• Dam Removal – A Citizens Guide to Saving Rivers (2017). River Alliance of Wisconsin and Trout Unlimited.
• Criteria for decision-making towards the improvement of river connectivity and dam removal considering the impacts of invasive fish species in the Iberian Peninsula (2017). Centro Ibérico de Restauración Fluvial (CIREF) and Wetlands International European Association.
• A Broad level classification system for dam removals (2011). Wildman, L. & Macbroom, J.
• Stream Barrier Removal. Monitoring Guide (2007). Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.

• America Rivers – Restoring damaging rivers
• European Rivers Network – dam removal work in France
• International Rivers – dam removal
• International Rivers Network – Rivers Revival
• River Alliance of Wisconsin – dam removal
• USGS Powell Center – Dam Removal Working Group
• INRA – Ecological Restoration of the Selune River
• Lessons Learned From Dam Incidents and Failures

Dam Removal, a viable solution for the future of our European rivers – Policy Report Dam Removal Europe

• AMBER Barrier Tracker 2022
• Dam Removal Progress 2021
• Dam Removal Progress 2020 
• A pan-European survey to strengthen and improve policies and strategic planning regarding river continuity restoration
• DRE Strategy Report 2020-2030

• Dam and reservoir removal projects: a mix of social-ecological trends and cost-cutting attitudes

• Morley et al 2020 Elwha fish diet
• Elwha eDNA
• Impacts of small dams on stream temperature, 2020
• Havn TB, Thornstad EB, Borcherding J, et al. Impacts of a weir and power station on downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolts in a German river. River Res Applic. 2020; 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3590
• Modeling the effects of alternative mitigation measures on Atlantic salmon production in a regulated river (2017)
• A factsheet on Dam Removal (2017). River Alliance of Wisconsin.
• Liberated Rivers: Lessons from 40 years of dam removal (2017). United States Department of Agriculture and Forest Service.
• environmental benefits of dam removal. Headwater of Economics, (2016).
• Free Flowing Rivers Fact Sheet. WWF (2016).
• Experiences and lessons learnt in the fluvial area of Leon Province, Duero River Basin. Ministry of Ecological Transition of Spain (2015). (Full presentation in Spanish)
• REMOVAL OF WEIRS AND THE INFLUENCE ON PHYSICAL HABITAT FOR SALMONIDS IN A NORWEGIAN RIVER (2012)
• WWF Proposals to dismantle dams in Spain. WWF Spain (2009). (Full article in Spanish).
• Dam demolition and other water works: indispensable tool to restore our rivers and wetlands. AEMS – Rios con Vida (2006). (Report full in Spanish)
• Free Flowing Rivers: Economic luxury or ecological necessity? (2006). WWF
• Managing Rivers Wisely (2003). WWF
• Social Perspectives on Dam Removal. Sarakinos, H. & Johnson, S. E. (2003).
• Exploring Dam Removal. A Decision-making guide. American Rivers & Trout Unlimited (2002).

• Dam Removal – A New Option for a New Century. Aspen Institute (2002).
• Exploring dam removal – A decision making guide. American Rivers & Trout Unlimited (2002).
• Dam Removal: Case studies on the fiscal, economic, social, and 
• Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making (2002). The Heinz Center.
• Dam Removal Research: Status and Prospects (2002). The Heinz Center
• Environmental Markets and Stream Barrier Removal: An Exploration of Opportunities to Restore Freshwater Connectivity Through Existing Mitigation Programs. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
• Freeing Rivers: WWF Proposals to dismantle dams in Spain. WWF Spain (Full report in Spanish)
• Reviving the World’s rivers: The Global View of Dam Removal (2002)- International Rivers Network.

