Riverside Placemaking outside Big Cities—The Case Study of Three Polish Rivers

Abstract

Most placemaking activities have both tangible and intangible aspects. However, the most significant division line comes from the driving force behind the process, which can be either top-down formal actions or bottom-up informal ones. This article presents how placemaking works and what types of related actions dominate in rural areas, focusing on the riparian zones of three lowland rivers in Poland with a total length of 300 km. The main goal was to demonstrate the specificity of placemaking in riverfront areas outside large cities and to investigate the answers to the following questions: (1) How do public spaces emerge there? (2) Which entities are responsible for their creation, type, form, and location? To achieve these objectives, a detailed field inventory from the water level and interviews with creators, caretakers, and users of selected places were conducted. This research showed that informal placemaking is very common outside of cities and is also integrated into the creation of less numerous but more impressive public and private recreational areas. In terms of form, “Do It Yourself” (DIY) objects overwhelmingly dominate in all types of places. Both of these characteristics, informality and DIY, clearly indicate the specificity of rural riparian areas and the need to consider them in planning and strategic actions in areas outside large cities.

1. Introduction

For centuries we have been creating public places, and scientists have been exploring the concepts of place for decades [1,2,3]. However, we still do not have a universal recipe for creating successful places. The diversity of spaces and their users, as well as the variability of the environment and our ways of life, means that there is a constant need to deepen our knowledge about the creating and functioning of public places. In fact, there is not even a consensus on what to call common spaces. Increasingly, it is pointed out that public life is flourishing in private places, such as theme parks, coffee shops, bookstores, and other third places [4]. Therefore, instead of public spaces, we should rather speak of publicly accessible “social space” (i.e., spaces that support, enable, or facilitate social and cultural interaction and public life) [5]. However, similar definitions are also fulfilled by other concepts such as places of encounter, places of interaction, meeting places, or gathering places [6]. Most of them in a sense exclude recreational activities undertaken individually, which, in addition to social activities, are an important function of public places [7]. This is particularly important in the case of riverside areas, where the recreational function is often primary. In our research, we use the concept of public places (sometimes interchangeably with recreational places)—as publicly accessible sites of social and recreational activities, regardless of whether they are places created on public or private land.

One of the main concepts related to the creation and functioning of public places is placemaking. This term does not have a clear definition or even a consistent spelling (placemaking, place-making, place making). Palermo and Ponzini [8] simply defined it as “making better place”, while Beza [9] expanded on this description by defining placemaking as a “collective effort that refers to the action of individuals/groups to re-imagine their surrounding environments”. According to Habermas’ definition [10], public places are open and accessible areas used for social interaction. Various authors emphasize that giving meaning or creating places often relies on recreational activities and spaces [11,12], and therefore this concept is used both in social, spatial, and design disciplines as well as in tourism. Analyzing the literature on placemaking concepts, Lew [13] identified two main ways of describing this term: the organic and unplanned actions of individuals, and the planned and intentional global theming by governments or tourism authorities. However, this author notes that both understandings are two ends on a continuum of options, with most cases falling somewhere along the middle of this continuum. Quintana Vigiola [14] proposed a similar distinction between people-centered and space-centered approaches to place and placemaking. The former emphasizes the role of people in transforming a space into a place, including bottom-up and informal actions typical of the Global South. In contrast, space-centered approaches highlight the role of professionals and the physical space itself, and are more common in the Global North. Based on our previous research on rural areas, we suspect that a similar distinction can be made not only for the Global North–Global South opposition but also for the urban–rural set. Of course, as Lew [13] suggests, formal and informal approaches should be treated as a continuum, with most cases falling somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, the lack of research on placemaking in rural areas makes such a comparison currently difficult to carry out. Perhaps this article will contribute to partially filling this gap.

