencing he ish p o isioning se ice we e men ioned, including wa e quali y, ishing and p eda o y p essu e, and ish s ockings. Regula ing se ices The ou h se ice e ealed o he esiden s belonged o he egula ing se ices and was ela ed o he o ma ion and agmen a ion p ocesses o i e ice ( i e ice p ocesses, Table 2). Acco ding o he esiden s o Kos onjoki and Simojoki, he es o a ions had no inc eased he o ma ion o azil ice and ice Ecology and Socie y 21(1): 4 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol21/iss1/a 4/ jams du ing he ice b eakup, whe eas a Kiiminkijoki, es o a ion e ec s on ice p ocesses we e conside ed sligh ly nega i e (Table 3). In summa y, he esponden s a Kiiminkijoki pe cei ed he mos posi i e changes in he landscape alue and ameni y se ice, and he mos nega i e changes in habi a s uc u al di e si y ( ishe men) and i e ice p ocesses ( esiden s). Also a Kos onjoki, he mos posi i e changes we e pe cei ed in landscape alue and ameni y, whe eas changes in ishe ies oppo uni ies ( ishe men) and a el on wa e ( esiden s) we e conside ed he mos disappoin ing. By con as , he esponden s o Simojoki pe cei ed he changes in landscape alue and ameni y as he mos nega i e and he changes in ishe ies oppo uni ies ( ishe men) and i e ice p ocesses ( esiden s)as he mos posi i e. DISCUSSION Among he public, di e ing judgmen s o es o a ion success a ise om di e en expec a ions ega ding he ques ion, “Wha is he desi ed end poin o es o a ion?” (Seidl and S au ache 2013). Posi i e o nega i e pe cep ions a e also oo ed in si e- speci ic physical ea u es, managemen and landscape con ex , local his o y o sociona u al in e ac ions, and poli ical and economic issues (Schaich 2009, Ba hélémy and A mani 2015). In his s udy, we compa ed he social pe cep ions be ween he di e en es o a ion si es and use g oups. As expec ed, ou esul s showed clea a iabili y be ween he di e en loca ions (Tuns all e al. 2000, Seidl and S au ache 2013, Ba hélémy and A mani 2015). Howe e , he pe cep ions o es o a ion ou comes we e la gely simila be ween he di e en use g oups, al hough some di e ences we e seen in gene al sa is ac ion. The e is a b oad consensus on he impo ance o public accep ance o long- e m es o a ion success (Naiman 2013, Me cal e al. 2015). I he es o ed si e is highly app o ed, i is likely o be ea ed wi h special ca e o e he long e m (Junke and Buchecke 2008). Simila o ou obse a ions, Connelly e al. (2002) no ed ha ecosys em es o a ion goals a e mo e gene ally app o ed han speci ic es o a ion ac ions. On he o he hand, easie access o he i e , ec ea ional oppo uni ies, and a ac i e scene y and wildli e a e likely o help o econnec people wi h he es o a ion si e (Åbe g and Tapsell 2013). Acco ding o ou analysis, hese a iables played a key ole in c ea ing app o al o nonapp o al a he s udy i e s. We iden i ied a ange o se ices ha we e impac ed by s eam es o a ion, and he esponden s pe cei ed ha landscape alue and ameni y was impac ed he mos . Si e-speci ic a ia ion in his se ice e lec ed he opinions on aes he ic appea ance and na u alness ha a e o en he public’s main c i e ia in judging es o a ion ou comes (Higgs 1997, Tuns all e al. 2000). Radical changes in he i e channel and i s su oundings can cause long- las ing public discon en (Åbe g and Tapsell 2013). Some imes he aes he ics a e also associa ed wi h he ecomo phological quali y o he i e , he sa is ac ion o human needs, and he sui abili y o he si e o ec ea ional pu poses (Junke and Buchecke 2008, Ba hélémy and A mani 2015). The esiden s in ou s udy we e possibly ollowing his logic o a leas saw simila changes in all hese a iables because hey we e included in he i s se ice. E en hough he esiden s did no see much change in he ec ea ional oppo uni ies a e he es o a ion, many o hem hough ha he es o a ion si es we e p o iding mo e enjoymen o he public. The ishe men, ins ead, seemed o cons ue ishe ies oppo uni ies and habi a s uc u al a iabili y mo e independen ly om he i s se ice, and he same was no ed o a el on wa e o he esiden s. The si e-speci ic alues o ishe ies oppo uni ies and a el on wa e we e also inconsis en wi h he gene al sa is ac ion, al hough