process that facilitates social learning and institutional change, and leads to an adaptive management strategy for the restoration.” Participation should thus facilitate a broad acceptance of environmental issues, but also enable projects to evolve by taking into account and bringing together a wide range of expectations. Restoration is thus approached from a more integrated perspective. Ecological restoration then becomes a means of environmental and territorial development leading to the long‐term well‐being of the inhabitants. While the ecological dimension occupies an important place, the social question, and in particular social justice within the constraints and benefits of restoration, is also at the heart of the debate and must not be neglected.
Some studies also question the objectives of restoration without guiding the participants in their choice. Social science researchers often have a particular relationship to the commitment and expertise. The deconstruction of the figure of the expert, discussions around the hierarchy of knowledge (e.g. Fox et al. 2017), and, more generally, the study of power relations linked to knowledge (e.g. Lave 2016) can lead to paradoxically opposed positions. Some researchers, in political ecology for example, adopt a resolutely committed stance and affirm it as a postulate of their research approach. Others may be cautious in their links to action. It is therefore necessary for those involved in restoration to think differently about the science–management relationship, which in the field of water‐related issues has long been dominated by an engineering logic based precisely on the logic of solution. Work in the humanities and social sciences often carries with it a tradition of the question rather than the answer. This is also related to the spatial and temporal scales on which such work is conducted, which sometimes differ from the scales of river management. For example, the work of Lave et al. (2010) on the relationship between science and management in the United States does not have an immediate application in the framework of projects, but serves to accommodate the thinking of restoration stakeholders in the scientific and technical models on which their actions are based.
1.6 A book to share a diversity of societal approaches in the field of river restoration
1.6.1 What will you find in this edited book?
This book is the result of a long collaborative process. It stems from the observation that many researchers have worked for many years on the societal issues of river restoration. However, these scientific commitments remain relatively short term and are most often carried out within the framework of interdisciplinary projects led primarily by the natural sciences. Researchers addressing the social, political, or economic issues raised by restoration are relatively isolated when it comes to their ability to consider common reflexive approaches and share their work with the broader community working in river restoration. For example, there are few major dedicated events where they can come together to exchange and discuss the approaches, scientific results, and operational perspectives opened up by their research. This book was conceived to open up a space for sharing such perspectives, and to highlight the rich and dynamic interdisciplinary community.
This book forms a compendium of the diversity of scientific work carried out over the last ten years on societal challenges to river restoration. It proposes 14 contributions by researchers from different research fields, such as environmental economics, critical physical geography, human or social geography, hydromorphology, ecology and biology, sustainable management studies, philosophy and ethics, political ecology, political science, architecture and urban studies, and anthropology. Each of these disciplines enriches the book with concepts and methods from different epistemological traditions. Some contributions propose syntheses of already published works, whereas others present original studies. Most of them base their analysis on case studies and empirical data. To account for the diversity of the environmental, sociopolitical, and cultural contexts in which river restoration takes place, the contributions of this book are international. They come from research teams in Austria, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Collecting these contributions together makes it possible to emphasize their complementary nature. This compendium is intended to be a showcase of research achievements: questions, methods, and scientific results. It provides stimulating perspectives for understanding restoration in its social, economic, and political dimensions.
1.6.2 Who is this book aimed at?
This book is intended for scientists working on the theme of river restoration, and for those working on broader environmental issues. It is, of course, intended for researchers in the humanities and social sciences who wish to learn about the latest work carried out in this field by their peers. It is also, and more generally, addressed to the interdisciplinary scientific community working in the field of river research and restoration, which has strong expectations regarding societal approaches.
It is also intended for students in environmental sciences who intend to go into research or river management professions. This book will help them to understand the social, political, and economic dimensions of river restoration, and their linkages with ecological issues; it will therefore help to forge an interdisciplinary culture to better respond to the issues raised by river restoration and environmental management in general.
Finally, this book is aimed at operational actors in river restoration, be they project leaders, technical partners, or financiers. It will be of interest to public bodies such as governmental, regional, and local agencies with expertise in the field of river restoration. It will also be of interest to NGOs, whether they are specialized in the field of river restoration or more broadly interested in river management. The book may also be of interest to design offices that advise such parties. These various professionals in the midst of the action are often the first to be confronted with the social, economic, and political stakes of restoration. This book will provide them with keys to better understand the mechanisms in action and to better integrate them into the implementation or support of river restoration policies and projects.
References
1 Åberg, E.U. and Tapsell, S. (2013). Revisiting the River Skerne: the long‐term social benefits of river rehabilitation. Landscape and Urban Planning 113: 94–103.
2 Acuña, V., Díez, J.R., Flores, L., et al. (2013). Does it make economic sense to restore rivers for their ecosystem services? Journal of Applied Ecology 50(4): 988–997.
3 Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., and Williams, M. (1994). Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(3): 271–292.
4 Akron, A., Ghermandi, A., Dayan, T., et al. (2017). Interbasin water transfer for the rehabilitation of a transboundary Mediterranean stream: an economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 202: 276–286.
5 Alam, K. (2008). Cost–benefit analysis of restoring Buriganga River, Bangladesh. International Journal of Water Resources Development 24(4): 593–607.
6 Alam, K. (2011). Public attitudes toward restoration of impaired river ecosystems: does residents’ attachment to place matter? Urban Ecosystems 14(4): 635–653.
7 An, D.W. and Lee, J.Y. (2019). Influence and sustainability of the concept of landscape seen in Cheonggye stream and Suseongdong Valley restoration projects. Sustainability 11(4): 1126.
8 Aronson, J., Clewell, A.F., Blignaut, J.N., et al. (2006). Ecological restoration: a new frontier for nature conservation and economics. Journal for Nature Conservation 14: 135–139.
9 Axelrad, G. and Feinerman, E. (2009). Regional planning of wastewater reuse for irrigation and river rehabilitation. Journal of Agricultural Economics 60(1): 105–131.
10 Bae, H. (2011). Urban stream restoration in Korea:
