River Restoration E-Book
89,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Serie: Advancing River Restoration and Management
- Sprache: Englisch
River Restoration River restoration initiatives are now widespread across the world. The research efforts undertaken to support them are increasingly interdisciplinary, focusing on ecological, chemical, physical as well as societal issues. River Restoration: Political, Social, and Economic Perspectives provides a comprehensive overview of research in the field of river restoration in humanities and the social sciences. It illustrates how, in the last thirty years or so, such approaches have evolved and strengthened within the restoration sciences. The scientific community working in this domain has structured itself, often regionally and circumstantially, to critically assess and improve restoration policies and practices. As a research field, river restoration tackles three thematic axes: * Human-river interactions - especially perceptions and practices of rivers, and how these interactions can be changed by restoration projects * Political processes, with a particular interest in governance and decision-making, and a specific emphasis on the question of public participation in restoration projects * Evaluation of the social and economic benefits of river restoration River Restoration: Political, Social, and Economic Perspectives encompasses these three topics, and more, to provide the reader with the most up-to-date and holistic view of this constantly evolving area. The book will be of particular interest to human and social scientists, biophysical scientists (hydrologists, geomorphologists, ecologists), environmental scientists, public policy makers, design or planning officers, and anyone working in the field of river restoration.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 810
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Series Foreword
Acknowledgments
List of Contributors
Part I: Introduction
1 What are the Political, Social, and Economic Issues in River Restoration? Genealogy and Current Research Issues
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Genealogy of research on societal issues in river restoration
1.3 A scientific community organized regionally and occasionally around river restoration projects
1.4 A research field tackling several topics
1.5 A diversity of researchers’ positions with regard to operational action
1.6 A book to share a diversity of societal approaches in the field of river restoration
References
Part II: People–River Relationships: From Ethics to Politics
2 Ethics of River Restoration
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Three challenges of river restoration
2.3 Restoration ecology as a type of biomimicry
2.4 Conclusions
References
3 Restoring Sociocultural Relationships with Rivers
3.1 Introduction
3.2 What is river restoration?
3.3 Placing river restoration in its biophysical and sociocultural contexts
3.4 Emerging approaches to knowing and valuing rivers differently in Aotearoa New Zealand
3.5 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
4 Political Ecology and River Restoration
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Political ecology: A critical approach to environmental issues
4.3 Political ecology and river restoration
4.4 Restoring the ecological continuity of rivers: Controversies involving different meanings of the river
4.5 Conclusions: What does political ecology have to offer river restoration?
References
Part III: Governance and Power Relationships Between Stakeholders
5 The Policy and Social Dimension of Restoration Thinking
5.1 Introduction
5.2 River restoration and the importance of interdependencies between public policies and between public and private rights
5.3 River restoration and interdependencies in territorial construction
5.4 River restoration and interdependencies of sciences and knowledge forms
5.5 Conclusions
References
6 From Public Policies to Projects
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Toward a multifunctional, ecosystem‐based paradigm for river restoration
6.3 Political factors that determine river restoration
6.4 Field‐testing the river restoration new paradigm: from operation acceptance to rejection
6.5 Conclusions
References
7 How to Better Involve Stakeholders in River Restoration Projects
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The role of stakeholders in dam removal in two different institutional contexts
7.3 From the involvement of the stakeholders to the enrichment of the project
7.4 Some key points to improve stakeholders’ involvement
7.5 Conclusions
References
8 Letting the Political Dimension of Participation in River Restoration have its Space
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Participation and river restorations
8.3 Participation in Swiss river management
8.4 Processes of depoliticization at work
8.5 Recommendations for taking into account the political dimension of participation
8.6 Conclusions
References
Part IV: Evaluation of Socioeconomic Effects
9 What is the Total Economic Value of River Restoration and Why is it Important?
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Defining and valuing the total economic value of river restoration
9.3 Estimation and application of river restoration total economic value
9.4 Conclusions
10 Valuation of Ecosystem Services to Assess River Restoration Projects
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Analytical framework of ecosystem services valuation
10.3 Case studies of ecosystem services valuations in river restoration project assessments
10.4 Case studies analysis: valuation of ES for assessing river restoration projects
10.5 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
11 Public Perspectives of River Restoration Projects
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Theoretical foundations of public perspectives
11.3 Two empirical examples of how to include residents’ perspectives
11.4 Conclusions and Implications
Acknowledgments
References
Part V: Diversity of Methods, Diversity of Knowledge
12 Social Surveys
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Survey methods for studying the social dimensions of river restoration
12.3 Choosing between interviews and questionnaires for river restoration surveys
12.4 Conclusions
13 Documents on River Restoration
13.1 Introduction
13.2 What kind of documentary material can be used for what purpose?
13.3 What are the methods of documentary analysis and what results do they produce?
13.4 When to use a documentary approach? The pros and cons compared to survey methods
13.5 Conclusions
14 Participatory Approaches
14.1 Introduction
14.2 What are good practice principles for participatory river restoration?
14.3 What methods could be used for participatory river restoration?
14.4 Conclusions
References
15 Economic Benefits
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Main phases of a valuation study and points of attention
15.3 Conclusions
References
Part VI: Conclusions
16 Social, Economic, and Political Stakes of River Restoration
16.1 Humanities and social sciences now fully engaged within the field of restoration
16.2 Analysis of people–river relationships: from ethics to politics
16.3 Understanding of governance and power relationships between stakeholders
16.4 Evaluation of socioeconomic effects of river restoration projects
16.5 Strengthening collaborations between HSS and restoration stakeholders
References
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1 Definitions of river restoration selected from the international s...
Table 1.2 How are the notions of “perception,” “attitude,” and “place attach...
Table 1.3 How are the notions of “expectation,” “support,” and “acceptance” ...