he impo ance o he se ices was e iden among he esponses. Pe cei ed changes in ish p o isioning seemed o in luence he o e all pe cep ions o es o a ion bene i s (Acuña e al. 2013). Abundance o he a ge ish species may be an indica o o ecological in eg i y, bu i is also seen as a esou ce ha a ec s ishe ies oppo uni ies, he a ac i eness o he i e , and local employmen (Du ou and Piégay 2009, Schul z e al. 2012). The esponden s in ou s udy had no always obse ed imp o emen s in he abundance o he desi ed ish species. In gene al, s udies on ecological success ha e p oduced con lic ing esul s, wi h some sugges ing posi i e e ec s on s eam bio a and o he s e ealing li le o no bene i s o lo ic o ganisms (S ewa e al. 2009). Al hough he pe cep ions o he esponden s a e no di ec measu es o ish abundance and conclusions may be misleading, ou indings may a leas pa ly e lec si e-speci ic di e ences in ecological success. Many esponden s pe cei ed ha i was s ill oo ea ly o judge he es o a ion ou comes. Some o hem we e posi i e ha he abundance o ish and ec ea ional oppo uni ies would inc ease o e a longe pe iod o ime and ha mo e ime was needed o allow he ecosys em o eco e (Tuns all e al. 2000). The imescale o e which es o a ion will imp o e di e en ecosys em se ices may also a y o a g ea ex en . In he sho e m, es o a ion can inc ease he p o ision o some ecosys em se ices while pe haps e en causing damage o some o he s (Gil ea e al. 2013). Fo example, in ou s udy, he newly es o ed sec ions o he i e Kos onjoki we e some imes conside ed oo challenging o e en dange ous om he use s’ pe spec i e, bu ish p o isioning and a ac i eness had imp o ed. Howe e , imp o emen s in hese o he se ices and accumula ion o he bene i s hey p o ide may be achie ed in he long e m (Gil ea e al. 2013). Consequen ly, esiden suppo may also imp o e o e ime (Pu cell e al. 2002, Åbe g and Tapsell 2013). In ou s udy, howe e , he gene al a i udes we e mo e posi i e owa d he mos ecen es o a ion p ojec han owa d p ojec s conduc ed se e al yea s ago. A he i e s Kiiminkijoki and Simojoki, many pe cei ed ha he ou comes o s eam es o a ion emained weak because o ine ec i e ishing egula ions and inadequa e wa e quali y. The e o e, hey demanded la ge scale ac ions, an app oach highly suppo ed by o he s udies (Gole e al. 2006, Be nha d and Palme 2011). Ne e heless, ecological imp o emen s a e di icul o he public o pe cei e (Ba hélémy and A mani 2015), especially in he case o slow-changing a iables (Tu endal and Elmq is 2011). Some imes he s akeholde s may be c i ical o he es o a ion ou comes because o misconcep ions. Fo example, Ga des öm e al. (2014) no ed ha he s akeholde s we e conce ned abou e u ning boulde s in o he s eam channel because hey expec ed wa e o disappea and ishing o become di icul . Thei esul s, as well as hose o many o he s (e.g., Ma ila e al. 2015), ha e shown, howe e , ha es o a ion ypically dec eases low eloci y and inc eases wa e dep h. P o iding in o ma ion on ealis ic expec a ions and he ob ained esul s could help o a oid disappoin men s and o inc ease he Ecology and Socie y 21(1): 4 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol21/iss1/a 4/ unde s anding o ecosys em bene i ajec o ies o e ime (Tuns all e al. 2000, Åbe g and Tapsell 2013). Also, he ele ance o speci ic species o p ocesses needs o be communica ed; i i is no , hei impo ance may emain unde es ima ed among he public. This is likely in he case o nonuse alues and alues ela ed o egula ing and suppo ing se ices ha may bene i human wel a e only indi ec ly (Schul z e al. 2012). T ade-o s be ween ecological goals, ecosys em se ices, compe ing land uses, and unding a e ine i able in es o a ion (Gil ea e al. 2013). Al hough ecological cons ain s se limi s on wha is possible based on he biophysical eali ies, socie al cons ain s se limi s on he possible ex en o es o a ion ac i i ies in e ms o wha is accep able and ealis ically achie able (Mille and Hobbs 2007). Some imes he in e es s and opinions o s akeholde s a e dis inc om he scien is s’ iew o wha would be ecologically jus i ied (Tuns all e al. 2000, Palme 2009). Fo example, sa e y, imp o ed access, and an