There is another aspect that distinguishes the understanding of the term placemaking. It can manifest through intangible phenomena, such as ascribing meaning and a sense of place, enhancing human connectivity, social interaction, and even naming [11,12,15,16,17,18], or through tangible actions such as the creation, renovation, upgrade, and maintenance of places [19,20,21]. However, these two aspects usually occur simultaneously, and it is difficult to separate them. When referring to the tangible dimension, the term Urban Design is often used, which primarily refers to shaping the physical elements of space, both urban and rural [5]. However, there is also a discipline called Rural Design, dedicated specifically to rural areas [22]. These two concepts (placemaking and Rural Design) form the theoretical basis of this article. Rural Design emphasizes the distinctiveness of rural areas and takes into account the specific characteristics of the local community and rural space. Despite the common perception of the blurring boundary between the city and the countryside, many studies conducted in rural areas continue to demonstrate the existence of clear differences and the need for a distinct approach to shaping rural space. The rural community is characterized by greater social closeness between people [23,24], and the importance of informal interactions [25]. Some sociologists even write about the renaissance of local communities [26]. Rural space also has certain essential features that clearly distinguish it from large cities. Soszyński and co-authors [27] identified six unique features of rural public places, including a connection with the open landscape, spontaneity and informality, a fluid borderline between public and private places, weak links between commercial and public places, attachment to tradition, and low quality and little diversity among public places in the countryside. Belanche and co-authors [28] argue that people from rural areas develop a higher bond with their local community related to the place (affective dimension), and a higher feeling of membership pride and positive evaluation of this environment (evaluative dimension). At the same time, exposure to nature in rural areas offers unique opportunities to develop a meaningful sense of connectedness and enhance feelings of relaxation and refreshment [29].

The areas where the above-mentioned characteristics are most clearly evident are riverine areas. These are usually places with high landscape values that attract recreational activities. In Poland, all flowing waterways are spaces belonging to the state or private areas with guaranteed public access to the river. Therefore, these are extensive areas with great potential for creating recreational spaces and meeting places. Rivers have served these functions for centuries, but in the second half of the 20th century, with the increase in their pollution and the decline in their economic importance, riverine areas ceased to be vibrant places [30,31]. Similar processes of decline in riverine activities are currently taking place in countries of the Global South [32,33]. At the same time, in northern countries, including Poland, interest in rivers is significantly increasing, this time mainly as places for recreation [31,34]. The same applies to recreation and leisure in rural areas in general. [11,12,35]. For example, research by Abbott-Chapman and Robertson [36] indicates that for young people, especially those from rural areas, places in nature are the most important favorite places outside the home, much more important than cinemas, shops, sports centers, etc. The role of rural recreational places for city residents is also growing. This is due, on the one hand, to the increasing demand for close recreation (so-called proximity tourism) [37] and the improvement of communication links between the city and the countryside. Thus, communities are formed around a given place, composed of people living in different (sometimes distant) areas [38]. In this way, riverine places in rural areas become meeting places—not only for the local community but also for meetings with strangers [27], which is a crucial feature of a successful public place.

However, the specificity of riverside space arises not only from its recreational values. Bell et al. [39] list psychological benefits and social interaction as the most important benefits resulting from contact with blue space. These are additional characteristics of a good public place. Water also possesses multidimensional symbolic meanings, functioning in local communities and discovered by visitors. It can be viewed as both linear and circular—a symbol of connectivity [40]. Most people living and spending time by rivers appreciate these values and, although they are aware of the dangers that water brings, in most studies conducted in small riverside communities, people expressed respect, attachment, and even love for the river. Their appreciation of the landscape’s aesthetic beauty surpasses superficial interest and instead represents their deep cultural identities tied to these places [27,32,33,34,41].

Therefore, riverside areas are excellent places to study placemaking processes. Regardless of how we understand this concept (bottom-up or top-down, tangible or intangible), its effects are most often visible in the river space as physical development, the transformation of places, or at least the simplest adaptation to various activities. By analyzing the types, forms, and distribution of public places along the river, we can largely demonstrate the intensity and nature of people’s relationships with the river. However, placemaking is not only about the physical outcome but also about the process of building these places and relationships—that is, the people/entities involved in creating and maintaining places. Carmona [42], in his research on public spaces in London, emphasized that their character and diversity largely result from the involvement of various stakeholders (all key project stakeholders) in creating the place (variously with architects, urban designers, planners, developers, managing agents, regeneration agencies, community groups, investors, and politicians). Lew [13], analyzing the literature on placemaking, also pointed to the need for research on who participates in this process and who defines the success of the place. In our research, we aim to discover and describe the optimal way of shaping and managing riverside public places. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to first diagnose the current state, which we attempt to present in this article. Therefore, the aim of this article is to try to illustrate the specificity of placemaking in riverside areas outside of large cities. We believe that this can be achieved by answering the following questions: (1) How do public places emerge outside of large cities? (2) What entities are responsible for their creation, type, form, and location? In this way, we intend to simultaneously illustrate an important aspect of people’s relationships with the river, which is recreation and adapting natural space to the needs of residents and visitors. Placemaking, especially the bottom-up approach, can be seen not only as a method of spatial development but also as a reflection of the needs, priorities, tastes, and capabilities of local communities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Areas