Table 1.4 How are the notions of “preference” and “willingness” defined in t...
Chapter 8
Table 8.1 Summary of Thurauen, Seymaz, and La Foce case studies’ principal c...
Chapter 9
Table 9.1 Classification of ecosystem goods and services supported by rivers...
Table 9.2 Estimates of the total economic value (TEV) of river restoration (...
Chapter 10
Table 10.1 Characteristics of restoration projects of the Yarqon, Caldes and...
Table 10.2 Frequency and total area of distribution of positive and negative...
Chapter 11
Table 11.1 Characteristics of the regional population and the survey sample.
Table 11.2 Respondents’ place and river relationships (mean values; scales: ...
Table 11.3 Perceived relevance of values to residents by municipality subsam...
Table 11.4 Response rate and demographic composition of baseline and final s...
Chapter 12
Table 12.1 Aims and arguments guiding the use of interviews and questionnair...
Chapter 13
Table 13.1 Different types of documents useful for river restoration.
Table 13.2 Type of documentary analysis methods.
Chapter 14
Table 14.1 Methods for engaging stakeholders.
Chapter 15
Table 15.1 Objectives and information provided by the economic valuation of ...
Table 15.2 List of ecosystem services provided by rivers (Finlayson et al. 2...
Table 15.3 Example of biophysical characteristics of interest and ES indicat...
Table 15.4 Valuation methods for ecosystems services (de Groot et al. 2006; ...
Table 15.5 Data requirements for various valuation methods.
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Main international scientific journals in which research on socie...
Figure 1.2 Chronology of international scientific publications on societal i...
Figure 1.3 Geography of international scientific publications on societal is...
Figure 1.4 Map of the study sites of international research publications on ...
Figure 1.5 A lexicon specific to international scientific publications on th...
Figure 1.6 A lexicon specific to international scientific publications deali...
Figure 1.7 Main categories of respondents targeted by surveys on the societa...
Figure 1.8 Main methods used in surveys of societal issues in river restorat...
Figure 1.9 Lexicon specific to international scientific publications dealing...
Figure 1.10 Restoration measures tackled in scientific publications on the s...
Figure 1.11 A lexicon specific to international scientific publications on t...
Figure 1.12 Economic methods used in international scientific publications t...
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 The philosophical framework of biomimicry.
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 Map of Waikato River and Whanganui River catchments,
Aotearoa
New...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Template to grasp the policy and social dimension of restoration....
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Chronology of some changes in river restoration objectives from t...
Figure 6.2 Political factors in river restoration projects.
Figure 6.3 River restoration projects according to scales of actors, objecti...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Location and characteristics of the Bateau dam removal project, O...
Figure 7.2 Location and characteristics of the Finesville dam removal projec...
Figure 7.3 Involvement of stakeholders in the Bateau (a) and Finesville (b) ...
Figure 7.4 Chronologies of the Finesville and the Bateau dams removal projec...
Figure 7.5 The enrichment of the Bateau and Finesville dams removal projects...
Figure 7.6 The works carried out on the Orne River: (a) landscaping on the f...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Map locating the Thurauen, Seymaz, and La Foce case studies.D...
Figure 8.2 Building on the political dimension of participation.
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1 The IPBES Conceptual Framework.
Figure 10.2 Analytical framework to compare the assessment of river restorat...
Figure 10.3 Location of the three river restoration case studies: Yarqon Riv...
Figure 10.4 Sum of the present values of the ES benefits and costs elements ...
Figure 10.5 Images of common landscapes that can be found in the Caldes stre...
Figure 10.6 Intensity raster maps of positive – “recreational/tourism” (a), ...
Figure 10.7 Aggregated data of respondents reported use of routes for outdoo...
Figure 10.8 Respondents’ assessment of their satisfaction with river scenari...
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1 Map of the lower Wigger river catchment indicating the municipal...
Figure 11.2 Respondents’ ex‐post assessment of benefits from the 2010 restor...
Figure 11.3 Location of the study area in the Netherlands (a), the location ...
Figure 11.4 Expectations regarding the impact of the dam on naturalness, bea...
Figure 11.5 Average score in all four residential areas on four dimensions o...
Chapter 12
Figure 12.1 Examples of recreational uses related to the Seiche river (a, d)...
Figure 12.2 Answers from riverside residents to a questionnaire about their ...
Figure 12.3 From the definition of study aims to the restitution of results ...
Figure 12.4 Differences and complementarities of interviews and questionnair...
Figure 12.5 Types of river attachments identified through the thematic conte...
Figure 12.6 Photo‐questionnaire survey to study the perceived aesthetic valu...
Figure 12.7 Social survey training is included in professional courses for r...
Chapter 13
Figure 13.1 Why use a documentary approach to study restoration?
Figure 13.2 Documentary analysis relies on corpora collected from different ...
Figure 13.3 Mapping of river names mentioned in titles of 1783 scientific pu...
Figure 13.4 Mapping of the main toponyms related to dam removal in the Sélun...
Figure 13.5 As applied to Water Agencies’ administrative documents concernin...
Figure 13.6 Change over time of media coverage evaluated through annual numb...
Figure 13.7 Stakeholders mentioned and interviewed in the daily regional pre...
Figure 13.8 Cumulated frequency curves of the fish species evoked by media; ...
Chapter 14
Figure 14.1 Arnstein’s “ladder of participation.”
Figure 14.2 Types of participation and levels of required commitment.
Figure 14.3 Information provided about a river restoration project in Scotla...
Figure 14.4 Workshop participants engaged in discussions over a river restor...
Chapter 15
Figure 15.1 Main phases of the economic valuation process (Bouscasse et al. ...
Figure 15.2 Extrapolation and aggregation of ES individual values.