a ac i e i e side wi h ela ed ec ea ional acili ies we e pe cei ed as impo an es o a ion ou comes in ou su ey. Typically, i e es o a ion aims o es o e a pa icula ecosys em se ice bu mee s socie al p essu e o deli e o he se ices in addi ion (Gil ea e al. 2013). Acco ding o Hobbs e al. (2004:43), i is challenging o ackle all he socie al expec a ions and “a mix o scien i ic unce ain y, alue-laden decisions, and un ealis ic expec a ions can lead o cos ly and demo alizing ailu es.” He e, a alue-based dialogue abou he ade-o s and a clea e alua ion o wha is possible in pa icula cases, and a wha cos s, a e c i ical (Hobbs e al. 2004, Failing e al. 2013). Bliss and Fische (2011) ha e no ed ha success ul ecological es o a ion equi es sound ecological science, bu also an unde s anding o he dynamic in e ac ions among people, as well as be ween people and he landscapes hey inhabi . In eg a ion o social sciences wi h ecological esea ch in he con ex o i e es o a ion is clea ly needed o inc ease he unde s anding o he o e all bene i s wi hin he la ge social-ecological con ex , as well as he e icacy and sus ainabili y o u u e es o a ion p ojec s (Mu z e al. 2013, Naiman 2013, Wo ley e al. 2013). De ailed biological su eys ha e been conduc ed in ou s udy i e s bo h be o e and a e he es o a ion ha oge he wi h his sociological da a will enable he mul idisciplina y e alua ion o s eam es o a ion success in ou u u e s udies. CONCLUSION This s udy aimed o inc ease he unde s anding o social pe spec i es conce ning es o a ion success. The esul s show ha he changes in landscape alues and ish p o isioning had he highes in luence on he use g oups’ a i udes. By analyzing he ecosys em se ices and hei ole in social success, ou s udy helps o iden i y he unde lying easons o suppo and opposi ion ha ecological es o a ion may encoun e . I shows ha he es o a ion ou comes we e no e alua ed sepa a ely om he su ounding landscape and socie y, because opinions abou he es o a ion e ec s on he ecosys em se ices di e ed be ween he i e s. We a gue ha he key ac o s causing hese di e ences a e he ollowing: (1) whe he he expec ed bene i s a e ealis ic in ela ion o he local social-ecological cons ain s, ecosys em bene i ajec o ies, and he spa ial scale o he es o a ion; (2) whe he he social aspec s a e p ope ly conside ed; and (3) how well use g oups a e in o med o he es o a ion e ec s bo h be o e and a e he p ojec ’s implemen a ion. Because o he si e- speci ic pa e ns o social pe cep ions, knowledge ob ained om compa a i e s udies is signi ican o u u e es o a ion e o s because hese s udies highligh he local speciali ies ha need o be ecognized and discussed wi h he s akeholde s. Responses o his a icle can be ead online a : h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/issues/ esponses. php/8118 Acknowledgmen s: We hank all he esponden s, he local ishe y boa ds, and es o a ion au ho i ies a Me sähalli us and he Cen es o Economic De elopmen , T anspo and he En i onmen o Lapland and No he n Os obo hnia o hei con ibu ion o he collec ion o he da a. Special hanks go o Pauliina Bjö k o assis ing wi h he da a. The s udy was suppo ed by he VALUE and Au o a doc o al p og ammes and unded by he Thule Ins i u e/ Uni e si y o Oulu, he Maj and To Nessling Founda ion, he Tauno Tönning Founda ion, he Ol i Founda ion, and he Na u al His o y Socie y o Oulu. LITERATURE CITED Åbe g, E. U., and S. Tapsell. 2013. Re isi ing he Ri e Ske ne: he long- e m social bene i s o i e ehabili a ion. Landscape and U ban Planning 113:94-103. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j. landu bplan.2013.01.009 Acuña, V., J. R. Díez, L. Flo es, M. Meleason, and A. Elosegi. 2013. Does i make economic sense o es o e i e s o hei ecosys em se ices? Jou nal o Applied Ecology 50:988-997. A onson, J., J. N. Blignau , S. J. Mil on, D. Le Mai e, K. J. Esle , A. Limouzin, C. Fon aine, M. P. De Wi , W. Mugido, P. P insloo, L. Van De Els , and N. Lede e . 2010. A e socioeconomic bene i s o es o a ion adequa ely quan i ied? A me a-analysis o ecen pape s (2000-2008) in Res o a ion Ecology and 12 o he scien i ic jou nals. Res o a ion Ecology 18:143-154. