Medieval Vienna was situated at the main arm of the swiftly flowing alpine Danube. From the fourteenth century onwards, the river gradually moved away from the city. This marked the beginning of 500 years of human intervention to prevent further displacement of the river and to preserve the waterway as a vital supply line. Archival research and the GIS-based reconstruction of the past riverscape allow a new view about the co-evolution of the city and the river. Following major channel changes in 1565/1566, repeated attempts to force the main arm into the old river bed were undertaken. By the early seventeenth century, the Viennese had accepted the new situation. Resources were now spent on maintaining the waterway to the city via the remaining Wiener arm. After the second Ottoman siege in 1683, improving the navigability of the Wiener arm, in conjunction with major expansions of the fortifications, became the main issue. Between 1775 and 1792, the first systematic, effective flood protection measures were established. These substantially influenced fluvial dynamics and enabled urban development in parts of the former floodplain. The all-embracing transformation of the dynamic riverscape into stabilised areas enabling urban growth and secure waterways was not achieved until 1875. With this successful “re-invention” of the Viennese Danube, an irreversible path was struck in the common life of the city and the river, a path which is still decisive for the interaction of Vienna with that great European river.

Authorities and planners involved in river restoration projects often tend to focus on the hydromorphological state of a short river reach or certain aquatic habitats where the pending deficits are most evident. Nevertheless, for long-term and sustainable restoration, one should also consider flood dynamics and other interlinked processes at larger spatio-temporal scales, ideally at the catchment scale. Channel geometry and fluvial dynamics are not solely determined by local geomorphological framework conditions. Rather they are the product of influxes from the upstream catchment. Over the long term, both sediment transport and discharge, on the one side, and the local/sectional setting (e.g. geology, topography) on the other side lead to the formation of certain channel patterns. Changes in upstream sediment delivery and altered discharge regimes trigger local channel adjustments.Accordingly, channelization measures do not only affect the physical configuration and dynamic fluvial processes at a respective river reach. Rather they influence much longer river sections or even the whole river system, including the tributaries. Human interventions into riverine environments always call for consideration of unintended side effects and potential long-term legacies that may cause new problems at upstream or downstream sections. What seems to be clear for river channelization does also apply to restoration measures. Locally implemented river restoration projects may also influence the up- and downstream fluvial processes and, thus, the habitat availability and the ecological state of longer river sections.

The EU Nature Restoration Law represents an important opportunity for freshwater habitat restoration and, consequently, freshwater biodiversity protection. However, a number of challenges must be anticipated in its implementation, which may compromise its success. Some aspects, particularly those relating to freshwater ecosystems, require more clarification. We use riverine ecosystems to illustrate existing ambiguities in the proposed legislation and the potential consequences of leaving these aspects open to interpretation during the implementation process. We also discuss potential solutions to these problems which could help ensure that the law's objectives are met. We argue that river network structure and connectivity dimensions, which result into river meta‐ecosystems, must be explicitly considered. For that purpose, we ask for clear definitions of the critical terms “free‐flowing rivers,” “barriers,” and “reference areas.” In addition, we recommend developing methods for integrated assessment of connectivity across river networks. As a key property of river ecosystems, this must be used to prioritize actions to increase the length and number of free‐flowing rivers. Adequate restoration planning at larger spatial scales will benefit from a meta‐ecosystem perspective and accurate representation of aquatic‐terrestrial linkages, which will significantly improve the efficacy of restoration efforts. Furthermore, stakeholder and citizen engagement offer important opportunities at local, national, and European scales, and should be fostered to ensure inclusive decision‐making. The conservation challenges outlined here are particularly important for rivers, but they also have implications for other ecosystems. These considerations are useful for policymakers, conservationists, and other stakeholders involved in the Nature Restoration Law and related policy initiatives.This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Stresses and Pressures on Ecosystems Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness Human Water > Water Governance