and Kishon rivers (Israel) show that, while the most ambitious restoration measures may present the best cost–benefit ratios (Becker and Friedler 2013), more‐targeted restoration measures may sometimes be more economically profitable (Becker et al. 2019).
Among the publications reviewed, few presented a negative economic balance of river restoration projects (e.g. Lee and Jung 2016). Most report excess cost–benefit analyses (e.g. Lee 2012; Polizzi et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2018; Logar et al. 2019). In other words, river restoration projects are presented as being economically profitable overall in relation to the benefits they produce. However, these publications show that not all services are equal when it comes to understanding the overall benefit of restoration projects. Some projects do not stand up to cost–benefit analyses if they do not take into account cultural services, particularly aesthetic or recreational services (e.g. Kenney et al. 2012; Garcia et al. 2016). The authors of these studies also underline the importance of these specific services for supporting river restoration policies, especially in urban areas. Cultural objectives, particularly landscape and recreational objectives, can also be added to traditional ecological objectives to strengthen the social amenities of rivers, and these are known to greatly increase the value of projects (e.g. Bae 2011).
A number of publications also discuss the fact that the assessment of restoration benefits is highly dependent on the spatial and temporal scale at which one places oneself (e.g. Turner and Boyer 1997; Becker et al. 2014). For example, there may be imbalances between the territories that pay for projects and those that benefit from them. Thus, Logar et al. (2019) highlight the tensions that exist in Switzerland between the scales at which projects are financed (national scale) and the scales at which projects are implemented (local scale), and they stress the interest in securing additional local funds to guarantee territorial equity. From a temporal point of view, Polizzi et al. (2015) showed that the benefits of a restoration project undertaken in Finland offset the costs in only 3–10 years, whereas Garcia et al. (2016) estimated the net benefit of an Israeli project at 30 years. Any evaluation of river restoration cannot be separated from consideration of the timescales of the project and its benefits.
Table 1.4 How are the notions of “preference” and “willingness” defined in the literature on the societal stakes of river restoration?
| Preference | The notion of preference is used recurrently in publications dealing with human–river interactions in the context of restoration, but according to different epistemological anchors. A number of these uses are part of a tradition of research in environmental psychology that focuses on the affective and cognitive relationships that individuals have with the environment (Kaplan 1987). In this perspective, the notion of environmental preference is closely linked to that of environmental perception. According to van den Berg et al. (2003, p. 136), “environmental preference is determined by environmental properties that possess a potential functional significance for the perceiver.” The notion of environmental preference is, however, more in line with a logic of prioritization and comparative judgment. It is therefore often mobilized for the aesthetic or landscape evaluation of different restoration scenarios (e.g. Chin et al. 2008; Junker and Buchecker 2008; McCormick et al. 2015; Hong et al. 2019). Preference is also a benchmarking process that is very often invoked in economic evaluations (Hausman 2011). The concept refers particularly to revealed and stated preferences methods (Adamowicz et al. 1994; Boxal et al. 1996). These methods are widely used in the framework of restoration benefit assessment (Brouwer and Sheremet 2017; Bergstrom and Loomis 2017). Preference is synonymous with choice regarding the services that restored rivers can provide; the individual is positioned as a consumer of these services. Preference is used as a founding notion to determine the value of the river. |
| Willingness | The notion of willingness is difficult to define because it can be understood as being synonymous with wishing in a proactive sense, as much as a more passive “without compulsion, voluntarily” (Trumble and Stevenson 2002). In any case, the notion seems to have its origin in economics work using willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) as the structuring concept for the method of evaluation; it is within this methodological framework that it is used in publications on river restoration (e.g. Loomis 1996; Bliem et al. 2012; Kim et al. 2018). The notion of willingness is closely associated with that of preference. It is mainly discussed methodologically, between an approach that measures the amount that an individual is willing to pay to access or retain a service and an approach that measures the price they are willing to accept for losing that service (Zhao et al. 2013; Polizzi et al. 2015). Beyond economic valuations, the notion of willingness is also used to evaluate support or opposition to restoration actions. Willingness is less a matter of consent than of commitment (Connelly et al. 2002; Alam 2011). Alam (2011, p. 636) uses the term “willingness to contribute” (WTC), understood in terms of money or time invested. Some approaches are even demonetized, such as the work of Januchowski‐Hartley et al. (2012, p. 24), who are interested in “landholders’ willingness to engage in restoration on their land.” |
1.5 A diversity of researchers’ positions with regard to operational action
Research in the field of river restoration is essentially an applied research field; it is concerned with and involved in the transformation of river environments. Studies interested in restoration often express, among their objectives, a desire to contribute to the improvement of policies and to assist in the implementation of projects. The increasing number of restoration assessment procedures performed to enable appropriate management is illustrative of this desire to support environmental action. By studying restoration policies and projects and analyzing their objectives, the way they are implemented, and their socioeconomic effects, societal approaches obviously contribute to the critical work that is carried out on restoration approaches. Rarely does societal research maintain a distant position with respect to action. Most authors make recommendations or more generally suggest ways to improve actions. If the commitment of researchers is real, it obviously takes different forms, depending on the research issues, the traditions specific to different disciplines, the individual positions of researchers, and the expectations of practitioners.
If the objective of many works carried out on societal issues is to improve river restoration policies and projects, the manner in which these improvements are considered is obviously based on different ethical positions. The primary challenge may be to contribute to achieving the environmental objectives defined within the framework of restoration projects, most often on the basis of ecological criteria. Analysis of environmental perceptions or expectations of a project is then seen as a means of removing opposition to ecological restoration approaches. The production of knowledge is thus often articulated with environmental education approaches. For example, the work conducted by Chin et al. (2008, p. 894) “is advocated to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and public perception for effective management and restoration of river systems with [in‐channel] wood.” Research thus focuses on the socioeconomic benefits of restoration in order to provide arguments to justify and support ecological action.
There may, however, be some mistrust within the community of researchers working on societal issues when faced with work aimed essentially at fostering social acceptance, which could be conceived as a simple recording of decisions taken. Many studies show a strong commitment to a participatory conception of public action in the field of restoration, both for political reasons – a vision of the democratic process – and for pragmatic reasons – involvement in the decision‐making process reinforces public support for restoration practices (e.g. Junker et al. 2007). Improvement in restoration is also improvement in the governance processes. The question is then political, about who makes the decision and who participates in the decision‐making. It is often a question of encouraging a more shared and therefore more consensual approach to restoration. Improvement is not about facilitating the implementation of decisions but about enhancing equity in decision‐making. In a frequently referenced work, Pahl‐Wostl (2006,