Guide
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Series Foreword
Acknowledgments
List of Contributors
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Index
Wiley End User License Agreement
Pages
iii
iv
vii
vii
ix
x
xi
xii
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
107
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
333
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
River Restoration
Political, Social, and Economic Perspectives
Edited by
Bertrand Morandi
Université de Lyon, CNRS, France
Marylise Cottet
Université de Lyon, CNRS, France
Hervé Piégay
Université de Lyon, CNRS, France
This edition first published 2022© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Bertrand Morandi, Marylise Cottet and Hervé Piégay to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered OfficesJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyThe contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and discussion only and are not intended and should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting scientific method, diagnosis, or treatment by physicians for any particular patient. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each medicine, equipment, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data
Names: Morandi, Bertrand, editor. | Cottet, Marylise, editor. | Piégay, Hervé, editor.Title: River restoration : political, social, and economic perspectives / edited by Bertrand Morandi, Marylise Cottet, Hervé Piégay.Description: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley‐Blackwell, 2022. | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2021027145 (print) | LCCN 2021027146 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119409984 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119409991 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781119410003 (epub)Subjects: LCSH: Stream restoration.Classification: LCC QH75 .R584 2022 (print) | LCC QH75 (ebook) | DDC 333.91/62153–dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021027145LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021027146
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © Marylise Cottet
Series Foreword
The field of river restoration and management has evolved enormously in recent decades, driven largely by increased recognition of the ecological values, river functions, and ecosystem services. Many conventional river management techniques, emphasizing hard structural controls, have proven difficult to maintain over time, resulting in sometimes spectacular failures, and often degraded river environments. More sustainable results are likely from a holistic framework, which requires viewing the “problem” at a larger catchment scale and involves the application of tools from diverse fields. Success often hinges on understanding the sometimes complex interactions among physical, ecological, and social processes.
Thus, effective river restoration and management requires nurturing the interdisciplinary conversation, testing and refining our scientific theories, reducing uncertainties, designing future scenarios for evaluating the best options, and better understanding the divide between nature and culture that conditions human actions. It also implies that scientists better communicate with managers and practitioners, so that new insights from research can guide management and results from implemented projects can, in turn, inform research directions.
The series provides a forum for “integrative sciences” to improve rivers. It highlights innovative approaches, from the underlying science, concepts, methodologies, new technologies, and new practices, to help managers and scientists alike improve our understanding of river processes, and to inform our efforts to better steward and restore our fluvial resources for more harmonious coexistence of humans with their fluvial environment.
G. Mathias Kondolf, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Hervé Piégay, University of Lyon, CNRS, France
Acknowledgments
Warmest thanks to all people who gracefully accepted to review the chapters of this book and for their useful comments.
Déborah Abhervé (Asca), Dr. Fanny Arnaud (CNRS), Dr. Régis Barraud (Université de Poitiers), Dr. Olivier Barreteau (INRAE), Dr. Brent M. Haddad (University of California, Santa Cruz), Dr. Gemma Carr (Centre for Water Resource Systems), Dr. Matthieu Couttenier (ENS de Lyon), Dr. Simon Dufour (Université Rennes 2), Dr. Coleen Fox (Dartmouth College), Julien Gauthey (Office Français de la Biodiversité), Dr. Ana González Besteiro (Université Lyon 3), Dr. Lesley Head (The University of Melbourne), Dr. Md Sayed Iftekhar (The University of Western Australia), Dr. Natacha Jacquin (Office International de l’Eau), Dr. Eleftheria Kampa (Ecologic Institute, Germany), Dr. G. Mathias Kondolf (University of California, Berkeley), Dr. Yves‐François Le Lay (ENS de Lyon), Dr. Laurent Lespez (Université Paris‐Est Créteil Val de Marne), Dr. Susanne Muhar (BOKU, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences), Dr. Clare Palmer (Texas A&M University), Dr. Samantha Scholte (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau), Dr. Nick Schuelke (University of Wisconsin‐Milwaukee), Dr. Kate Sherren (Dalhousie University), Dr. Marc Tadaki (Cawthron Institute), Dr. Amie O. West (University of Arkansas), Dr. Joanna Zawiejska (Pedagogical University of Cracow)
List of Contributors
John C. BergstromUniversity of GeorgiaAthensGAUSA
Kirsty L. BlackstockSocial, Economic and Geographical Sciences DepartmentThe James Hutton InstituteAberdeenScotland
Brendon BlueSchool of EnvironmentUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
Kerstin BöckUniversität für Bodenkultur WienInstitut für Hydrobiologie und Gewässermanagement (IHG)ViennaAustria
Gabrielle BouleauUniversité Gustave EiffelLaboratoire Interdisciplinaire SciencesInnovation Société (LISIS), CNRS, ESIEE, INRAE, UGEMarne‐la‐ValléeFrance
Gary BrierleySchool of EnvironmentUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
Matthias BucheckerSwiss Federal Research Institute WSLUnit Economics and Social SciencesBirmensdorfSwitzerland
Arjen BuijsForest and Nature Conservation Policy GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
Nora S. BulettiUSYS TdLabETH, ZürichSwitzerland
John CainRiver PartnersChicoCAUSA
Catherine CarréUniversité Paris 1 Panthéon‐SorbonneParisFrance
Caitriona CarterUR ETBX INRAECentre de Nouvelle Aquitaine BordeauxCestas CedexFrance
Emeline CombyUniversité de LyonCNRSENS de LyonEnvironnement Ville SociétéLyonFrance