• Saman Ghaffari, University of Tehran, Iran (2020). Final master project “Simulation of River Morphological Changes under Dam Removal Condition (Case Study: Voshmgir Dam- Gorganrud River)”
• Gonzalo Rincón Sanz, University Politechnic of Madrid, Spain (2019). “Application of graph theory to fluvial ecology: Analysis of the loss of longitudinal connectivity in the Spanish river by the presence of dams” (Full
• Tiia Valtonen (2017). The removal of a culture-historical dam for improved resilience of urban nature. Faculty of Technology Urban sustainability, Lahti University of Applied Sciences.
• Anna G.C. Lejon (2012). Ecosystem response to dam removal. Department of Ecology and Environmental Science Umeå University.
• Final Master Project, Zaragoza University, Spain (2008). Study of the dismantling of the La Hoz Seca Dam (Upper Tagus River). (Full document in Spanish)

• Babbit 2002 – What goes up, may come down: Learning from our experiences with dam construction in the past can guide and improve dam removal in the future (https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0656:WGUMCD]2.0.CO;2)
• Bednarek 2001 – Undamming rivers: A review of the ecological impacts of dam removal (https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010189)
• Belletti et al. 2020 – More than one million barriers fragment Europe’s rivers (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3005-2)
• Bellmore et al. 2017 – Status and trends of dam removal research in the United States (https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1164)
• Bellmore et al. 2019 – Conceptualizing ecological responses to dam removal: If you remove it, what’s to come (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy152)
• Birnie-Gauvin et al. 2017 – 30 years of data reveal dramatic increase in abundance of brown trout following the removal of a 2 small hydrodam (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.022)
• Blumm & Illowsky 2022 – The world’s largest dam removal project: The Klamath River dams (http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4061159)
• Brenkman et al. 2019 – Rapid recolonization and life history responses of bull trout following dam removal in Washington’s Elwha River (https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10291)
• Brummer et al. 2017 – They have kidnapped our river: Dam removal conflicts in Catalonia and their relation to ecosystem services perceptions (https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol10/v10issue3/380-a10-3-6/file)c
• Bubb et al. 2021 – Short-term effects of low-head barrier removals on fish communities and habitats (https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.697106)
• Burdick & Hightower 2006 – Distribution of spawning activity by anadromous fishes in an Atlantic drainage after removal of a low-head dam (https://doi.org/10.1577/T05-190.1
• Catalano et al. 2007 – Effects of dam removal on fish assemblage structure and spatial distributions in the Baraboo River, Wisconsin (https://doi.org/10.1577/M06-001.1)
• Cisowska & Hutchins 2016 – The effect of weirs on nutrient concentrations (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.064)
• Clark et al. 2020 – Evaluation of the removal of impassable barriers on anadromous salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin (https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12410)
• Cool & Sullivan 2018 – Associations between riffle development and aquatic biota following lowhead dam removal (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6716-1)
• Cortes et al. 2019 – Undamming the Douro River catchment: A stepwise approach for prioritizing dam removal (https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040693)
• Crane 2009 – Setting the river free: The removal of the Edwards dam and the restoration of the Kennebec River (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12685-009-0007-2)
• Diessner et al. 2020 – I’ll be dammed! Public preferences regarding dam removal in New Hampshire (https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.003)
• Ding et al. 2019 – Global trends in dam removal and related research: A systematic review based on associated datasets and bibliometric analysis (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-018-1009-8)
• Doyle et al. 2003 – Toward policies and decision-making for dam removal (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2819-z)
• Doyle et al. 2005 – Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: Lessons from the Heartland (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.04.011)
• Duda & Bellmore 2022 – Dam removal and river restoration (https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819166-8.00101-8)
• Duda et al. 2021 – Reconnecting the Elwha River: Spatial patterns of fish response to dam removal (https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.765488)
• Dufour et al. 2017 – On the political roles of freshwater science in studying dam and weir removal policies: A critical physical geography approach (https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol10/v10issue3/385-a10-3-11/file)
• Fitzpatrick & Neeson 2018 – Aligning dam removals and road culvert upgrades boosts conservation return-on-investment (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.11.018)
