Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are consistently recognized but not yet adequately defined or integrated within the ES framework. A substantial body of models, methods, and data relevant to cultural services has been developed within the social and behavioral sciences before and outside of the ES approach. A selective review of work in landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models, consistent with the larger set of ES. Such models explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders and enabling economic, multicriterion, deliberative evaluation and other methods that can clarify tradeoffs and synergies involving cultural ES. Based on this approach, a common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches. This perspective provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.

1 Wood is increasingly used in restoration projects to improve the hydromorphological and ecological status of streams and rivers. However, despite their growing importance, only a few of these projects are described in the open literature. To aid practitioners, we conducted a postal mail survey to summarize the experiences gained in central Europe and compile data on 50 projects. 2 Our results indicated the potential for improvement from an ecological point of view, as the number and total wood volume, and the median volume of single wood structures placed in the streams per project, were low compared with the potential natural state. Moreover, many wood structures were placed nearly parallel to the water flow, reducing their beneficial effect on stream hydraulics and morphology. 3 Restoration success has been monitored in only 58% of the projects. General conclusions drawn include the following. (i) The potential effects of wood placement must be evaluated within a watershed and reach-scale context. (ii) Wood measures are most successful if they mimic natural wood. (iii) Effects of wood structures on stream morphology are strongly dependent on conditions such as stream size and hydrology. (iv) Wood placement has positive effects on several fish species. (v) Most projects revealed a rapid improvement of the hydromorphological status. 4 Most of the wood structures have been fixed, called ‘hard engineering’. However, soft engineering methods (use of non-fixed wood structures) are known to result in more natural channel features for individual stream types, sizes and sites, and are significantly more cost-effective. 5 Synthesis and applications. Large wood has been used successfully in several projects in central Europe, predominantly to increase the general structural complexity using fixed wood structures. Our results recommend the use of less costly soft engineering techniques (non-fixed wood structures), higher amounts of wood, larger wood structures and improved monitoring programmes for future restoration projects comparable with those in this study. We recommend the use of ‘passive restoration’ methods (restoring the process of wood recruitment on large scales) rather than ‘active restoration’ (placement of wood structures on a reach scale), as passive restoration avoids the risk of non-natural amounts or diversity of wood loading developing within streams. Local, active placement of wood structures must be considered as an interim measure until passive restoration methods have increased recruitment sufficiently.

While many theories exist to explain the complexity of environmental behaviour, the role of individuals’ relationship with nature has not yet been fully clarified. This paper attempts to operationalise human-nature relationships. It expands upon a scale assessed by an iterative process of mixed methods in the US and Europe. This scale is then used to assess individuals’ relationship with nature, and whether such relationships correlate with environmental behaviour. The value scale of Schwartz's Theory of Basic Values is used to validate the results. The results verify that people hold multiple human-nature relationships, confirm strong correlations between human-nature relationships and values, and reveal that individuals’ behaviour is connected to the relationship they have with nature.

This introductory paper presents 20 river restoration cases throughout Europe that were investigated in the EU-funded research project REFORM. In the following, this special issue provides seven specific papers that highlight and discuss the effects of restoration on the investigated river–floodplain systems. Additionally, restoration success was estimated from a socio-economic perspective. The first part of this paper presents the overall study concept and the general sampling design of the field investigations. Each study site was examined with the same array of methods, covering habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic and two floodplain-related organism groups, as well as food web composition and “aquatic terrestrial” interactions as reflected by stable isotopes. An overview of the rivers and the study sites summarizes main attributes of all investigated sites, with emphasis on the large-scale restoration projects. Some of the projects represent the “state of the art” restoration approaches for two major European river types: gravel-bed mountain rivers and sand-bed lowland rivers. Concluding, restoration efforts had positive effects even in the small restoration projects investigated but did not increase with project size. No “single best” measure could be identified, but river widening generally had a larger effect compared to other restoration measures.