Marylise CottetUniversité de LyonCNRSENS de LyonEnvironnement Ville SociétéLyonFrance
Henry DicksFaculté de PhilosophieUniversité Jean Moulin LyonLyonFrance
Ludovic DrapierUniversité Paris Est CréteilUMR 8591 CNRS Laboratoire deGéographie physiqueMeudonFrance
Olivier EjderyanUSYS TdLabETH, ZürichSwitzerland
Silvia FlaminioInstitut de Géographie et DurabilitéUniversité de LausanneGéopolisLausanneSuisse
Xavier GarciaBarcelona Institute of Regional and Metropolitan StudiesCerdanyola del VallèsSpain
Marie‐Anne GermaineUniversité Paris NanterreNanterreUMR 7218 CNRS LAVUEFrance
Christopher GibbinsSchool of Environmental and Geographical SciencesUniversity of Nottingham Malaysia (UNM)Selangor Darul EhsanMalaysia
Jean‐Paul HagheRouen UniversityRouenFrance
Dan HikuroaTe Wānanga o WaipapaUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
Alba Juárez‐BourkeSocial, Economic and Geographical Sciences DepartmentThe James Hutton InstituteAberdeenScotland
Caroline Le CalvezUniversité d’OrléansEA 1210 CEDETEOrléans Cedex 2France
Sophie Le FlochUR ETBX INRAECentre de Nouvelle Aquitaine BordeauxCestas CedexFrance
Yves‐François Le LayUniversité de LyonCNRSENS de LyonEnvironnement Ville SociétéLyonFrance
Laurent LespezUniversité Paris Est CréteilUMR 8591 CNRS Laboratoire de Géographie physiqueMeudonFrance
Jamie LintonGeolab UMR 6042 CNRSUniversité de LimogesLimogesFrance
Belinda LipWWF‐Malaysia Sarawak OfficeKuchingSarawakMalaysia
John B. LoomisColorado State UniversityFort CollinsCOUSA
McKenzie Augustine MartinWWF‐Malaysia Sarawak OfficeKuchingSarawakMalaysia
Sylvie MorardetUniversité de MontpellierAgroParisTech, BRGM, CIRADINRAE, Institut Agro, IRDUMR G‐EAUMontpellierFrance
Bertrand MorandiUniversité de LyonCNRSENS de LyonEnvironnement Ville SociétéLyonFrance
Stefanie MüllerSwiss Federal Research Institute WSLUnit Economics and Social SciencesBirmensdorfSwitzerland
Hervé PiégayUniversité de LyonCNRSENS de LyonEnvironnement Ville SociétéLyonFrance
Franziska E. RuefUSYS TdLabETH, ZürichSwitzerland
Anne SalmondTe Wānanga o WaipapaUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
Beth Styler‐BarryThe Nature Conservancy – New Jersey Field OfficeChesterNJUSA
Marc TadakiCawthron InstituteNelsonNew Zealand
Pere Vall‐CasasUniversitat Internacional de CatalunyaSchool of ArchitectureBarcelonaSpain
Riyan van den BornInstitute for Science in SocietyRadboud UniversiteitNijmegenThe Netherlands
Bernadette van HeelInstitute for Science in SocietyRadboud UniversiteitNijmegenThe Netherlands
Helena ZempHaute École d’Ingénierie – FHNWWindischAargauSuisse
Part IIntroduction
1What are the Political, Social, and Economic Issues in River Restoration? Genealogy and Current Research Issues
Marylise Cottet, Bertrand Morandi, and Hervé Piégay
Université de Lyon, CNRS, ENS de Lyon, Environnement Ville Société, Lyon, France
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 River restoration at the heart of river management policies
Faced with the ever‐increasing impact of human activities on the environment, the biologist E.O. Wilson (1992) announced, probably with much hope, the opening of an era of ecological restoration in the 21st century. Although its scope and consequences may be a matter of debate (Choi 2007; Sudding 2011), the realization of this hope seems to be currently confirmed. In response to the observed degradation of ecosystems (Palmer et al. 2004; Steffen et al. 2007; Cardinale et al. 2012), ecological restoration measures have become a structuring element of environmental management policies in both developed and developing countries (Aronson et al. 2006; Wortley et al. 2013). In the field of river management, they have been actively deployed since the 1970s (Gore 1985; Boon et al. 1992) because of particularly significant degradation resulting from the use of water and hydraulic installations, both old and increasingly numerous (e.g. Dudgeon et al. 2005; Vörösmarty et al. 2010; Grizzetti et al. 2017). Faced with significant water pollution and profound physical modifications of river ecosystems, many countries, particularly Western ones, have taken legislative and regulatory measures to preserve or restore a certain environmental quality to rivers. These measures consider, often in an integrated manner, physicochemical, biological, and hydromorphological issues (e.g. the US Clean Water Act, 1972; UK Water Act, 1973; French Water Laws, 1992, 2006; EU Water Framework Directive, 2000; Australian Water Act, 2007). These legislative frameworks have provided a fertile ground for the multiplication of restoration projects, as shown by several reviews conducted around the world (e.g. Bernhardt et al. 2005; Nakamura et al. 2006; Brooks and Lake 2007; Morandi et al. 2017; Szałkiewicz et al. 2018).
River restoration policies, whether at the legislative or technical level, are supported by substantial interdisciplinary research efforts. Scientific work focused on the dynamics of restoration research has shown a major increase in productivity, starting in the 1990s (Shields et al. 2003; Ormerod 2004; Bennett et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2014; Wohl et al. 2015). This increase in scientific research accompanies an increase in the number of projects implemented (Bernhardt et al. 2005) and reflects the strength of science–management links in the field. Applied work in ecology, hydrology, and hydromorphology (Palmer and Bernhardt 2006; Vaughan et al. 2009; Wohl et al. 2015) has been carried out to better understand the functioning of river systems and to assess their responses to restoration actions. As these actions are often innovative, it is difficult to predict their effects, and adaptive approaches based on monitoring are therefore generally preferred (Downs and Kondolf 2002). The current thinking in the natural sciences, notably on the links between hydromorphological structures and processes (Kondolf 2000), or between habitats and biodiversity (Palmer et al. 2010), has been nourished by as much as it has nourished ecological restoration practices (Smith et al. 2014). Bradshaw (2002, p. 7) introduced “restoration as an acid test for ecology” and thus emphasized the links between ecological restoration (practice) and restoration ecology (science). While these special links have long led to the association of river restoration with natural sciences, they have not prevented calls to broaden the spectrum of disciplines involved in restoration approaches (Cairns 1995; Ormerod 2004; Palmer and Bernhardt 2006; Wohl et al. 2015).