• Fjeldstad et al. 2012 – Removal of weirs and the influence on physical habitat for salmonids in a Norwegian river (https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1529)
• Gangloff 2013 – Taxonomic and ecological tradeoffs associated with small dam removals (https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2383)
• Garcia de Leaniz & O’Hanley 2022 – Operational methods for prioritizing the removal of river barriers: Synthesis and guidance (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157471)
• Garcia de Leaniz 2008 – Weir removal in salmonid streams: implications, challenges and practicalities (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9397-x)
• Gonzalez del Tanago et al. 2012 – River restoration in Spain: Theoretical and practical approach in the context of the European Water Framework Directive (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9862-1)
• Grabowski et al. 2018 – Fracturing dams, fractured data: Empirical trends and characteristics of existing and removed dams in the United Sates (https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3283)
• Gregory et al. 2002 – The conceptual basis for ecological responses to dam removal: Resource managers face enormous challenges in assessing the consequences of removing large dams from rivers and evaluating management options (https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0713:TCBFER]2.0.CO;2)
• Guetz et al. 2021 – Prioritizing dams for removal to advance restoration and conservation efforts in the western United States (https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13583)
• Habel et al. 2020 – Dam and reservoir removal projects: a mix of social‑ecological trends and cost‑cutting attitudes (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76158-3)
• Hart et al. 2002 – Dam removal: Challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration (https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0669:DRCAOF]2.0.CO;2)
• Hermoso et al. 2021 – An accessible optimisation method for barrier removal planning in stream networks (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141943)
• Hill et al. 2019 – Effect of dam removal on habitat use by spawning Atlantic salmon (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2019.01.002)
• Hoenke et al. 2014 – A GIS based approach for prioritizing dams for potential removal (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.12.009)
• Hommes 2022 – The ageing of infrastructure and ideologies: Contestations around dam removal in Spain (https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol15/v15issue3/674-a15-3-3/file)
• Hunt et al. 2022 – Electric truck hydropower, a flexible solution to hydropower in mountainous regions (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123495)
• Ibisate et al. 2016 – Geomorphic monitoring and response to two dam removals – Urumea and Leitzaran Rivers (Basque Country, Spain) (https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4023)
• Kemp & O’Hanley 2010 – Procedures for evaluating and prioritising the removal of fish passage barriers: A synthesis (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2010.00751.x
• Knoth et al. 2022 – Rapid colonization of upstream habitats by Oncorhynchus mykiss following culvert modification (https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10809)
• Kukuła & Bylak 2022 – Barrier removal and dynamics of intermittent stream habitat regulate persistence and structure of fish community (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05636-7)
• Loomis 1996 – Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha River: Results of a contingent valuation survey (https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR03243)
• Magilligan et al. 2016 – Immediate changes in stream channel geomorphology, aquatic habitat, and fish assemblages following dam removal in a small upland catchment (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.07.027)
• Mahan et al. 2021 – Response of benthic macroinvertebrates to dam removal in the restoration of the Boardman River, Michigan, USA (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245030)
• Morley et al. 2020 – Shifting food web structure during dam removal: Disturbance and recovery during a major restoration action (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239198)
• Mouchlianitis et al. 2021 – Does fragmented river connectivity alter the reproductive behavior of the potamodromous fish Alburnus vistonicus? (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04621-x)
• O’Connor et al. 2015 – 1000 dams down and counting (DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa9204)
• O’Hanley 2011 – Open rivers: Barrier removal planning and the restoration of free-flowing rivers (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.027)
• Poff & Hart 2002 – How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal (https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0659:HDVAWI]2.0.CO;2)
• Provencher et al. 2008 – Does small dam removal affect local property values: An empirical analysis (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2008.00107.x)
• Raabe & Hightower 2014 – Assessing distribution of migratory fishes and connectivity following complete and partial dam removals in a North Carolina River (https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2014.938140)