The research was conducted in the riparian areas of three medium-sized, lowland rivers located in northern and eastern Poland: the Brda, Noteć, and Wieprz (Figure 1). A 100 km section was inventoried on each river (excluding sections where the Brda river flows through lakes). These rivers are comparable in size, with widths ranging from 15 to 40 m, but differ in character and function. The Brda is a wild, forested river with a strong tourist function for activities such as kayaking and hiking. The Noteć is a regulated, straightened river flowing through a wide, flat valley occupied by meadows and once served an important transport function. The Wieprz is a natural river flowing through traditional agricultural areas with a dense network of small villages and has a poorly developed tourist function for kayaking. In total, the inventoried section of 300 km includes 64 villages and 6 small towns, with populations ranging from 6000 to 21,000 inhabitants. There are no medium or large cities located in these areas.

2.2. Methods

The main research method was a field inventory of all recreational places located on the riverbanks, from small fishing spots and fireplaces to large recreational complexes and marinas. The inventory was conducted from the river level (during a float), so only those objects that have a direct connection to the river (visible from the water side) were recorded. Observations were carried out in the summer season of 2019. For each object, the precise location (in the QGIS program) was determined, and an attribute table was filled in containing the type of object, function, form, and creator (in this case, the presumed creator). The inventory mainly covered meeting places and recreational spaces, but also some elements of the communication infrastructure that also serve a recreational function (e.g., footbridges, locks).

As a complement to the inventory, the method of semi-structured and focused interviews was used. They were conducted with creators of the places, persons responsible for their maintenance, or their users. These individuals were located on-site during field research or through local administration and institutions (especially through village heads). In total, 53 interviews were conducted between 2019 and 2020, with most of them being conducted in person and some over the phone. During the interviews, the information collected during the inventory was supplemented and verified, particularly the data concerning the functions of the places, the creators of the places, and the ownership of the land. Additional sources of data included the analysis of cartographic materials and geoportals (land ownership data) as well as local websites (data on the functions and creators of the places).

Together, by combining the three mentioned methods, information was gathered for each location regarding: (1) the type of object (complex, spot, jetty, etc.); (2) the object’s function (fishing, kayaking, leisure, walking, etc.); (3) the object’s form (professionally designed; DIY); (4) the creator (private investor, municipality, state forests, informal creator); (5) land ownership (private, public). Of course, not all information was fully confirmed. Information about the creator and the way the place was created was primarily obtained from interviews. However, for many places (especially smaller ones), it was necessary to determine the potential/default creator through analogy to objects that were thoroughly researched (based on form, ownership, location, etc.).

3. Results

3.1. Types of Recreational Spaces

During the inventory, 638 places of various scales were recorded on 300 km of rivers (100 km per each of the 3 rivers), which can be classified as developed public recreational spaces. All of them serve at least partially a recreational function, so the terms public place, recreational place, and recreational facility will be used interchangeably in the text. In addition, 229 places with visible signs of use were identified, many of which undoubtedly also serve as meeting and recreational places, but due to the lack of visible development elements (and thus lack of traces of creative activities), they were excluded from further analysis.

