Search

A philosophical and communication shift is needed in river management if we are to meet sustainable development goals and tackle environmental challenges brought about by ongoing anthropogenic and climate change. In some parts of the world, recovery‐enhancement approaches to river management have been adopted, communicated and used for many years. At the heart of these approaches lies an understanding of the biogeomorphic forms, processes and evolutionary trajectories of rivers that differs philosophically from notions of restoration, rewilding or creation of a utopian natural state. Instead, recovery‐enhancement approaches aim to improve the biogeomorphic condition of rivers, recognising that they are dynamic entities and new evolutionary trajectories and novel ecosystems are being created that are now part of the environment. Accepting shifting baselines and moving targets is inherent as boundary conditions (water, sediment and vegetation interactions) continue to be altered under the influence of anthropogenic and climate change, and the impacts of 'unprecedented' wildfires, floods, heatwaves and drought are manifested on the ground. The river management sector has not yet fully adapted to this reality with large amounts of applied science and on‐ground practice still focussed on restoration, re‐engineering and rewilding, words which in themselves produce a false impression of the aims, visions and achievability of river management. Embracing recovery‐enhancement approaches to river management requires a conscious shift in communication strategies and terminology to present more realistic expectations and possibilities for river condition improvement, a responsibility that is incumbent upon us, the scientists and practitioners, who work in the applied science and river management profession. In this Short Communication, I use a case study from eastern Australia to illustrate what biogeomorphic river recovery can look like. I use this to discuss the potential for adoption of a recovery‐enhancement approach to river management more broadly, and call on scientists and practitioners to make a conscious philosophical and communications shift when working in applied science and river management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Capacity strengthening activities – be that in the form of courses, workshops, seminars – have become embedded in research projects as a requirement for funding and as a means for researchers to demonstrate positive societal impacts. We apply qualitative research techniques including interviews, questionnaires and observations to scrutinise and document an international capacity strengthening course aimed at informing and supporting environmental management practice and policy in the Philippines. We appraise power gradients and dynamics between course instructors and participants from different cultures and geographical locations in the design and delivery of this course. We identify five key factors that course instructors should consider as part of their pedagogy: (i) active learning, (ii) knowledge scaffolding and consolidation, and (iii) situated learning, as well as being attuned to (iv) the language dynamics and (v) expertise and networking within the room when teaching the course. Practical efforts to address these issues require that instructors work with participants to co-produce knowledge, rather than assuming epistemic authority and imposing knowledge. This entails reflexive and adaptable practices before, during and after the course. It is recommended that such practices should be central to projects that include capacity strengthening activities, whether delivered locally or internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]