• Ravot et al. 2019 – Large dam removal and early spontaneous riparian vegetation recruitment on alluvium in a former reservoir: Lessons learned from the pre removal phase of the Sélune River project (France) (https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3535)
• Renofalt et al. 2013 – Long-term taxon-specific responses of macroinvertebrates to dam removal in a mid-sized Swedish stream (https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2592)
• Rubin et al. 2017 – Increased sediment load during a large-scale dam removal changes near shore subtidal communities (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187742)
• Schmitz et al. 2009 – Using historic aerial photography and paleohydrologic techniques to assess long-term ecological response to two Montana dam removals (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.028)
• Sneddon et al. 2017 – Dam removals and river restoration in international perspective (https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol10/v10issue3/375-a10-3-1/file)
• Stanley & Doyle 2003 – Trading off: The ecological effects of dam removal (https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0015:TOTEEO]2.0.CO;2)
• Sullivan et al. 2019 – Partial dam removal restores passage for a threatened salmonid (https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3426)
• Sun et al. 2021 – Rapid response of fish and aquatic habitat to removal of a tidal barrier (https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3576)
• Sun et al. 2022 – Fish community and abundance response to improved connectivity and more natural hydromorphology in a post-industrial subcatchment (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149720)
• Tonitto & Riha 2016 – Planning and implementing small dam removals: Lessons learned from dam removals across the eastern United States (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-016-0062-7)
• Tonra et al. 2015 – The rapid return of marine-derived nutrients to a freshwater food web following dam removal (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.09.009)
• Tullos et al. 2016 – Synthesis of common management concerns associated with dam removal (https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12450)
• Turner et al. 2018 – Evaluating the effect of dam removals on yellow-phase American eel abundance in a Northeastern U.S. watershed (https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10040)
• United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2017 – Liberated Rivers: Lessons from 40 years of dam removal (https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/publications/liberated-rivers-lessons-40-years-dam-removal)
• Watson et al. 2018 – Dam removal and fish passage improvement influence fish assemblages in the Penobscot River, Maine (https://doi.org/10.1002/tafs.10053)
• Wildman & MacBroom 2010 – A broad level classification system for dam removals (https://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/10B_Wildman_100416_paper.pdf)
• Wildman & MacBroom 2005 – The evolution of gravel bed channels after dam removal: Case study of the Anaconda and Union City Dam removals (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.08.018)
• Whitelaw & MacMullan 2002 – A framework for estimating the costs and benefits of dam removal (https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0724:AFFETC]2.0.CO;2)
• Wood et al. 2018 – Genetic assignment of brook trout reveals rapid success of culvert restoration in headwater streams (https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10185)
• Young & Ishiga 2014 – Environmental change of the fluvial-estuary system in relation to Arase Dam removal of the Yatsushiro tidal flat, SW Kyushu, Japan (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3139-3)
• Jingrui Sun, Shams M. Galib, Martyn C. Lucas (2021) Rapid response of fish and aquatic habitat to removal of a tidal barrier
• Hermoso et al (2021). An accessible optimisation method for barrier removal planning in stream networks. Science of the Total Environment. Volume 752, 141943
• American Rivers Dam Removal Database
• Halvorsen, S. et al. (2020) Environmental DNA analysis indicates that migration barriers are decreasing the occurrence of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) in distance from the sea  Global Ecology and Conservation 24, e01245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01245
• Battle et al, (2020) Modeling the impact of dam removal on the Formosan landlocked
• Grill, G., Lehner, B., Thieme, M. et al. (2019) Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569, 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9
• Grill et al, (2019). Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature, vol. 569, pp 215 -221.
• Jones et al, (2019). A comprehensive assessment of stream fragmentation in Great Britain. Science of The Total Environment. Volume 673, Pages 756-762.
• Hill, et al (2019). Effect of dam removal on habitat use by spawning Atlantic salmon. Journal of Great Lakes Research.Volume 45, Issue 2, Pages 394-399.
• Bellmore et al. (2019). Conceptualizing ecological responses to dam removal: if you remove it, what’s to come? Bioscience 69:26-39. This is a recent review article on the ecological responses to dam removal and describes conceptual models and simulation approaches that can help predict the outcomes of dam removal.
