the heart of power relationships: between conflict analysis and critical approaches
Several policy researches in the field of restoration offer analyses of power relations and conflicts related to project implementation. In particular, they seek to highlight the hidden tensions that result from the sociopolitical processes that animate and define the social situation. The political ecology field of research (e.g. Doyle et al. 2015; Sneddon et al. 2017; Drouineau et al. 2018), whose ambition is to study power relations (Benjaminsen and Svarstad 2019, p. 392), has particularly invested in these critical approaches, “questioning of the role and status of powerful actors as well as of what is taken for granted in leading discourses on environment and development.” These approaches, politically committed to a fairer and more sustainable organization of society, bring a particular color to the thinking on river restoration, being rather driven by an environmentalist commitment. For example, a special place is given to local communities in the tradition of postcolonial studies (e.g. Fox et al. 2017; Woelfle‐Erskine 2017). These communities arouse a strong interest because of the original and ancestral links they have forged with rivers and, paradoxically, because of the small weight they are generally able to have in the decision‐making process in the face of more powerful institutional, political, or economic actors. Their involvement raises issues of cultural recognition and preservation of traditions and worldviews. Contributions in political economy have also made achievements in the field of river restoration (e.g. Lave et al. 2010; Lave 2016). They have shown, for example, how neoliberal logics have guided restoration practices in the United States by favoring the private sector in the production of expertise and promoting the creation of new markets related to ecosystem services (Lave et al. 2010).
Beyond the latent power balances, many publications also analyze restoration projects from the perspective of open conflicts, or at least the opposition they generate. These oppositions are particularly strong regarding certain restoration measures. Projects for restoring continuity, particularly dam removal, which generally result in major upheavals to landscapes and practices, appear to be the most controversial. These projects are therefore at the center of many political analyses (Figure 1.10) (e.g. Druschke et al. 2017; Sneddon et al. 2017; Drouineau et al. 2018).
While particular attention is paid to opposition to restoration, many of the works also focus on public support for the projects (Table 1.3). According to Junker et al. (2007), the primary objective of restoration – to increase the natural and ecological quality of rivers – would generally be a matter of consensus among the general public. Faced with the complexity of the socioeconomic issues generally raised by restoration projects, this positive view of restoration approaches deserves to be highlighted.
Figure 1.10 Restoration measures tackled in scientific publications on the social, political or economic issues of river restoration.
Table 1.3 How are the notions of “expectation,” “support,” and “acceptance” defined in the literature on societal issues in river restoration?
| Expectation | The notion of expectation is rarely discussed and often used in a generic sense as “the action of waiting for something or someone; expectant waiting” (Trumble and Stevenson 2002). In the context of restoration, this foresight often concerns the way a project is conducted or the results it should have. Expectations are a priori positive. They are based on what people, practitioners (e.g. Chen et al. 2017), or the public (e.g. Tunstall et al. 2000; Junker and Buchecker 2008) imagine and want in relation to the river. Contrary to the notions of perception or attitude that most often refer to existing objects or phenomena, the notion of expectation requires projection, and is mobilized in the pre‐restoration phase to nurture the restoration project (e.g. Åberg and Tapsell 2013). This does not prevent us from also looking at how the project has met these initial expectations, which is then more a matter of studying satisfaction. Satisfaction can be a criterion of success. Conversely, disappointment is a significant risk in the case of river restoration projects (e.g. Tunstall et al. 2000). This is all the more true since such a project can not only reveal latent expectations but can also generate new ones. Expectations can change over time and through the stages of a project. |
| Support | The notion of support is most often used in the scientific literature in a common sense. It is the support that certain categories of stakeholders bring to a restoration project. The perspective is political. It is generally the “public support” that is at the center of analyses (e.g. Connelly et al. 2002; Schläpfer and Witzig 2006; Buijs 2009). As with the notion of willingness, the intensity associated with the use of the notion of support can vary widely, from accepting an action to publicly encouraging and defending it. Beyond the evaluation of project support, the various studies in the field of restoration seek to understand its determinants. The notion of support is thus often backed up by notions of perception or attitude, to understand the reasons why certain stakeholders or certain categories of stakeholders support or oppose restoration (e.g. Tanaka 2006; Schläpfer and Witzig 2006; Buijs 2009). For some authors, this analysis can help target environmental education approaches and build public support (e.g. Chin et al. 2008; Chen and Cho 2019), whereas, for others, it is more the debating of different opinions in a participatory perspective that will help build support for restoration (e.g. Junker et al. 2007). |
| Acceptance | According to Depraz (2005), the notion of acceptance has its roots in German social psychology. This may explain why, in the scientific literature on river restoration, its use is highly standardized in Germany (e.g. Heldt et al. 2016; Zingraff‐Hamed et al. 2018; Deffner and Haase 2018) and Switzerland (e.g. Junker and Buchecker 2008; Schläpfer and Witzig 2006; Seidl and Stauffacher 2013). A generic definition of acceptance is “the act or fact of accepting, whether as a pleasure, a satisfaction of claim, or a duty” (Trumble and Stevenson 2002), and the concept of acceptance is a form of agreement. According to Heldt et al. (2016, pp. 1052–1053), “It is highly important to understand that acceptance is not a stable property that can either be present or not.” Acceptance appears to be a process that is built particularly within the framework of participatory approaches (e.g. Junker et al. 2007; Seidl and Stauffacher 2013; Heldt et al. 2016). In the field of river restoration, the concept obviously echoes those of support and willingness, with which it is sometimes synonymous (e.g. Junker and Buchecker 2008). The concept of acceptance is sometimes discussed because it can be interpreted as a prescriptive process in which adherence is sought more than participation. Heldt et al. (2016) distinguish between acceptance, which would be descriptive, and acceptability, which would be more normative. |
1.4.2.3 A political look at the place of science in river restoration practice
In political approaches to river restoration, scientists are considered as fully fledged protagonists of restoration policies and projects. Because of their knowledge, they are consulted in the development of projects and are often involved in their evaluation. Some authors critically analyze this expert stance (e.g. Lave et al. 2010; Lave 2016; Fox et al. 2017). For them, researchers are not immune to the influence of the political, economic, and social forces that influence the politics of restoration (Light and Higgs 1996). Scientific production is rooted in multiple values that have a particular weight in the practice of river restoration because of the credit generally given to scientific knowledge and the expert. Many publications interested in the political dimension of restoration aim to highlight these values and to discuss the ethical responsibility of researchers as they engage in dialogue with society. Among the avenues being explored, Drouineau et al. (2018) point to the importance of multidisciplinarity