Diverse stakeholders navigate divergent perspectives on stream restoration success in Western rangelands

Abstract

Ecological restoration is a value‐driven process; yet social understanding of restoration lags ecological understanding. Restoration goals are driven by which stakeholders have a voice in the restoration process and their individual goals. While conflict among stakeholder visions has been observed, we lack a multidimensional understanding of these visions, where they overlap, and how they diverge. Focusing on stream restoration on private lands, we asked: (1) How do perspectives on measures of restoration success vary among stakeholders, including contractors and designers, scientists, organizations, and landowners? and (2) How do these groups discuss and navigate these differences? We used a mixed‐method interview and Q‐methodology approach to understand the range of stakeholders' approaches for assessing a successful stream restoration. We asked stakeholders to rank their level of agreement with 33 statements about restoration goals, using these to evaluate perspectives about restoration success. We identified four perspectives on successful stream restoration that varied in: the use of science‐driven criteria, risk tolerance, private property protection, and commitment to restoring streams to a previous state. Notably, contractors used deficit model approaches to communicate with landowners, even for private restoration. Institutional and cultural changes to how we approach restoration, suggested by some of the interviews, may provide paths forward. These include a recognition that all restoration objectives are socially defined, even within and among professionals, and that landowners have important local‐system knowledge. Earlier engagement between all stakeholders involved in restoration may help create mutual understanding across parties and stave off disputes about project objectives or implementation.