• Duda, J. (2019). Elwha River Restoration – Information Resources and Bibliography.
• Drouineau, et al (2018). River continuity restoration and diadromous fishes: Much more than an ecological issue. Environmental Management.61(4), 671-686.
• Watson, et al (2018) Dam Removal and Fish Passage Improvement Influence Fish Assemblages in the Penobscot River, Maine. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol. 147, Issue 3, Pages 525-540.
• Duda et al, (2018). Complexities, context, and new information about the Elwha River. Volume 16, Issue 10, 549-616.
• Fitzpatrick & Neeson (2018). Aligning dam removals and road culvert upgrades boosts conservation return-on-investment. Ecological Modelling 368, 198–204.
• Reilly et al, (2018). Participatory mapping of ecosystem services to understand stakeholders’ perceptions of the future of the Mactaquac Dam, Canada. Ecosystem Services. Volume 30, Part A, Pages 107-123.
• Turner et al, (2018). Evaluating the Effect of Dam Removals on Yellow‐Phase American Eel Abundance in a Northeastern U.S. Watershed. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Vol. 38, Issue 2, Pages 424-431.
• Grabowski, et al (2018). Fracturing dams, fractured data: Empirical trends and characteristics of existing and removed dams in the United States. River Research and Applications. Vol. 34, Issue 6, Pages 526-537.
• Birnie-Gauvin, et al (2017). 30 years of data reveal dramatic increase in abundance of brown trout following the removal of a small hydrodam. Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 204, Part 1, Pages 467-471.
• Davis et al, (2017). Reductions in fish-community contamination following low-head dam removal linked more to shifts in food-web structure than sediment pollution. Environmental Pollution 231, 671 -680.
• Dugdale et al, (2017). Hydrological and water temperature modelling for dam decommissioning and climate change studies. European Water, vol. 59. p. 53-59.
• Foley, et al, (2017). Dam removal-listening in. Water Resources Research.
• Duda, J.J., D.J. Wieferich, R.S. Bristol, R.J. Bellmore, V. Hutchison, K. Vittum, L. Craig, and J.A. Warrick. 2016. The Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP): A map-based resource linking scientific studies and associated geospatial information about dam removals. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1132.
• Quinn et al, (2017). Re-awakening dormant life history variation: stable isotopes indicate anadromy in bull trout following dam removal on the Elwha River, Washington. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Vol. 100, Issue 12, Pages 1659-1671.
• Mantel et al, (2017). Small dams need consideration in riverscape conservation assessments. Aquatic Conservation. Marine and freshwater Ecosystems. Vol. 27, Issue 4, Pages 748-754.
• Rubin et al, (2017). Increased sediment load during a large-scale dam removal changes nearshore subtidal communities. Creative Commons CC0.
• Gibson et al, (2017). Ecosystem responses to restored flow in a travertine river. Freshwater Science 37, no. 1: 169-177.
• Sheddon et al (2017). Dam Removals and River Restoration in International Perspective. Water Alternatives. Vol. 10, Issue 3. Pages 648-654.
• Fox et al, (2016). ‘‘You kill the dam, you are killing a part of me”: Dam removal and the environmental politics of river restoration. Geoforum 70, 93–104.
• Tullos, et al (2016). Synthesis of Common Management Concerns Associated with Dam Removal. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Vol. 52, Issue 5, Pages 1179-1206.
• Ibisate, et al (2016). Geomorphic monitoring and response to two dam removals: rivers Urumea and Leitzaran (Basque Country, Spain). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 41. 2239-2255. 10.1002/esp.4023.
• Poff & Schmidt (2016). How dams can go with the flow. Science. Vol. 353, Issue 6304, pp. 1099-1100.
• Tonitto, C. & Rihna, S.J. (2016). Planning and implementing small dam removals: Lessons learned from dam removals across the eastern United States. Sustainable Water Resources Management. Vol. 2, Pages 489-507.