1.1.2 An evolution in the positioning of societal issues in debates on river restoration
Societal1 stakes have always structured thinking in the field of restoration. Back in the 1990s, Cairns (1995, p. 9) wrote that “ecological restoration must involve ecosocietal restoration. This is the process of reexamining human society’s relationship with natural systems so that repair and destruction can be balanced and, perhaps, restoration practices ultimately exceed destruction practices.” This thinking is part of a more general movement questioning the relationship between human and nature as it has been encompassed in modern Western thought. This questioning, which has permeated society since the 1970s, is sociocultural, anthropological, and philosophical (Gobster and Hull 2000). It is sometimes championed by natural science researchers who advocate a new ethics of nature (e.g. Jordan 2000; Clewell and Aronson 2013). These ethics are based on the recognition of nature as having an intrinsic value as much as they are based on observations of the degradation of this value by human societies. They are formed at the point of convergence between conservationist movements and scientific advances in the natural sciences. Human activities are characterized by the natural sciences, often in terms of pressures; it is a time of guilt. The ultimate goal of restoration projects is to return rivers to the good (pristine) state they were in before degradation by human societies.
Very quickly, the original idea of the river’s return to a past state, what some authors have called the myth of the return to Eden (e.g. Dufour and Piégay 2009), was strongly criticized for reasons mainly related to scientific uncertainties and technical feasibility, but also to ethical positions. Restoration is certainly based on a new attitude toward rivers, but it must also deal with reality, including the social and economic reality of its implementation. The conceptualization of the Anthropocene is part of this evolution (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). Studies highlight the importance of both biophysical and societal contexts in the implementation of actions. It is a time for pragmatism; leaders of restoration projects seek to do the best that they can ecologically within a given context. This realization is accompanied by a discussion of the concept of restoration and an evolution of its definitions (see Box 1.1). As Wohl et al. (2005, p. 2) point out: “because both technical and social constraints often preclude ‘full’ restoration of ecosystem structure and function, rehabilitation is sometimes distinguished from restoration.” The concept of rehabilitation often carries the idea of a relaxation of the restoration objectives and a redefinition of the references used to define these objectives (Dufour and Piégay 2009). What is being restored? But above all, why is it being restored? Restoration, which until now was guided by the intrinsic value of the river, embodied by concepts such as ecological integrity, is opening up to more instrumental visions.
Box 1.1 River restoration: an “essentially contested concept”
The debates, and often polemics (e.g. Normile 2010), concerning what is and is not river restoration are numerous (e.g. Roni and Beechie 2013; Wohl et al. 2015). These debates on the definition of restoration have been fueled by the proliferation of concepts that are now widely used in the literature, such as “rehabilitation,” “renaturation,” “revitalization,” “enhancement,” and “improvement.” If there is one certainty emerging from these debates, it is that attempts to provide an unequivocal and definitive answer to the question “What is restoration?” are doomed to failure. There has never been a consensus on definitions, and there certainly never will be. The concepts of restoration, rehabilitation, or renaturation are “essentially contested concepts” (Gallie 1956, p. 169), that is to say, “concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users.” The interest in the debates lies not in their conclusions but in the debates themselves and the ideas that emerge from them.
The definitions that have been used as references in the field of restoration show the evolution of these debates. Initially conceived as techniques, the definitions raised ethical questions as early as the 1990s and particularly questioned the hermetic separation between human and nature (Table 1.1). According to Westling et al. (2014, p. 2614), “This dichotomy is challenged, both by alternative theoretical frameworks arguing for the relevance of natural‐cultural hybrid models for restoration, and by pragmatic perspectives that take restoration to be the balancing of ecological and human goals through rehabilitating or enhancing landscapes, rather than seeking return to a redundant, historical reference state.” The efforts of scientists and managers are now aimed at clarifying the definitions of references and concepts such as “Lietbild” (Kern 1992) or “guiding image” (Palmer et al. 2005) to clarify the restoration objectives (Weber et al. 2018). In the definition of these objectives, the tension between an eco‐centric approach that emphasizes the intrinsic value of the river and an anthropocentric approach carrying more utilitarian arguments is notable (Dufour and Piégay 2009).
Table 1.1 Definitions of river restoration selected from the international scientific literature illustrating the place of societal issues in conceptual debates.
NRC
1992
, p. 18
“Restoration is defined as the return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance. In restoration, ecological damage to the resource is repaired. Both the structure and the functions of the ecosystem are recreated.”
Stanford et al.
1996
, p. 393
“The goal of river restoration should be to minimize human‐mediated constraints, thereby allowing natural re‐expression of productive capacity. In some, if not most, intensely regulated rivers, human‐mediated constraints may have progressed to the point that full re‐expression of capacity is neither desired nor possible. Nonetheless, the implication is that basic ecological principles applied to rivers in a natural‐cultural context can lead to restoration of biodiversity and bioproduction in space and time; but, the constraints must be removed, not mitigated.”
Downs and Thorne
2000
, pp. 249–250
“It is now widely recognised that river restoration in the sense of Cairns (1991) – ‘The complete structural and functional return to a pre‐disturbance state’ – is seldom feasible.” “Practical ‘river restoration’ is, in fact, an historically‐influenced exercise in environmental enhancement through morphological modification. It is probably more accurate to refer to the approach as river rehabilitation.”
