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.
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, p. 12) recommends “to implement a participatory 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