• Gowan et al, (2016). The role of ecosystem valuation in environmental decision making: Hydropower relicensing and dam removal on the Elwha River. Ecological Economics. Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 508-523.
• Fraisse et al, (2015). The dam removal in the Sélune River (France): a long-term scientific and interdisciplinary program.
• Getzner, M. (2015). Importance of Free-Flowing Rivers for Recreation: Case Study of the River Mur in Styria, Austria. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 141.
• O’Connor et al, (2015). 1000 dams down and counting. Science, 01 May 2015: Vol. 348 Issue 6234, pp. 496-497.
• Poeppl et al, (2015). The geomorphic legacy of small dams – An Austrian study. Anthropocene. Volume 10, Pages 43-55.
• Magilligan et al, (2015). Immediate changes in stream channel geomorphology, aquatic habitat, and fish assemblages following dam removal in a small upland catchment. Geomorphology. Volume 252, Pages 158-170.
• Tonra et al, (2015). The rapid return of marine-derived nutrients to a freshwater food web following dam removal. Biological Conservation. Volume 192, Pages 130-134.
• Ibisate et al, (2014). Morphological adjustment monitoring after dam removals: Urumea and Leitzaran Rivers. Conference paper. European Geoscience Union General Assembly 2014. Vienna.
• Ansar, et al (2014). Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development. Energy Policy, Volume 69, Pages 43-56.
• Zang et al, (2014). Predicting river aquatic productivity and dissolved oxygen before and after dam removal. Ecological Engineering. Volume 72, Pages 125-137.
• Young, S.M. & Ishiga, H. (2014). Assessment of dam removal from geochemical examination of Kuma River sediment, Kyushu, Japan. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Volume 186, Pages 8267-8289.
• Ollero, et al (2014). Geomorphology and river restoration monitoring the demolition of dams in Gipuzkoa. Geographical Research Letters, ISSN 0211-6820, 40, 1, 67-88. (Full article in Spanish).
• Peck, J.A. & Kasper, N.R. (2013). Multiyear assessment of the sedimentological impacts of the removal of the Munroe Falls Dam on the middle Cuyahoga River, Ohio. The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration. Chapter 7. The Geological Society of America. Vol 21.
• Brown et al, (2013). Fish and hydropower on the U.S. Atlantic coast: failed fisheries policies from half‐way technologies. Conservation Letters. Vol. 6, Issue 4, Pages 280-286.
• Gangloff, M. M. (2013). Taxonomic and ecological tradeoffs associated with small dam removals. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23, 475–480.
• Wildman, L. (2013). Dam removal: A history of decision points. The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration. Chapter 1. The Geological Society of America. Vol 21.
• Renofalt et al, (2013). Long-Term Taxon-Specific Responses of Macroinvertebrates to Dam Removal in a Mid-Sized Swedish Stream. River Research and Applications. Vol. 29, Issue 9, Pages 1082-1089.
• Bountry, et al (2013). Sediment impacts from the Savage Rapids Dam removal, Rogue River, Oregon. The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration. Chapter 8. The Geological Society of America. Vol 21.
• Greimann, B. (2013). Prediction of sediment erosion after dam removal using a one-dimensional model. The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration. Chapter 5. The Geological Society of America. Vol 21.
• Hepler. T.E. (2013). Engineering considerations for large dam removals. The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration. Chapter 2. The Geological Society of America. Vol 21.
• MacBroom, J. & Schiff, R. (2013). Sediment management at small dam removal sites. The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration. Chapter 6. The Geological Society of America. Vol 21.
• Hawley, S. (2012). Recovering a lost river: removing dams, rewilding salmon, revitalizing communities. Book.
• Sawaske, S.R. & Freyberg, D.L. (2012). A comparison of past small dam removals in highly sediment-impacted systems in the U.S. Geomorphology. Vol. 151-152, Pages 50-58-
• Gonzalez del Tanago et al, (2012). River Restoration in Spain: Theoretical and Practical Approach in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive. Environmental Management, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 123–139.
