Chichester: Wiley.
117 Kim, J.H., Kim, H.J., and Yoo, S.H. (2018). A cost–benefit analysis of restoring the ecological integrity of Jeonju Stream, Korea. Water and Environment Journal 32(3): 476–480.
118 Kim, M., Gim, T.H.T., and Sung, J.S. (2017). Applying the concept of perceived restoration to the case of Cheonggyecheon Stream Park in Seoul, Korea. Sustainability 9(8): 1368.
119 Kondolf, G.M. (2000). Process vs form in restoration of rivers and streams. Annual Meeting Proceedings of the American Society of Landscape Architects. Washington DC: American Society of Landscape Architects.
120 Kristensen, E.A., Baattrup‐Pedersen, A., Jensen, P.N., et al. (2012). Selection, implementation and cost of restorations in lowland streams: a basis for identifying restoration priorities. Environmental Science & Policy 23: 1–11.
121 Lamouroux, N., Gore, J.A., Lepori, F., et al. (2015). The ecological restoration of large rivers needs science‐based, predictive tools meeting public expectations: an overview of the Rhône project. Freshwater Biology 60(6): 1069–1084.
122 Langhans, S.D., Hermoso, V., Linke, S., et al. (2014). Cost‐effective river rehabilitation planning: optimizing for morphological benefits at large spatial scales. Journal of Environmental Management 132: 296–303.
123 Larned, S.T., Suren, A.M., Flanagan, M., et al. (2006). Macrophytes in urban stream rehabilitation: establishment, ecological effects, and public perception. Restoration Ecology 14(3): 429–440.
124 Lave, R. (2016). Stream restoration and the surprisingly social dynamics of science. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 3(1): 75–81.
125 Lave, R., Doyle, M., and Robertson, M. (2010). Privatizing stream restoration in the US. Social Studies of Science 40(5): 677–703.
126 Lave, R., Wilson, M.W., Barron, E., et al. (2014). Critical physical geography. The Canadian Geographer 58(1): 1–10.
127 Lebart, L., Salem, A., and Berry, L. (1998). Exploring Textual Data. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
128 Lee, J.S. (2012). Measuring the economic benefits of the Youngsan River Restoration Project in Kwangju, Korea, using contingent valuation. Water International 37(7): 859–870.
129 Lee, M. and Jung, I. (2016). Assessment of an urban stream restoration project by cost–benefit analysis: the case of Cheonggyecheon stream in Seoul, South Korea. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 20(1): 152–162.
130 Lee, S. and Choi, G.W. (2012). Governance in a river restoration project in South Korea: the case of Incheon. Water Resources Management 26(5): 1165–1182.
131 Le Floc’h, É. and Aronson, J. (1995). Ecologie de la restauration: définition de quelques concepts de base. Natures Sciences Sociétés 3: 29–35.
132 Lester, J.P. (ed.) (1995). Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence. Durham: Duke University Press.
133 Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: how far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology 31(3): 207–230.
134 Lewis, L.Y. and Landry, C.E. (2017). River restoration and hedonic property value analyses: guidance for effective benefit transfer. Water Resources and Economics 17: 20–31.
135 Light, A. and Higgs, E.S. (1996). The politics of ecological restoration. Environmental Ethics 18(3): 227–247.
136 Logar, I., Brouwer, R., and Paillex, A. (2019). Do the societal benefits of river restoration outweigh their costs? A cost–benefit analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 232: 1075–1085.
137 Loomis, J. (1996). Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha River: results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resources Research 32(2): 441–447.
138 Loomis, J. (2002). Quantifying recreation use values from removing dams and restoring free‐flowing rivers: a contingent behavior travel cost demand model for the Lower Snake River. Water Resources Research 38(6). https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR000136.
139 Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., et al. (2000). Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 33(1): 103–117.
140 Mansourian, S. (2017). Governance and restoration. In: Routledge Handbook of Ecological and Environmental Restoration (eds S. Allison and S. Murphy), 401–413. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
141 Martin, D.M. (2017). Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty‐first century. Restoration Ecology 25(5): 668–673.
142 McCormick, A., Fisher, K., and Brierley, G. (2015). Quantitative assessment of the relationships among ecological, morphological and aesthetic values in a river rehabilitation initiative. Journal of Environmental Management 153: 60–67.
143 McIver, J. and Starr, L. (2001). Restoration of degraded lands in the interior Columbia River basin: passive vs. active approaches. Forest Ecology and Management 153(1–3): 15–28.
144 MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well‐being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press.
145 Mingers, J. and Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research 246(1): 1–19.
146 Mitsch, W.J. (2012). What is ecological engineering? Ecological Engineering 45: 5–12.
147 Morandi, B., Kail, J., Toedter, A., et al. (2017). Diverse approaches to implement and monitor river restoration: a comparative perspective in France and Germany. Environmental Management 60(5): 931–946.
148 Moscovici, S. (2001). Social Representations: Essays in Social Psychology. New York: NYU Press.
149 Nakamura K., Tockner, K., and Amano, K. (2006). River and wetland restoration: lessons from Japan. Bioscience 56(5): 419–429.
150 Nassauer, J.I. (1992). The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecology 6(4): 239–250.
151 Netusil, N.R., Jarrad, M., and Moeltner, K. (2019). Research note: the effect of stream restoration project attributes on property sale prices. Landscape and Urban Planning 185: 158–162.
152 Normile, D. (2010). Restoration or devastation? Science 327(5973): 1568–1570.
153 NRC (National Research Council) (1992). Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
154 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2015). Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development: The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012‐en.
155 Ormerod, S.J. (2004). A golden age of river restoration science? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14(6): 543–549.
156 Pahl‐Wostl, C. (2006). The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society 11(1): 10.
157 Palmer, M.A. and Allan, J.D. (2006). Restoring rivers. Issues in Science and Technology 22(2): 40–48.
158 Palmer, M.A. and Bernhardt, E.S. (2006). Hydroecology and river restoration: ripe for research and synthesis. Water Resources Research 42(3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004354.
159 Palmer, M.A., Bernhardt, E.S., Allan, J.D., et al. (2005). Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 208–217.
160 Palmer, M.A., Bernhardt, E.S., Chornesky, E., et al. (2004). Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 304: 1251–1252.
161 Palmer, M.A., Hondula, K.L., and Koch, B.J. (2014). Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: shifting strategies and shifting