All locations were categorized into ten types, of which five were found along the three studied rivers: recreational complexes, recreational spots, jetties, fishing stations, and boat mooring/slip sites. The most impressive and extensive locations are recreational complexes, mainly kayak marinas, but they are relatively few in number (6% of all places). The most numerous places are fishing spots (35% of places), which are the least impressive. Only those locations that contained specific elements of intentional development by creators (such as seats, stairs, and spurs slowing down the current) were included here. The next two most visible types of locations along the rivers are recreational spots (25% of places) and jetties (24% of places). The remaining five types of locations occur only on one or two of the surveyed rivers, including ports, locks or dams, fishing huts, walking paths or promenades, pedestrian bridges, and viewing platforms. These locations are very rare along the rivers. Some of them primarily serve as infrastructure objects, but they were included in the inventory because they also play an important role as meeting and recreation places (such as pedestrian bridges, ports, locks, and weirs). The list of all locations with their characteristics and division into individual rivers is presented in

Table 1. The main characteristics of inventoried sites on three examined rivers, categorized by basic types of places and facilities, type of responsible entities for their creation, and the character of form (in parentheses, results for the following rivers are provided: Brda + Noteć + Wieprz).

Types of Places	The Entity Responsible for Creating the Site (Place Originator Type)			Form of Objects		Sum
	Public	Private	Informal	Professional	DIY
recreation complex	25 (16 + 5 + 4)	12 (9 + 1 + 2)	0 (0 + 0 + 0)	29 (19 + 5 + 5)	8 (6 + 1 + 1)	37 (25 + 6 + 6)
leisure site	11 (3 + 6 + 2)	88 (33 + 22 + 33)	60 (18 + 8 + 34)	15 (6 + 4 + 5)	144 (48 + 32 + 64)	159 (54 + 36 + 69)
jetty	4 (2 + 0 + 2)	33 (26 + 4 + 3)	115 (29 + 69 + 17)	2 (1 + 0 + 1)	150 (56 + 73 + 21)	152 (57 + 73 + 22)
fishing spot	3 (0 + 3 + 0)	3 (1 + 1 + 1)	219 (19 + 120 + 80)	0 (0 + 0 + 0)	225 (20 + 124 + 81)	225 (20 + 124 + 81)
fishing booth	0 (0 + 0 + 0)	0 (0 + 0 + 0)	10 (0 + 4 + 6)	0 (0 + 0 + 0)	10 (0 + 4 + 6)	10 (0 + 4 + 6)
river port, lock or dam	11 (1 + 10 + 0)	1 (0 + 1 + 0)	0 (0 + 0 + 0)	12 (1 + 11 + 0)	0 (0 + 0 + 0)	12 (1 + 11 + 0)
boat berth or slip	5 (0 + 4 + 1)	6 (3 + 0 + 3)	11 (5 + 6 + 0)	3 (0 + 3 + 0)	19 (8 + 7 + 4)	22 (8 + 10 + 4)
walking path, promenade	9 (0 + 8 + 1)	1 (0 + 0 + 1)	1 (0 + 0 + 1)	9 (0 + 8 + 1)	2 (0 + 0 + 2)	11 (0 + 8 +3)
footbridge	4 (1 + 0 + 3)	0 (0 + 0 + 0)	1 (0 + 0 + 1)	4 (1 + 0 + 3)	1 (0 + 0 + 1)	5 (1 + 0 + 4)
viewing platform	4 (4 + 0 + 0)	1 (1 + 0 + 0)	0 (0 + 0 + 0)	4 (4 + 0 + 0)	1 (1 + 0 + 0)	5 (5 + 0 + 0)
Sum	76 (27 + 36 + 13)	145 (73 + 29 + 43)	417 (71 + 207 + 139)	78 (32 + 31 + 15)	560 (139 + 241 + 180)	638 (171 + 272 + 195)

and illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3. In order to demonstrate an example of density and distribution of objects, Figure 4 depicting a section of the Wieprz river representing an average and typical spatial arrangement of riverside public places was included.

In terms of function, places for socializing, leisure, and tourism related to kayaking dominate, as well as small structures or equipment used for fishing. However, it is worth noting that, in addition to fishing stations and huts, most of these objects can serve multiple purposes. They provide a place to rest, stop by the water, or gather regardless of transportation method or purpose, such as overnight stays or meetings. Although there are versatile objects available, there are relatively few designed specifically for walkers and boat users, and sports-related equipment is rare.