• O’Hanley, J.R. (2011). Open rivers: Barrier removal planning and the restoration of free-flowing rivers. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 92, Issue 12, Pages 3112-3120.
• Brufao Curiel (2010). Technical and administrative regulation and water works: The decommissioning of the Dam and Reservoir Safety Regulation and its influence on the concessional regime. (Full article in Spanish)
• Kemp, P.S. & O’Hanley, J.R. (2010). Procedures for evaluating and prioritising the removal of fish passage barriers: a synthesis. Fisheries Management and Ecology, Vol. 17, Issue 4, Pages 297-322.
• Mullens, J.B. & Wanstreet, V. (2010). Using Willingness-to-Pay Surveys When Assessing Dam Removal: A New Hampshire Case Study. The Geographical Bulletin, Vol. 51-2. Art. 3.
• Bohlen, C. & Lewis, L. Y. (2009). Examining the economic impacts of hydropower dams on property values using GIS. Journal of Environmental Management 90, S258–S269.
• Brown et al, (2009). Modeling the costs and benefits of dam construction from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 90, S303–S311.
• Tuthill et al, (2009). Effects of proposed dam removal on ice jamming and bridge scour on the Clark Fork River, Montana. Cold Regions Science and Technology. Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 186-194.
• Konrad, C.P. (2009). Simulating the recovery of suspended sediment transport and river-bed stability in response to dam removal on the Elwha River, Washington. Ecological Engineering Volume 35, Issue 7, Pages 1104-1115.
• Lejon, A. G. C.; Malm Renöfält, B. and Nilsson, C. (2009). Conflicts associated with dam removal in Sweden. Ecology and Society 14(2): 4.
• Provencher et al, (2008). Does Small Dam Removal Affect Local Property Values? An Empirical Analysis. Contemporary Economic Policy. Vol. 26, Issue 2, Pages187-197.
• Schmitz, et al (2008). Using historic aerial photography and paleohydrologic techniques to assess long-term ecological response to two Montana dam removals. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 90 Suppl 3. Pages S237-S248.
• Garcia de Leaniz, C. (2008). Weir removal in salmonid streams: implications, challenges and practicalities. Hydrobiologia 609, 83–96.
• Gillenwater et al, (2006). GIS-based modeling of spawning habitat suitability for walleye in the Sandusky River, Ohio, and implications for dam removal and river restoration. Ecological Engineering 28, Issue 3, pp 311-323.
• Kuby et al, (2005). A multiobjective optimization model for dam removal: an example trading off salmon passage with hydropower and water storage in the Willamette basin. Advances in Water Resources. Volume 28, Issue 8, Pages 845-855.
• Lorang, M.S. & Aggett, G. (2005). Potential sedimentation impacts related to dam removal: Icicle Creek, Washington, U.S.A. Geomorphology. Volume 71, Issues 1–2, 1, Pages 182-201.
• Wildman, L. and MacBroom, J. (2005). The Evolution of Gravel Bed Channels After Dam Removal: Case Study of the Anaconda and Union City Dam Removals. Geomorphology. Vol. 71, Issue 1, Pages 245-262.
• Doyle, et al (2005). Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: Lessons from the Heartland. Geomorphology 71, 227–244.
• Gregory et al, (2002). The conceptual basis for ecological responses to dam removal. BioScience, Volume 52, Issue 8, Pages 713-723.
• Shafroth et al, (2002). Potential Responses of Riparian Vegetation to Dam Removal. BioScience, Volume 52, Issue 8, Pages 703-712.
• Hart et al, (2002). Dam Removal: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Research and River Restoration. BioScience, Volume 52, Issue 8, Pages 669-682.
• Hart, D.D. & Poff, N.L. (2002). A Special Section on Dam Removal and River Restoration. BioScience, Volume 52, Issue 8, Pages 653-655.
• Pizzuto, J. (2002). Effects of Dam Removal on River Form and Process. BioScience, Volume 52, Issue 8, Pages 683-691.