McIver and Starr
2001
, p. 15, citing SER website
“Ecological restoration can be defined as ‘the process of assisting the recovery and management of ecological integrity,’ including a ‘critical range of variability in biodiversity, ecological processes and structures, regional and historical context, and sustainable cultural practices.’”
Wohl et al.
2005
, p. 2
“We define ecological river restoration as assisting the recovery of ecological integrity in a degraded watershed system by reestablishing the processes necessary to support the natural ecosystem within a watershed. Because both technical and social constraints often preclude ‘full’ restoration of ecosystem structure and function, rehabilitation is sometimes distinguished from restoration.”
Palmer and Allan
2006
, pp. 41–42
“River restoration means repairing waterways that can no longer perform essential ecological and social functions such as mitigating floods, providing clean drinking water, removing excessive levels of nutrients and sediments before they choke coastal zones, and supporting fisheries and wildlife. Healthy rivers and streams also enhance property values and are a hub for recreation.”
Chou
2016
, p. 2
“[R]iver restoration means different things to different people. In terms of scale and scope, it can be a complete structural and functional return to the pre‐disturbance state, a recovery of the partly functional and/or structural conditions of rivers (i.e., rehabilitation), a recovery of the natural state of a river ecosystem without really aiming at the pristine, pre‐disturbance state (i.e., renaturalization), or an improvement of the present state of rivers and their surrounding areas with the intention of enhancing their ecological, social, economic or aesthetic features (i.e., enhancement).”
Adhering to Chou’s (2016, p. 2) assertion that “river restoration means different things to different people,” we adopt a relatively broad definition of restoration in this book. We do not distinguish between some commonly used concepts such as restoration, rehabilitation, renaturation, or revitalization actions. We consider as restoration any human intervention on the river aimed at recovering a quality considered degraded or lost. This quality can be perceived in terms of biodiversity, hydromorphological dynamics, physicochemical parameters, landscape beauty, or even the possibility of recreational use.
According to Palmer et al. (2014), there has been a shift in ecological restoration from ecological theory to utilitarian concerns. This utilitarian approach to restoration is rooted in a more anthropocentric ethic, but paradoxically, it can also be instrumentalized to serve an eco‐centric ethic. The articulation of intrinsic and instrumental values is at work in restoration approaches (Clewell and Aronson 2006). It is reinforced by the ever more pressing need to justify often costly policies in the fluvial domain (e.g. Bernhardt et al. 2005; Nakamura et al. 2006; Brooks and Lake 2007). The ecological or hydromorphological quality of a river is no longer justifiable as an end in itself, but must appear as a necessity with regard to the services that the good state and biophysical functioning of a river can provide, or the risks burdening societies in the case of nonaction. This utilitarian vision is strongly based on the notion of services that has developed since the 1990s (Costanza et al. 1997). It finds particular resonance in the context of urban river restoration projects, which are highly constrained socially, politically, and technically (Eden and Tunstall 2006; Bernhardt and Palmer 2007). Moreover, it is largely in the context of urban ecology that the concept of “novel ecosystems” emerges, which requires consideration of the hybrid character, both natural and artificial, of the rivers to be restored (Francis 2014). The specificity of restoration in relation to other management approaches can also be called into question, as Elliot (1982, p. 81) anticipated when he denounced “faking nature.” Thus, there is a strong proximity between Martin’s (2017) proposed definition of ecological restoration, considered as “the process of assisting the recovery of a degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystem to reflect values regarded as inherent in the ecosystem and to provide goods and services that people value” and Mitsch’s definition of ecological engineering (2012, p. 5): “defined as the design of sustainable ecosystems that integrate human society with its natural environment for the benefit of both.”
No matter how you look at this evolution, it has certainly increased the attention paid to societal issues in the field of restoration. Research in the humanities and social sciences has contributed to this evolution by proposing new methods to measure the socioeconomic benefits that societies derive from restoration projects and also by analyzing the sociopolitical processes at work in the implementation of projects. If the objectives of restoration are no longer guided solely by a scientific conception of reference states, but also in response to political choices concerning what rivers should be, a new space for debate is opened up, particularly in respect to the questioning of decision‐making. To the questions “Why are we restoring?” or “What are we restoring?” is added the question “Who is restoring for whom?” The work carried out in political ecology shows that new relationships of power are being established within the frameworks for implementing restoration projects. As much as the objectives of restoration, it is the political mechanisms leading to the definition of these objectives that are at the heart of debates. Work on participation is essential, and questions the place of scientific and technical expertise as much as that of other interests, be they economic or more simple public interests.
1.1.3 What do we know about research on societal issues in the field of river restoration?
Although several reviews highlight the increasing place of societal issues within the scientific work devoted to river restoration (Bennett et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2014; Wohl et al. 2015), none of them has focused on a specific analysis of this research field. This introductory chapter offers this analysis; without claiming to be exhaustive, it gives a broad overview of the dynamics at work on the societal stakes of river restoration.
What is the magnitude of these dynamics? How are they structured at the international level? The first part of the introduction looks at the way the scientific community is organized within the field. Particular attention is paid to the way in which the work carried out by this community fits within the dynamics of general research on river restoration, but also within work in human and social environmental sciences.
The second part then analyzes the main directions taken by researchers working on societal issues of restoration. What are the main problem areas that structure this field of research? In which disciplines or epistemological traditions are they rooted? What are the methodological approaches mobilized in the frameworks of the different projects?
Finally, the third part is devoted to the operational commitment of researchers working on societal themes. Do these researchers support the implementation of river restoration projects and policies and, if so, how?