3.2. Creators of Riverside Recreational Areas

Along the surveyed rivers, we observe a wide variety of organizations and individuals responsible for creating and maintaining public places [10]. In Poland, the law guarantees everyone access to the banks of surface waters, regardless of whether the adjacent land is owned by the state or private individuals. However, due to the large area covered by rivers, public administrators have limited control over this space. As a result, private investors, individuals, and even informal groups may create publicly accessible recreational areas along the riverbanks. These three types of creators are included in Table 1 and Figure 4 for reference.

Public entities are primarily responsible for creating the most impressive and essential public places along the rivers, such as recreational complexes, ports and locks, pedestrian bridges, promenades, and viewing platforms. These locations require significant investment and represent only 12% of all inventory locations (Figure 5A,B). Private entities create more locations (23%), primarily recreational spots and jetties near homes located along the river or on private plots of land away from the built-up area. Some private recreational complexes, such as commercial kayak ports, are also impressive and notable features of the riverside landscape (Figure 5C,D). However, the most numerous locations along the surveyed rivers are created informally by individuals, often illegally. These informal locations represent up to 65% of all inventory locations, although they are generally less impressive than those created by public or private entities. Most of them are fishing spots, fishing huts, and jetties, although some individuals have put significant effort and resources into creating spectacular recreational spots with sandy beaches, gazebos, treehouses, and more (Figure 5E,F).

When analyzing the creators of public places, it is useful to distinguish between individual and collective creators. Most recreational places are the result of individual actions by people or families, particularly fishing spots, huts, and jetties. While these creators acknowledge that their spots are public and available to everyone, they consider them their own and do not mind if others use them. However, each angler builds their own spot and primarily uses it. Even if two colleagues or neighbors build spots, they create separate ones for themselves (see Figure 5C). The same is true for places created on private plots or public riverside plots adjacent to private homes. Here, the creators are often individuals or families (the residents of the house) who are aware that their spots can be used by others but do not allow others to co-create or modify them. Private commercial facilities, such as kayak marinas, are also typically created by individuals, although construction companies may realize them. Collective creators are mainly responsible for public places (e.g., residents, village heads, and officials), but they also exist for some informal spaces (e.g., neighborhood groups, groups of friends). In some cases, official places created by local governments are informally supplemented or transformed by residents, or vice versa. Private creators cooperating with local governments are rare.

3.3. The Form of Riverside Recreational Objects

One of the features analyzed in the surveyed areas is their form. Based on previous observations of river spaces, the objects were divided into those professionally designed or created from ready-made manufactured elements (referred to as “professional”), and those created without a project—using the Do It Yourself (DIY) method. This method of determining form is easy to assess during inventorying. The results showed that DIY places dominate along all the analyzed rivers, accounting for as much as 88% of the objects (Table 1 and Figure 4). Although these objects are mainly small and less complex, such as fishing spots and jetties (Figure 5C), recreational places (Figure 5E), or boat berth/slip there are also more complex objects, such as recreational complexes or even a hanging pedestrian bridge (Figure 5F). While DIY objects are common among informal and private places, there are also some among public places. This type of building is characteristic of river areas, where legal and natural conditions discourage the use of expensive solutions and encourage the use of natural elements and elements from recovery. Therefore, most DIY objects combine wood in a processed form (boards) or raw (branches, logs) with old, unnecessary equipment and furniture from recovery (buckets, tires, chairs, and armchairs). The remaining 12% of objects are designed professionally, and they tend to be the most impressive, such as recreational complexes (Figure 5A), ports, dams, locks, recreational areas (Figure 5D), platforms (Figure 5B), and places dedicated to pedestrians such as bridges, promenades, and viewpoints. Wood with additional steel or plastic elements is also the most commonly used material for these objects. The difference between designed objects and DIY ones lies mainly in the quality of execution and the materials used. Ultimately, the aesthetic values depend on the state of maintenance, as difficult conditions cause rapid degradation of any type of object. Only regularly maintained or the best-integrated objects into nature maintain high aesthetic values (Figure 5A,B).

The characteristics of the places described above and the relationships between them are illustrated in the following diagram (Figure 6).

