Survey progress
00%
Vol. I — Issue 01Academic Research Edition

Rivers Danube & Tributaries

An empirical inquiry into how citizens along the Danube and its tributaries perceive their rivers — trust in governance, lived context, willingness to act, and the conditions under which restoration finds support.

Primary Profile

A short profile of who you are and where you stand.

Country of residence

Your connection to the rivers?

How do you mostly use the rivers?

Time spent by the rivers in the last year?

How often do you follow river, nature or environment news?

NeverVery often

How comfortable are your household's finances?

Very tightVery comfortable

Indices of Trust & Sentiment

Evaluate each statement using the 1–5 agreement scale.

What do you really think about digital river tools (Virtual Reality, AI, maps, monitoring):

1 — Strongly disagree5Strongly agree

These tools would really change how people understand the rivers.

These tools would lead to better decisions than today's methods.

These tools are worth what they cost.

I'd trust what these tools show.

Some thoughts on how decisions about the rivers are made:

1 — Strongly disagree5Strongly agree

Residents should be consulted on river decisions.

I would accept river-related decisions if their purpose is clear

Transparency lowers public resistance to restoration.

Weighing costs and benefits is a fair basis for decisions.

What limits river restoration?

1 — Strongly disagree5Strongly agree

Too little public funding limits river projects.

Complicated rules and bureaucracy slow action (e.g. dam removal).

The public lacks clear information about the rivers.

Competing uses (farming, energy, shipping, water) hold restoration back.

Healthier rivers and economics:

1 — Strongly disagree5Strongly agree

River restoration can create eco-tourism here.

Removing old dams can cut public costs over time.

Recreation can grow after restoration.

Tourism demand can justify the spending.

Will river restoration actually take place?

1 — Strongly disagree5Strongly agree

Once started, restoration here actually gets finished.

Monitoring tools would be kept working, not abandoned.

River restoration would produce real, visible results.

The authorities can really turn plans into action.

How well do you understand each of these?

1 — Strongly disagree5Strongly agree

Why rivers must stay connected for fish, water and sediment.

How dams block fish movement.

Why rivers need enough flow for healthy nature.

How removing a dam changes a river's shape and flow.

Supporting and joining river restoration:

1 — Strongly disagree5Strongly agree

I'd use a public app showing river health.

I'd support using monitoring tools here.

I'd join river activities (e.g. citizen science).

I'd put in effort to support restoration.

Paying to help restore the rivers:

1 — Strongly disagree5Strongly agree

I'd pay more to help restore the rivers.

I'd accept higher costs (taxes, fees) if they clearly helped.

I'd give money to support restoration.

Restoring the rivers is worth the cost to me.

Activities, Barriers, Support

Multi-select questions about what would matter locally.

Which river activities would appeal to you here? (select all that apply)

Main barriers to river restoration where you live? (choose up to 3)

0/3

How much would each of the following increase your support for river restoration?

1 — Not at all5Very strongly

Lower taxes, bills or personal costs.

Public/EU co-funding, so locals don't pay most.

Visible benefits (cleaner water, nature, flood safety).

Better recreation and river access.

Clear, trusted information on plans, costs, results.

Being genuinely consulted before decisions are made

Proof it has worked elsewhere.

Opportunities for local people and small businesses.