• Johnson, S.E. & Graber, B.E. (2002). Enlisting the Social Sciences in Decisions about Dam Removal. BioScience, Volume 52, Issue 8, Pages 731-738.
• Stanley, E.H. & Doyle, M.W. (2002). A Geomorphic Perspective on Nutrient Retention Following Dam Removal: Geomorphic models provide a means of predicting ecosystem responses to dam removal. BioScience, Volume 52, Issue 8, Pages 693-701.
• Poff, N.L. & Hart, D.D. (2002). How Dams Vary and Why It Matters for the Emerging Science of Dam Removal. BioScience, Volume 52, Issue 8, Pages 659-668.
• Evans, et al, (2000). Lessons from a dam failure. The Ohio Journal of Science. v100, n5, 121-131.
• Almodóvar, A. & Nicola, G. (1999). Effects of a Small Hydropower Station Upon Brown Trout Salmo Trutta L. in the River Hoz Seca (Tagus Basin, Spain) One Year after Regulation. Regulated Rivers-research & Management – REGUL RIVER. 15. 477-484.
• Born et al, (1998). Socioeconomic and Institutional Dimensions of Dam Removals: The Wisconsin Experience. Environmental Management Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 359–370.
• salmon in the context of climate change. Aquat Sci, 82: 3.
• Lena Hommes (2022). The ageing of infrastructure and ideologies: Contestations around dam removal in Spain. Water Alternatives 15(3): 592-613

• Altreconomia (2023) From France to Spain who are the activists who “liberate” the rivers (in Italian)
• Altreconomia (2023) Free Rivers of Europe The struggles to remove dams and weirs (in Italian)
• The Defender (2022) Damn the Dams: Record Number of Dams Removed From Europe’s Rivers in 2021
• The Guardian (2022) Record number of dams removed from Europe’s rivers in 2021
• The Guardian (2022) Weir today, gone tomorrow: work starts to free Cumbrian river
• El País (2022) Ríos imposibles: las 171.000 barreras que rompen el curso de agua en España (in Spanish)
• La Vanguardia (2022) España lidera la lista europea de demolición de presas, represas y azudes que alteran los ríos(in Spanish)
• zmeScience (2022) At least 239 dams were removed from European rivers in 2021
• Jornal de Notícias (2022) Portugal apenas removeu uma das 17 barragens obsoletas identificadas (in Portuguese)
• Wyborcza (2022) Na europejskich rzekach w rok rozebrano 239 tam i innych barier. Na co czeka Polska? (in Polish)
• Lifegate (2022) Rimosso in Europa un numero record di dighe per riaprire le rotte dei pesci (in Italian)
• L’Adn (2022) Ils détruisent des barrages désaffectés pour que les rivières coulent à nouveau (in French)
• World’s Best News (2022) Europa fjerner livsfarlige forhindringer for fisk (in Danish)
• Balkans Green Energy News (2022) Over 200 dams removed across Europe in 2021
• Euronews (2022) Why is a record-breaking year of dam removals good news for Europe’s wildlife?
• The Revelator (2022) Europe’s Surprising Record of Dam Removals
• NPR (2020) ‘One Of The Best Nature Shows’: A River Transformed After Dams Come Down  
• Wxpr Radio (2019) Worth the pain? Twenty years after Merrill Lake drained, State remains a leader in dam removal
• The Revelator (2018) Four exciting dam-removal projects to watch
• Es el agua (2017) Considerations of interest for the decommissioning of dams (in Spanish)
• El País (2018) The Spanish valley that time forgot
• International Rivers (2018) Dam Removal: Learning from the Pros
• International Rivers (2010) The Long Road to River Recovery
• Lohan (The Revelator) 2018 – Four exciting dam-removal projects to watch
• Herrero (El se Agua) 2017 – Considerations of interest for the decommissioning of dams (in Spanish)
• Rodella (El País) 2018 – The Spanish valley that time forgot