3.4. The Spatial Distribution of Recreational Places along the River

The spatial distribution of recreational places along all three rivers shows clear connections with settlements and the transportation network. The highest concentration of riverside places was found near bridges and villages located within 500 m of the river. Villages located more than 500 m from the river practically have no influence on the distribution of riverside recreational places. It is also interesting to note that around some towns, the density of such places is lower than around small villages.

Taking into account the differences between the three studied rivers, they clearly result from their diverse characters. However, generally, both the quantity and diversity of places are similar on them. The highest concentration of places was noted on the Noteć River, which may be due to the fact that it is a regulated river with a straightened bed, so the length of the river in relation to the length of the valley is small compared to the other two rivers with winding courses. The Noteć River also has the most significant infrastructure facilities (locks, ports), which also serve additional recreational functions. The typically touristy, forested Brda River stands out with a higher number of recreational complexes and fewer fishing spots. The Wieprz River, which flows through agricultural areas with a dense settlement network, has the highest number of recreational sites and pedestrian footbridges (Figure 4). The character of the riverbanks is also significant. On the Wieprz River, where there are many steep banks, there are relatively few jetties, while earth stairs leading to fishing spots are numerous. The most numerous jetties are on the Noteć River, where the banks are flat and overgrown.

4. Summary

Along all of the examined rivers, there are many diverse, consciously created, publicly accessible meeting and recreational places. The way they are created turned out to be very diverse and complex. Due to the legal status, land ownership, as well as the specificity of the riverside space and the rural community, a complicated system of public places was created by public, private, and informal entities. Figure 4 illustrates these dependencies. The largest but fewest objects are created by public institutions. Private places are less impressive but much more numerous and are therefore the most visible in the riverside landscape. Informal places are the smallest but definitely the most numerous, and they determine the specificity of the rural riverside space. Taking into account the two main ways of understanding the concept of placemaking described by Lew [13], namely organic, unplanned actions of individuals and planned, intentional actions of governments, we are dealing with a clear dominance of the former on the examined riverside areas. However, the author emphasizes that both of these understandings are two ends on a continuum of options, with most cases situated somewhere in the middle. This statement found full confirmation in the studied area. In many places, the three main forces distinguished by us (informal, private, public) intersect and complement each other, which further complicates the system. As a result, there are few objects created exclusively by public entities. A similar situation applies to the form of objects, where places created by the DIY method clearly dominate over professionally designed ones, and even in many professionally made objects, additional elements made by the DIY method appear.

When it comes to types of recreational areas along rivers, fishing spots, docks, and recreational places are most numerous on the examined rivers. The number and proportion of each type of location differ between different rivers or even sections of the same river, which results from population density, river function, or natural conditions. However, certain rules are visible throughout the examined area. Firstly, each town or village has at least one multifunctional recreational area by the river. The most impressive ones are created by public entities, but sometimes private spots take over this role in the absence of public areas, and in the absence of private areas, residents themselves create such places from the bottom-up and informally. The second rule concerns the distribution of recreational areas. They are clearly linked to settlements and the communication network. The highest concentration of riverside spots was found near bridges and villages located within 500 m of the river. Towns located more than 500 m from the river have practically no impact on the distribution of riverside recreational objects. Similar observations can be found in Hagihara et al.’s work [43], conducted in densely populated urban areas, in which they state that people living 500 m or more away from rivers will not go there unless highly motivated to do so. In our study, we also noticed that the concentration of recreational areas around small towns is lower than around villages. This seems illogical from the point of view of the number of potential users and creators of places. However, it is consistent with studies on the particularities of local rural communities, which are more strongly connected to their environment [26,28,29] and more frequently involved in social activities aimed at improving the quality of life [44].