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00638.x Ba hélémy, C., and G. A mani. 2015. A compa ison o social p ocesses a h ee si es o he F ench Rhône Ri e subjec ed o ecological es o a ion. F eshwa e Biology 60(6):1208-1220. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/ wb.12531 Be nha d , E. S., and M. A. Palme . 2011. Ri e es o a ion: he uzzy logic o epai ing eaches o e e se ca chmen scale deg ada ion. Ecological Applica ions 21:1926-1931. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.1890/10-1574.1 Bliss, J. C., and A. P. Fische . 2011. Towa d a poli ical ecology o ecosys em es o a ion. Pages 136-14 in D. Egan, E. E. Hje pe, and J. Ab ams, edi o s. Human dimensions o ecological es o a ion. Island P ess, Washing on, D.C., USA. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.5822/978-1-61091-039-2_10 Buijs, A. E. 2009. Public suppo o i e es o a ion. A mixed- me hod s udy in o local esiden s’ suppo o and aming o i e managemen and ecological es o a ion in he Du ch Ecology and Socie y 21(1): 4 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol21/iss1/a 4/ loodplains. Jou nal o En i onmen al Managemen 90:2680-2689. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.jen man.2009.02.006 Che, Y., W. Li, Z. Shang, C. Liu, and K. Yang. 2014. Residen ial p e e ences o i e ne wo k imp o emen : an explo a ion o choice expe imen s in Zhujiajiao, Shanghai, China. En i onmen al Managemen 54:517-530. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1007/s00267-014-0323- x Connelly, N. A., B. A. Knu h, and D. L. Kay. 2002. Public suppo o ecosys em es o a ion in he Hudson Ri e Valley, USA. En i onmen al Managemen 29(4):467-476. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1007/ s00267-001-0033-z De G oo , R. S., J. Blignau , S. Van De Ploeg, J. A onson, T. Elmq is , and J. Fa ley. 2013. Bene i s o in es ing in ecosys em es o a ion. Conse a ion Biology 27:1286-1293. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.1111/cobi.12158 Du ou , S., and H. Piégay. 2009. F om he my h o a los pa adise o a ge ed i e es o a ion: o ge na u al e e ences and ocus on human bene i s. Ri e Resea ch and Applica ions 25:568-581. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1002/ a.1239 Failing, L., R. G ego y, and P. Higgins. 2013. Science, unce ain y, and alues in ecological es o a ion: a case s udy in s uc u ed decision-making and adap i e managemen . Res o a ion Ecology 21:422-430. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00919. x Ga des öm, J., D. Holmq is , L. E. Pol i, and C. Nilsson. 2013. Demons a ion es o a ion measu es in ibu a ies o he Vindel Ri e ca chmen . Ecology and Socie y 18(3):8. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.5751/ES-05609-180308 Gil ea , D. J., C. J. Sp ay, and R. Casas-Mule . 2013. Ri e ehabili a ion o he deli e y o mul iple ecosys em se ices a he i e ne wo k scale. Jou nal o En i onmen al Managemen 126:30-43. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.jen man.2013.03.026 Gole , G. H., M. D. Robe s, E. W. La sen, R. A. Lus e , R. Unge , G. We ne , and G. G. Whi e. 2006. Assessing socie al impac s when planning es o a ion o la ge allu ial i e s: a case s udy o he Sac amen o Ri e p ojec , Cali o nia. En i onmen al Managemen 37(6):862-879. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1007/s00267-004-0167- x Hagen, D., K. S a a sdo i , C. Nilsson, A. K. Tol anen, K. Raulund-Rasmussen, Á. L. A adó i , A. Fosaa, and G. Halldo sson. 2013. Ecological and social dimensions o ecosys em es o a ion in he No dic coun ies. Ecology and Socie y 18(4):34. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.5751/ES-05891-180434 Higgs, E. S. 1997. Wha is good ecological es o a ion? Conse a ion Biology 11:338-348. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1046/ j.1523-1739.1997.95311.x Hobbs, R. J., R. J. Hobbs, M. A. Da is, L. B. Slobodkin, R. T. Lackey, W. Hal o son, and W. Th oop. 2004. Res o a ion ecology: he challenge o social alues and expec a ions. F on ie s in Ecology and he En i onmen 2(1):43-44. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.2307/3868294 Jähnig, S. C., A. W. Lo enz, D. He ing, C. An ons, A. Sunde mann, E. Jedicke, and P. Haase. 