4. Conclusion
In addressing the two questions posed in this paper, there are two
important points to emphasise relative to developing harmonious
coexistence river-human relationships in the 21stCentury. The first derives from new materialist perspectives in which
the human is de-centred as the central source of agency influencing
river systems. New materialism offers opportunities for a
re-conceptualisation of river systems as stakeholders and co-agents in
the development of landscapes and human communities as new materialist
ideas recognise the influencing agencies of natural features. In
developing harmonious relationships between humans and rivers humans can
no longer be privileged over and above the river and its environment.
Acknowledging rivers as stakeholders and active agents influencing
landscape and human communities is a necessary initial component for
building harmonious coexistent and positive visions of river-human
relationships into the future. A second important point to emphasise is
that significant understandings of river systems may be forthcoming by
adopting a river’s perspective concerning its relationships with humans.
This requires developing understandings of river systems from multiple
perspectives which include diverse community values and the influence of
river system connectivity and its interconnected agencies. How humans
relate to and engage with the natural and ecological entities of active
river systems will determine which environmental conditions shape human
futures as either harmonious coexistence or as ugly divorce.
In developing relationships with river systems, humans have two choices.
One is where humans morally and ethically recognise and respect the
connectivity and agencies of river systems and their ecosystems that
underpin our continuing existence. Developing more harmonious and
coexistent relationships with river systems need to be developed if the
environment and river systems are to continue being healthy and,
therefore, allow humans to continue enjoying good health and well-being
using resources and ecological services provided by river systems and
associated environments, for example water, floodplains, and
biodiversity. The other choice is where humans ignore the connectivity
and agencies of river systems and their ecosystems and blindly continue
their exploitative relationships leading to ugly divorce whereby river
systems and their ecosystems no longer have the capacity to underpin our
continuing existence. Rivers do not require humans to manage or govern
them, but rather to view river systems as coexistent stakeholders in
which human-river relationships harmoniously co-produce landscapes and
communities. Thus, importantly, human attitudes towards rivers systems
including the conceptualisation river systems through the lens of
instrumental values needs to change. It is an imperative humans rethink
their relationships and engagement with rivers. Not to do so may hasten
the demise of river systems as well as human communities reliant on the
ecological services derived from healthy river systems. As argued by
Guerrero et al. (2018), “actions for rivers that offer multiple
positive benefits for humans and nature must become the mainstream
option” (p. 1). This provides opportunities for which future research
to embark upon in which research and testing or experimenting with
alternative or novel approaches in which the human is de-centred as the
universal or dominant agent or actor and the active agency of river
systems in river-human relationships are seriously considered. In such
research endeavours, a final worthwhile point to draw attention to is
that the NFF and the HRES frameworks are receptive to accommodating new
materialist perspectives in support of exploring and examining the
potential for developing harmonious coexistent river-human relationships
that provide mutually beneficial outcomes for river systems and humans
in the 21st Century.