5. Discussion

When considering the specifics of rural riverside spaces, it is worth returning to the question of the relevance of distinguishing rural design. As mentioned in the introduction, various authors have pointed to informality as a characteristic that distinguishes relationships in rural communities [25,26,27]. In our research, the informality of actions and forms also appears very clearly, which can be considered a distinguishing feature of rural areas, especially since the number of inventoried public places (especially informal ones) around small towns was significantly smaller. It appears that informal actions occur less frequently in cities, as an exception to the rule, and often have a completely different origin, which Herbert [45] described as “lifestyle appropriation”. This refers to DIY practices of more well-off, creative-class type residents who have the time, resources, and desire to engage in “whimsical” endeavors. On the other hand, DIY practices in the researched rural areas dominate quantitatively, and places created entirely in a formal way are rare. Moreover, informal actions are rather a result of necessity or tradition of self-organization and neighborhood cooperation. This is probably why they are more widespread. We have here a similar problem to the one analyzed by Quintana Vigiola [14] regarding bottom-up and informal practices typical of the Global South, which she contrasted with the approach to placemaking typical of the Global North. Our research indicates that a similar concern arises in rural areas (and also in Europe). When shaping rural space, one must be aware of its distinctiveness. The mistake in this case will be not only the automatic application of typical formal, planned, top-down practices but also the practice of informal actions, but in their typical urban understanding—as “lifestyle appropriation”. Although the countryside is becoming increasingly similar to the city and is becoming more strongly linked to the city, it still needs an individual approach—one that takes into account the specificity of the rural community (more prone to informal actions) and rural space (more flexible—less organized).

Most of the contemporary research on rural public spaces focuses on their form and social activities [27,44,46,47,48]. Xu and Huang [48] in their guidelines for Design Strategies for Rural Public Spaces only discuss the creation of a form in line with historical and environmental conditions. Meanwhile, our research shows that one of the key features distinguishing public places in rural areas is the way they are created, which fundamentally differs from more formalized procedures in cities. Of course, we do not question the importance of form, which has a decisive influence on activities and the intangible significance of a place. However, it is worth emphasizing the role of the process of creating and developing spaces, as well as the main actors involved in this process. Wolski and Jankowski [31], describing the relationships between rivers and local communities, underline that their restoration will be difficult and long-term, requiring changes in the awareness of residents and a new understanding of the role of rivers. We believe that this will primarily require a change in the awareness of local authorities and institutions responsible for creating riverine spaces.

These conclusions are very important because examples from Europe and North America show that interest in rivers is growing among both tourists and residents [34,37,39,40,41]. At the same time, there is talk of a renaissance of rural communities [26]. Therefore, it can be expected that people’s relationships with rivers will deepen, and more and more various meeting and recreational places will be created along the rivers. On the one hand, this is a good forecast because increased contact leads to greater attachment and care for the river [34]. However, as our research shows, the predominance of informal and DIY activities also carries the danger of “polluting” the landscape and increasing conflicts between different user groups [49]. It is also worth mentioning the conclusions of Åberg and Tapsellb’s research [41], which shows that residents want places along the river that provide easy access to the water, but at the same time, they highly value the naturalness of the river and the necessity of preserving wild sections. This was an argument that often appeared in our interviews. Unfortunately, looking at the quantity and distribution of inventoried objects, it can be noticed that they appear in a spontaneous and chaotic manner, not only in the vicinity of main roads and settlements (which can be assessed as logical and correct) but also in sections with more natural features. Therefore, greater coordination of what happens along rivers is necessary. However, it is important that strategic and planning activities take into account the specific nature of the riverside space, the character of the landscape, and social relations, various stakeholders and various ways of acting, including informal activities.

The applied method allowed for the analysis of a very large area (300 km of rivers in length) and the identification of as many as 638 different places. Unfortunately, it also has some limitations. Firstly, it was not possible to conduct interviews for all the inventoried places, so some results regarding the functions and creators of the place are presumed or inferred based on expert opinion and analogy. Absolute numbers related to some characteristics may therefore not be accurate. However, it seems that this margin of error has little impact on the final results, which aim to show general tendencies and the specificity of rural riverine spaces rather than presenting absolute quantitative data. The second limitation is that the inventory was conducted only from the water side, so many places and objects on the riverbanks (e.g., sports facilities) not directly related to the river but located in its valley, on riverine territories, were certainly not included in this work. This is also an important topic—perhaps to be supplemented in the future. However, our intention was primarily to show the relationship between people and the river, and this study should be perceived in this way. In the future, the presented research results—based primarily on a field inventory of objects—should also be supplemented by more extensive studies of the evolution of selected places (from their creation through various stages of development) in order to get closer to defining an optimal placemaking model for non-urban riverine areas.