2011. Ri e es o a ion success: a ques ion o pe cep ion. Ecological Applica ions 21 (6):2007-2015. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1890/10-0618.1 Junke , B., and M. Buchecke . 2008. Aes he ic p e e ences e sus ecological objec i es in i e es o a ions. Landscape and U ban Planning 85:141-154. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.landu bplan.2007.11.002 Koljonen, S., A. Huusko, A. Mäki-Pe äys, P. Louhi, and T. Muo ka. 2012. Assessing habi a sui abili y o ju enile A lan ic salmon in ela ion o in-s eam es o a ion and discha ge a iabili y. Res o a ion Ecology 21:344-352. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00908.x Louhi, P., H. Myk ä, R. Paa ola, A. Huusko, T. Vehanen, A. Mäki-Pe äys, and T. Muo ka. 2011. Twen y yea s o s eam es o a ion in Finland: li le esponse by ben hic mac oin e eb a e communi ies. Ecological Applica ions 21:1950-1961. h p://dx. doi.o g/10.1890/10-0591.1 Luh a, P.-L., A. Huusko, and P. Louhi. 2012. Re-building b own ou popula ions in d edged bo eal o es s eams: in-s eam es o a ion combined wi h s ocking o young ou . F eshwa e Biology 57:1966-1977. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02850. x Ma ila, M., P. Louhi, A. Huusko, A. Mäki-Pe äys, T. Y jänä, and T. Muo ka. 2015. Long- e m pe o mance o in-s eam es o a ion measu es in bo eal s eams. Ecohyd ology (Ea ly View). h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1002/eco.1634 Me cal , E. C., J. J. Moh , L. Yung, P. Me cal , and D. C aig. 2015. The ole o us in es o a ion success: public engagemen and empo al and spa ial scale in a complex social-ecological sys em. Res o a ion Ecology 23(3):315-324.h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/ ec.12188 h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/ ec.12188 Millennium Ecosys em Assessmen . 2005. Ecosys em and human well-being: gene al syn hesis. Island P ess, Vancou e , B i ish Columbia, Canada. Mille , J. R., and R. J. Hobbs. 2007. Habi a es o a ion—do we know wha we’ e doing? Res o a ion Ecology 15(3):382-390. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00234.x Mu z, M., A. Elosegi, and H. Piégay. 2013. P e ace: physical empla e and i e ecosys em unc ioning: in e disciplina y eedbacks o imp o ing i e s. Hyd obiologia 712:1-4. h p://dx. doi.o g/10.1007/s10750-013-1507-8 Naiman, R. J. 2013. Socio-ecological complexi y and he es o a ion o i e ecosys ems. Inland Wa e s 3:391-410. h p:// dx.doi.o g/10.5268/IW-3.4.667 Nilsson, C., F. Lepo i, B. Malmq is , E. Tö nlund, N. Hje d , J. M. Hel ield, D. Palm, J. Ös e g en, R. Jansson, E. B ännäs, and H. Lundq is . 2005. Fo ecas ing en i onmen al esponses o es o a ion o i e s used as log loa ways: an in e disciplina y challenge. Ecosys ems 8:779-800. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1007/ s10021-005-0030-9 Nilsson, C., L. E. Pol i, J. Ga des öm, E. Maye Hasselquis , L. Lind, and J. M. Sa neel. 2015. Ripa ian and ins eam es o a ion o bo eal s eams and i e s: success o ailu e? Ecohyd ology 8 (5):753-764. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1002/eco.1480 h p://dx.doi. o g/10.1002/eco.1480 Os om, E. 2009. A gene al amewo k o analyzing sus ainabili y o social-ecological sys ems. Science 325:419-422. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1126/science.1172133 Ecology and Socie y 21(1): 4 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol21/iss1/a 4/ Palme , M. A. 2009. Re o ming wa e shed es o a ion: science in need o applica ion and applica ions in need o science. Es ua ies and Coas s 32:1-17. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1007/s12237-008-9129-5 Palme , M. A., E. S. Be nha d , J. D. Allan, P. S. Lake, G. Alexande , S. B ooks, J. Ca , S. Clay on, C. N. Dahm, J. Follas ad-Shah, D. L. Gala , S. G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D. D. Ha , B. Hasse , R. Jenkinson, G. M. Kondol , R. La e, J. L. Meye , T. K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, and E. Suddu h. 2005. S anda ds o ecologically success ul i e es o a ion. Jou nal o Applied Ecology 42:208-217. