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.