The literature review that we present here is based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the body of international scientific articles devoted to river restoration. This body of literature was retrieved from a search of the titles of articles listed in the Web of Science (WoS) using the keywords river*, stream*, restor*, rehab*, renat*, and revit*. In total, this search identified 1677 articles published between 1971 and 2019 by authors from about fifty different countries. The content of these 1677 articles was analyzed and a subset of 121 publications specifically devoted to discussions of human and social sciences (HSS; e.g. historical, philosophical, sociological, economic, geographical, and political) on the theme of river restoration were identified. This collection of literature forms only a sample of the work published in the field, particularly because it prioritizes international articles written in English at the expense of national publications and books written in other languages. Nevertheless, it allows an overview of the relevant publications and, by extension, of the dynamics of HSS research in the field of river restoration. To this end, we base our analysis on scientometric methods (Mingers and Leydesdorff 2015), coupled with lexical analysis methods (Lebart et al. 1998) and content analysis (Berelson 1952) of the publications.
1.2 Genealogy of research on societal issues in river restoration
According to Palmer and Bernhardt (2006, p. 3), “the final research frontier is restoration science that is informed by social science scholarship.” Addresses to the humanities and social sciences to invest more in the field of river restoration are recurrent (e.g. Ormerod 2004; Palmer and Bernhardt 2006; Wohl et al. 2015). However, it is sometimes difficult to know which disciplines are expected to be involved, and what issues should be worked on. Bennett et al. (2011, p. 4) present the “recognition and promotion of human, societal, or cultural requirements for stream restoration” as a shift in restoration science, emphasizing the importance of participation. Palmer and Bernhardt (2006, p. 4) refer to “cultural anthropology, environmental education, landscape architecture and city planners” as “social sciences.” Ormerod (2004, p. 548) refers to the “socio‐economic sciences” with a more explicit focus on economic approaches. All these authors address disciplinary contributions to the field of restoration according to the modern dichotomy between the “human sciences” and the “natural sciences” that is used to structure classical classifications in the scientific field. Other distinctions could have been made, for example the Frascati Manual separates the “social sciences” (e.g. sociology, economics, psychology, geography) from the “humanities and the arts” (e.g. philosophy, history) (OECD 2015, p. 59). These divisions are sometimes inherited from schools of thought or institutional traditions that vary from one country to another. They are sometimes overtaken by fields of research that are structured in an interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary manner. Many authors publishing on the societal issues of river restoration belong to environmental studies institutes, not to humanities and social sciences institutes. Epistemological positions are also rarely asserted in publications, and it is often difficult to identify the disciplinary tradition to which the authors adhere.
The tendency to break away from disciplinary divisions must be interpreted in the light of the epistemological evolutions that have marked the human and social‐sciences‐based work on environmental issues since the 1970s (e.g. Turner et al. 1994; Lester 1995; Hannigan 2006; Castree et al. 2016). These developments, which have led in particular to the structuring of the field of environmental humanities (Blanc et al. 2017; Emmet and Nye 2017; Heise et al. 2017), have made the disciplinary limits more labile. According to Emmett and Nye (2017, p. 4), “The environmental humanities have become a global intellectual movement that reconceives the relationship between scientific and technical disciplines and the humanities, which are essential to understanding and resolving dilemmas that have been created by industrial society.”
The WoS bibliometric analysis shows that the journals in which such research is published are very rarely humanities and social sciences journals (Figure 1.1). For the most part, studies on societal aspects of restoration are published in journals with an environmental editorial line, explicitly interdisciplinary and applied (e.g. Environmental Management; Journal of Environmental Management, Ecology and Society) or water management (e.g. Water Resources Research, Water Alternatives, River Research and Applications) journals. Journals on environmental economics issues (e.g. Ecological Economics, Water Resources and Economics) are the ones with the strongest disciplinary roots on the social science side. Much work on economic or political issues is published in natural science journals (e.g. Hydrobiologia, Journal of Hydrology). Many societal issues have also been brought into the field of restoration by researchers in the natural sciences. For example, as early as the 1990s, it was the ecologist J. Cairns (1995) who proposed the notion of “ecosocietal restoration.” Certain research approaches, initially undertaken by researchers in ecology, hydrology, or hydromorphology, have largely contributed to placing societal issues at the center of thinking (e.g. Wohl et al. 2005; Palmer and Bernhardt 2006; Dufour and Piégay 2009). This is the case with the Long‐Term Ecological Research (LTER) network and then the Long‐Term Socio‐Ecological Research Network (Redman et al. 2004; Wells and Dougill 2019), which have been important steps in the emergence of more integrated approaches to restoration. This need to cross‐disciplinary divides is expressed in another way in projects such as critical physical geography, which pays “critical attention to relations of social power with deep knowledge of a particular field of biophysical science or technology in the service of social and environmental transformation” (Lave et al. 2014, p. 2).
Figure 1.1 Main international scientific journals in which research on societal issues of river restoration is published (1992–2019).
1.3 A scientific community organized regionally and occasionally around river restoration projects
Smith et al. (2014, p. 253) writes that “the integration of social science into restoration is relatively rare.” Indeed, while research in the field of river restoration emerged in the 1970s and grew significantly from the early 1990s, studies specifically focused on societal issues only emerged in the 1990s and remained limited in number until the mid‐2000s (Figure 1.2). Although societal approaches still represent a minority of the published work in the field of river restoration, it is a steadily growing minority. Over the decade 2010–2020, work on the social, economic, or political stakes of restoration represented 10% of all publications devoted to river restoration, whereas it represented only 5% in the 2000s and 2% in the 1990s. The results of this work seem to be increasingly mobilized by the interdisciplinary scientific community. According to WoS data, studies dedicated to societal issues are cited almost as much as studies addressing other topics in restoration (2.4 vs. 2.6 annual citations).
Figure 1.2 Chronology of international scientific publications on societal issues in river restoration.