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004. x Pe ni, Á., J. Ma ínez-Paz, and F. Ma ínez-Ca asco. 2012. Social p e e ences and economic alua ion o wa e quali y and i e es o a ion: he Segu a Ri e , Spain. Wa e and En i onmen Jou nal 26:274-284. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2011.00286. x Pe u sdo i , T., O. A nalds, S. Bake , L. Mon ana ella, and Á. A adó i . 2013. A social-ecological sys em app oach o analyze s akeholde s’ in e ac ions wi hin a la ge-scale angeland es o a ion p og am. Ecology and Socie y 18(2):29. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.5751/ES-05399-180229 Pu cell, A. H., C. F ied ich, and V. H. Resh. 2002. An assessmen o a small u ban s eam es o a ion p ojec in No he n Cali o nia. Res o a ion Ecology 10(4):685-694. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2002.01049.x Rey Benayas, J. M., A. C. New on, A. Diaz, and J. M. Bullock. 2009. Enhancemen o biodi e si y and ecosys em se ices by ecological es o a ion: a me a-analysis. Science 325:1121-1124. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1126/science.1172460 Roni, P., K. Hanson, and T. Beechie. 2008. Global e iew o he physical and biological e ec i eness o s eam habi a ehabili a ion echniques. No h Ame ican Jou nal o Fishe ies Managemen 28:856-890. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1577/M06-169.1 Schaich, H. 2009. Local esiden s’ pe cep ions o loodplain es o a ion measu es in Luxembou g’s Sy Valley. Landscape and U ban Planning 93:20-30. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j. landu bplan.2009.05.020 Schul z, E. T., R. J. Johns on, K. Sege son, and E. Y. Besedin. 2012. In eg a ing ecology and economics o es o a ion: using ecological indica o s in alua ion o ecosys em se ices. Res o a ion Ecology 20:304-310. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/ j.1526-100X.2011.00854.x Seidl, R., and M. S au ache . 2013. E alua ion o i e es o a ion by local esiden s. Wa e Resou ces Resea ch 49:7077-7087. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1002/2013WR013988 Shackel o d, N., R. J. Hobbs, J. M. Bu ga , T. E. E ickson, J. B. Fon aine, E. Lalibe é, C. E. Ramalho, M. P. Pe ing, and R. J. S andish. 2013. P imed o change: de eloping ecological es o a ion o he 21s cen u y. Res o a ion Ecology 21:297-304. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/ ec.12012 S ewa , G. B., H. R. Bayliss, D.A. Showle , W. J. Su he land, and A. S. Pullin. 2009. E ec i eness o enginee ed in-s eam s uc u e mi iga ion measu es o inc ease salmonid abundance: a sys ema ic e iew. Ecological Applica ions 19:931-941. h p://dx. doi.o g/10.1890/07-1311.1 Tuns all, S. M., E. C. Penning-Rowsell, S. M. Tapsell, and S. E. Eden. 2000. Ri e es o a ion: public a i udes and expec a ions. Wa e and En i onmen Jou nal 14:363-370. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2000. b00274.x Tu endal, M., and T. Elmq is . 2011. Ecosys em se ices linking social and ecological sys ems: i e b owni ica ion and he esponse o downs eam s akeholde s. Ecology and Socie y 16 (4):21. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.5751/ES-04456-160421 Vehanen, T., A. Huusko, A. Mäki-Pe äys, P. Louhi, H. Myk ä, and T. Muo ka. 2010. E ec s o habi a ehabili a ion on b own ou (Salmo u a) in bo eal o es s eams. F eshwa e Biology 55:2200-2214. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02467. x Woolsey, S., F. Capelli, T. Gonse , E. Hoehn, M. Hos mann, B. Junke , A. Pae zold, C. Roulie , S. Schweize , S. D. Tiegs, K. Tockne , C. Webe , and A. Pe e . 2007. A s a egy o assess i e es o a ion success. F eshwa e Biology 52:752-769. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01740.x Wo ley, L., J.-M. He o, and M. Howes. 2013. E alua ing ecological es o a ion success: a e iew o he li e a u e. Res o a ion Ecology 21:537-543. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1111/ ec.12028 Y jänä, T. 1998. E o s o in-s eam ish habi a es o a ion wi hin he i e Iijoki, Finland. Goals, me hods and he esul s. Pages 239-250 in L. de Waal, A. La ge, and M. Wade, edi o s. Rehabili a ion o i e s: p inciples and implemen a ion. John Wiley & Sons, Sussex, UK.