et al. 2007; Kail et al. 2007).
Figure 1.7 Main categories of respondents targeted by surveys on the societal issues of river restoration.
This diversity of survey approaches is addressed by a variety of methods (Figure 1.8). Most of these are on‐site surveys, interviews, and questionnaires conducted face to face with respondents. However, several studies used other survey methods such as telephone, mail, or Internet surveys. These different modes of survey administration, which are less developed, are used in questionnaire‐based surveys because they often make it possible to reach a larger number of respondents (e.g. Loomis 1996; Buijs 2009; Bliem et al. 2012). For example, most economic studies use questionnaires for contingency evaluations that rely on the willingness to pay (e.g. Loomis 1996; Lee 2012; Kim et al. 2018), and then make quantitative analyses of their data. Studies on social practices and perceptions also utilize questionnaires, sometimes coupled with interviews (e.g. Tunstall et al. 2000; Buijs 2009; Åberg and Tapsell 2013; Deffner and Haase 2018), and sometimes using specific survey methods such as photo‐questionnaires (e.g. Piégay et al. 2005; Junker and Buchecker 2008; McCormick et al. 2015) or photo‐based interviews (e.g. Westling et al. 2014). Social approaches also give room for in‐depth interviews. The latter, and to a lesser extent observation methods, are the dominant methods supporting policy analysis (e.g. Tanaka 2006; Barthélémy and Armani 2015; Heldt et al. 2016; Druschke et al. 2017). Analyses of interview data are most often qualitative. They enable us to understand the complexity of the actors’ roles and governance processes. Political and social studies often combine observations, interviews, and questionnaires (e.g. Junker et al. 2007; Lave et al. 2010). Focus group interviews are rarely used as methods per se (e.g. Fox et al. 2017), but are often used to prepare the implementation of a questionnaire, particularly in economic studies (e.g. Loomis 2002; Kenney et al. 2012; Kim et al. 2018).
Figure 1.8 Main methods used in surveys of societal issues in river restoration.
Table 1.2 How are the notions of “perception,” “attitude,” and “place attachment” defined in the literature on societal issues in river restoration?
| Perception | Although the notion of perception is often used in the field of river restoration, it is rarely defined in publications. Its epistemology is difficult to establish with certainty across different studies. However, the use made of it by authors leads to its inclusion in the field of “environmental perception” studies, which since the 1970s have been positioned at the intersection of different disciplines such as geography, psychology, sociology, or anthropology (Saarinen and Sell 1980). According to Zube (1999, p. 214), “Environmental perception has commonly been defined as awareness of, or feelings about, the environment.” It is also “the act of apprehending the environment by the senses.” It is on this apprehension of river landscapes or the elements that constitute them that several studies in the field of restoration have focused on (e.g. Piégay et al. 2005; Junker and Buchecker 2008; Seidl and Stauffacher 2013; Åberg and Tapsell 2013), with numerous works being specifically anchored in the field of “landscape perceptions” (Zube et al. 1982). Most are interested in “perceived landscape value” through different criteria such as aesthetics, naturalness, biodiversity, or ecosystem services. Other work is more detached from the landscape approach. Perception is then a mental construction as much as an act of sensory experience. This is the approach that seems to be defended in works focusing on the perception of environmental problems (e.g. Pahl‐Wostl 2006; Alam 2011) or flood risk (e.g. Buijs 2009; Chou 2016). Behind the term “perception” is the idea of subjective evaluation, as Jähnig et al. (2011) explain when they compare the subjectivity of perception and the objectivity of scientific knowledge in the evaluation of restoration success. Although differences in the ways of perceiving reality may be certain, the hierarchy implied by the objective–subjective opposition is debatable. A number of works use the notion of perception in a more common sense, as being synonymous with opinion regarding project implementation (e.g. Davenport 2010; Feng et al. 2015). In some studies, a strong link is established between perception and attitude (e.g. Alam 2011; Åberg and Tapsell 2013; Deffner and Haase 2018). Knowing environmental perceptions would allow a better understanding of the support or opposition of certain categories of stakeholders to river restoration projects. |
| Attitude | The origin of the notion of attitude in the environmental field is to be found in psychological work (Kaiser et al. 1999). According to Gifford and Sussman (2012, p. 65), an “attitude is a latent construct mentally attached to a concrete or abstract object.” Attitude would thus be distinguished from perception, which has a more sensory origin. It would also have a more direct link to behavior (Kaiser et al. 1999). It must be noted that, like the notion of perception, that of attitude is rarely defined or referenced in work carried out in the field of river restoration. It is often invoked in a generic sense synonymously with an opinion or perception of the restoration project and its conduct or effects (e.g. Tunstall et al. 2000; Purcell et al. 2002; Chin et al. 2005; Buijs 2009; Alam 2011). Support and opposition to restoration are sometimes defined as attitudes (e.g. Feng et al. 2015; Chou 2016). For example, Heldt et al. (2016, p. 5) speak of “positive,” “neutral,” or “negative” attitudes toward projects. |
| Place attachment | Born out of research on “people place relationships” (Lewicka 2011), the notion of “place attachment” is mobilized by various social science disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and human geography. Although ancient, this notion appears relatively recently in the field of river restoration (e.g. Buijs 2009; Alam 2011; Fox et al. 2016; Verbrugge and van den Born 2018). “In general, place attachment is defined as an affective bond or link between people and specific places” (Hidalgo and Hernández 2001). As Alam (2011, p. 637) reminds us, the definition of the notion of place attachment is not really stabilized and has many synonyms. For Buijs (2009, p. 2681), “place attachment” is, along with “place identity” and “place dependency,” one of the dimensions of the “sense of place.” Verbrugge and van den Born (2018, p. 242) propose a different perspective, presenting “place identity, place dependence, social bonding, and narrative bonding” as the four dimensions of place attachment. These authors also suggest that “place of attachment” is a dimension of the public’s perception of restoration. This was not the case for Fox et al. (2016), who spoke of “attachment to landscapes” to define the place of attachment and established a stronger synonymy with the field of landscape perception, which also gives an important role to places. The specificity of the notion of place attachment would then be mainly attributable to the central place given to emotions and the affective dimension. Verbrugge and van den Born (2018, p. 241) speak of “emotional connections to place” in their definition of the concept. |
In order to grasp human–river relationships, many publications give an important place to “landscape” or “riverscape.” Landscape is defined as the sensitive side of the environment. Landscape perception is the mechanism by which individuals perceive ecological processes and the state of ecosystems. As such, landscape experience cannot be neglected in environmental action (Nassauer 1992; Gobster et al. 2007). Nevertheless, societal approaches to river restoration mobilize the landscape in a variety of ways. Some authors use it to highlight the cultural and historical anchoring of the relationship between residents and rivers that guides, or should guide,
