they called on local residents to provide water samples taken from flooded banks in
order to monitor contaminants [39]. The systematization of this participatory scientific approach would be particularly useful during extreme events that measuring
stations are unable to monitor. However, a network of individuals may be difficult to
set up due to the episodic and random nature of events.
Another development for the next stage of the programme will be the formalization of researcher–user interaction to valorize on a local level the results of the
measurement stations and the modelling outputs. This work has already been done
with river managers to monitor the physical effects of weir removal on the Orge
River [40]. These initiatives of co-construction and valorization of research results
will be continued at selected experimental sites (urban rivers around Paris, the
Bassée floodplain (150 km
2 )).
It will also be the task of stakeholders to ensure that these issues meet the
expectations of the partners, always driven by regulatory constraints
(e.g. ecosystemic services, effects of restoration of aquatic continuity on biodiversity, priority pollutants, good ecological state, etc.) with new issues arising (river
water warming, 2024 Olympic Games) and the involvement of new partners (see
[41]). The challenge is to take into account as accurately as possible the multiplicity
of uses and points of view on the Seine basin socio-ecosystem and the resulting
management complexity, as well as to achieve a shared vision of the hydrosystem as
a common asset subject to public action, within a co-construction involving all
actors.
Acknowledgements This work is a contribution to the PIREN-Seine research programme (www.
piren-seine.fr), which belongs to the Zone Atelier Seine part of the international Long-Term SocioEcological Research (LTSER) network.
References
1. Jasanoff S (1998) The fifth branch: science advisors as policy makers. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge
2. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H et al (1994) The new production of knowledge: the
dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE, London
3. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2006) Re-thinking science: mode 2 in societal context. In:
Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation
networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States,
Europe, and Asia. Praeger, Santa Barbara, pp 39–51
4. Hatchuel A (2000) Intervention research and the production of knowledge. In: LEARN Group
(ed) Cow up a tree. Knowing and learning for change in agriculture. Case studies from
industrialised countries. INRA, Paris, pp 55–68
5. Flipo N, Lestel L, Labadie P et al (2020) The Seine River basin. In: Flipo N, Labadie P, Lestel L
(eds) The Seine River basin. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2019_437
6. Dmitrieva T, Lestel L, Meybeck M et al (2018) Versailles facing the degradation of its water
supply from the Seine River: governance, water quality expertise and decision making,
1852–1894. Water Hist 10(2–3):183–205
412
C. Carré et al.
Précédent

- 420/430

Suivant