fields.
1.4.1 Understanding human–river interactions in the context of river restoration
Since the first works published on human–river interactions in the context of restoration in the early 2000s (e.g. Tunstall et al. 2000; Connelly et al. 2002; Piégay et al. 2005), a significant proportion of the publications in the corpus have dealt with this theme (Figure 1.6). These contributions are most often part of a constructivist conception of nature that posits that the humans are a stakeholder in the elaboration of the reality in which they intervene; reality is seen as a mentally constructed representation (Moscovici 2001; Dunlap et al. 2002). The implications of this conception are important in the field of environmental action. Since the river is no longer considered as an intangible reality, it is necessary to make room for the plurality of the modes of understanding in order to define the objectives and modalities of action. This is all the more true in the field of restoration, where determination of the reference – which can be defined as an approximation of the desirable state of the river, a standard chosen from several possible alternative states (Le Floc’h and Aronson 1995) – appears to be an eminently subjective value‐laden activity (Hull and Robertson 2000); restoration is not only a scientific exercise based on rational criteria (Davis and Slobodkin 2004). Anchored in this epistemology, several research studies focused on the dynamics of human–river interaction within the framework of restoration projects.
Figure 1.6 A lexicon specific to international scientific publications dealing with human–river interactions in the context of restoration.
1.4.1.1 A broad public at the heart of the debate to characterize society’s support for river restoration projects
The majority of publications focus on the relationships that the “public” –“inhabitants,” “residents,” or simply “people,” or “citizens” – have with restored or to be restored rivers (e.g. Larned et al. 2006; Weber and Stewart 2009; Hong et al. 2019), notably through survey approaches (see Box 1.2). These designations generally refer to all people making up society, regardless of the relationship they may have with the river. Within this population, local people (local residents) occupy a special place insofar as they live within the confines of the river (Tunstall et al. 2000; Seidl and Stauffacher 2013; Westling et al. 2014). Proximity to the river is also a subject of discussion in the definition of “local.” From what distance is one concerned by a river restoration project? Are the expectations the same whether one lives near or far? These are questions raised by Soto‐Montes de Oca and Ramirez‐Fuentes (2019), whose objective was to evaluate the benefits of restoration perceived by inhabitants according to their proximity of residence to the Atoyac River (Mexico). This study shows that, more than the distance of residence, it is the frequency of use of the river that determines the interest in its restoration. River users, whether residents or nonresidents, are the focus of a number of scientific works (e.g. Polizzi et al. 2015; Deffner and Haase 2018; Zingraff‐Hamed 2018). Generally speaking, publications dealing with human–river relationships often consider these different categories of stakeholders as forming public opinion and participating in political life and, through their positions, guiding the modalities of public action and, therefore, restoration projects. There are many publications linking the question of the relationship to the river to political issues (e.g. Junker et al. 2007; Davenport et al. 2010; Barthélémy and Armani 2015; Fox et al. 2017). The challenge underlying these publications is to understand how, in the context of projects, the relationships that local societies have with a river can give rise to support or opposition to its restoration. They sometimes position themselves ahead of projects to determine and anticipate, among the diversity of forms of relationships with the river, those that can help to ensure the adhesion of residents to the restoration project (e.g. Buijs 2009). They can also be located after projects to assess the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the changes that projects have brought about in terms of the links that residents have established with the river, or that they have established with each other around the river (e.g. Buijs 2009; Verbrugge and van den Born 2018). In particular, Buijs (2009) has shown, through the case of the restoration of the Rhine (Netherlands), that opposition to restoration projects generally responds to questioning of the foundations of people’s attachment to the river.
1.4.1.2 Approaches focused on the values associated with rivers
To understand the relationship that the general public has with rivers, publications use different notions such as “perception,” “preference,” “attitude,” or “attachment” to the environment. Each of these notions has its own definition, sometimes changing (Table 1.2); however, they all reflect the values and attachments that individuals have with rivers. Although such values have long been excluded from environmental action, their essential role “as rational motivators for the public to become involved and to voice their concern” (Vining et al. 2000, p. 145), is now well recognized. The assumption is that individuals are more attentive to environments they care about and are more willing to protect them.
Box 1.2 The field survey: a structuring method for many societal approaches in the field of river restoration
Surveys are the founding methods for HSS (see Bickman and Rog 2009; Gideon 2012). The first surveys in the field of river restoration date from the late 1990s and were conducted as part of economic studies (e.g. Loomis 1996; Loomis et al. 2000). They were quickly mobilized to develop studies on social and political issues (e.g. Tunstall et al. 2000; Purcell et al. 2002).
The majority of survey‐based studies focus on the general public (Figure 1.7). They often target residents of a neighborhood or town near to a restored river site (e.g. Tunstall et al. 2000; Perni et al. 2012; Seidl and Stauffacher 2013; Hong et al. 2019). They are also interested in the users and visitors of the sites, whether or not they are residents (e.g. Loomis 2002; Becker and Friedler 2013; Kim et al. 2017; Deffner and Haase 2018). These surveys are particularly used to evaluate the economic, recreational, or landscape benefits of a restoration project. They are also deployed to provide information for restoration policies on the relationships that a regional or national population has with rivers or river management (e.g. Piégay et al. 2005; Junker and Buchecker 2008). The surveys also focus on specific categories of the population, whose role in the restoration process is considered specific. They are identified as project stakeholders, actors, participants, or interest groups. The definition of these categories is often debated, and survey work can help inform such discussions (e.g. Tanaka 2006; Junker et al. 2007). Political studies are mainly based on surveys targeting elected officials and staff of public institutions, leaders of environmental or citizen associations, economic players, and scientists. The objective of these studies is to understand the position of the various stakeholders with regard to restoration approaches, but also the interactions between the stakeholders, their power relationships, and the conflicts or agreements that may be generated by the implementation of restoration projects (e.g. Junker et al. 2007; Lave et al. 2010; Heldt et al. 2016; Druschke et al. 2017). Stakeholders are also surveyed as part of the assessment of restoration projects (which is not guided by HSS questions, although they can feed them). These surveys, carried out by environmental scientists, are intended to gather factual information on the restoration