The first works on societal issues listed in the WoS date from the 1990s, with these being published in Europe and the United States (e.g. Barendregt et al. 1992; Loomis 1996; Turner and Boyer 1997). Over the entire period, 72% of all publications dedicated to social, economic, and political issues were written by researchers from European and North American institutions, with 36% being written by US researchers alone. However, societal publications represent only 6% of all work in the field of river restoration published in the USA (Figure 1.3). Some countries, which publish less in the field of restoration, are proportionally more active on societal issues. This is the case for several European countries including Spain, Switzerland, Norway, and to a lesser extent Germany, which have been actively publishing since 2005. Studies published in Israel also give particular importance to work in economics (e.g. Axelrad and Feinerman 2009; Becker and Friedler 2013). Researchers from East Asian countries, whose first publications in the field of river restoration date back to the mid‐2000s (Nakamura et al. 2006), very quickly became interested in societal issues (e.g. Tanaka 2006; Jia et al. 2010; Che et al. 2012). As a proportion of the total work they publish on river restoration, some countries, such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and China, are among the most active on societal issues. In total, since the early 1990s, more than 400 authors from 31 countries have contributed to publications on societal issues in the field of river restoration.
Despite publications from a large number of countries, there does not seem to be an internationally structured scientific community around humanities and social sciences. While most of the publications listed in the WoS involve authors belonging to different institutions, a minority are the result of international institutional cooperation. Scientific communities do exist, but they are multifaceted and rather structured on national or even regional scales. Sometimes it is more accurate to speak of scientific teams than communities. While these teams contribute to the production of societal knowledge in the field of restoration, they are often structured around broader or related research issues. Thus, significant works on river restoration have been published by a network of researchers from several English universities working on flooding and public perception issues (e.g. Tunstall et al. 1999, 2000; Eden et al. 2000; Åberg and Tapsell 2013). Also, in Switzerland, in the canton of Zurich, a scientific community specializing in public participation issues has produced notable work in the field of river restoration (e.g. Schläpfer and Witzig 2006; Junker and Buchecker 2008; Seidl and Stauffacher 2013). The dynamics of regionalized research often seem temporary. Several researchers, whose work is now a reference in the field, have only had a momentary commitment to restoration issues (e.g. Pahl‐Wostl 2006; Junker and Buchecker 2008; Buijs 2009). Out of more than 400 identified authors, less than one‐tenth have participated in multiple publications on the topic of river restoration.
Figure 1.3 Geography of international scientific publications on societal issues in river restoration (1992–2019).
The ad hoc nature of scientific commitments can be explained by the fact that research is often conducted in connection with the implementation of fixed‐duration restoration projects. The bibliometric analysis identified more than a hundred rivers for which research was undertaken on societal issues related to the implementation of restoration projects (Figure 1.4). Some of these projects are known mainly through these societal studies. For example, in South Korea, several research teams (notably attached to universities in Seoul province) have worked on the social, economic, and political evaluation of the restoration of the Cheonggyecheon and Anyancheon rivers, two rivers that are now emblematic of urban restoration (e.g. Lee and Jung 2016; Kim et al. 2017). In Israel and the Palestinian Territories, it is economists who have published scientific literature on restoration projects on the Yarqon, Jordan, and Kishon rivers (e.g. Becker et al. 2014; Garcia et al. 2016). Societal research has also focused on emblematic river restoration projects conducted on major rivers such as the Rhine (e.g. Buijs 2009), Danube (e.g. Bliem et al. 2012), Colorado (e.g. Bark et al. 2016), Sacramento (e.g. Golet et al. 2006), and Kissimmee (e.g. Chen et al. 2016). It is often in the context of such projects that an interdisciplinary culture is forged. In France, several studies on the social and political issues involved in the restoration of the Rhône (e.g. Barthélémy and Armani 2015; Guerrin 2015) were developed as part of a global approach to long‐term socioecological research (Lamouroux et al. 2015; Thorel et al. 2018). Similarly, research on the Cole River and Skerne River (Tunstall et al. 1999; Eden and Tunstall 2006; Åberg and Tapsell 2013) in the United Kingdom was undertaken as part of an interdisciplinary European project (Holmes and Nielsen 1998).
1.4 A research field tackling several topics
Among the publications in the field of river restoration, those devoted to societal issues are distinguished by a specific lexicon (Figure 1.5). The qualitative analysis of these publications makes it possible to reduce the apparent thematic diversity and to schematically draw three main lines of research.
The first brings together research on human–river interactions. The public’s environmental perceptions and preferences as well as social practices are often central to this first corpus of 53 publications. Analysis of the different links that individuals have with rivers, of their consideration within the framework of projects, or the way they are impacted by restoration measures, constitutes a first important challenge for researchers.
Figure 1.4 Map of the study sites of international research publications on societal issues in river restoration (1992–2019).
Figure 1.5 A lexicon specific to international scientific publications on the societal stakes in river restoration.
A second thematic corpus, composed of 38 publications, focuses more specifically on the political issues raised by the implementation of restoration projects. The analysis of governance and the roles played by the different actors involved in restoration projects structures the work in this corpus. In particular, the issue of public participation is at the heart of much of the work.
Finally, economic approaches structure a third problematic corpus consisting of 66 articles. Economic evaluations of restoration projects, sometimes based on cost–benefit analyses, are central to this work. Notably, strong methodological attention is paid to the evaluation of nonmarket ecosystem services restored by restoration projects.
These different thematic fields are not independent. Understanding environmental perceptions, for example, is often a first step in the political analysis of conflicts between actors. Similarly, the assessment of economic benefits, as well as the political analysis of opinions regarding restoration projects, often depends on the preferences of certain categories of stakeholders for different river states. Numerous publications therefore contribute to the advancement of knowledge within several thematic 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.
