• Treat flood and slope exposure as first-order constraints before promoting visitor uses
• Connect riverfront interpretation with existing walking routes rather than assuming major new construction
• Use the distinct village identity and landscape as a linked visitor story

What differs: Lynmouth is a coastal tourism destination with a harbor and national-park visitor context; Haysi is an inland Appalachian settlement. Similar terrain does not imply similar market demand or hazard conditions.

• Map the actual buildable land and access pinch points before identifying reuse sites
• Build interpretive walking links around existing river and heritage assets
• Pair visitor access with riverbank and slope stewardship

What differs: Pont-en-Royans has a denser historic core and a Vercors regional visitor economy; the analogy supports form and access questions, not a claim that tourism is transferable at the same scale.

• Make hazard, ecological carrying capacity and access capacity explicit in visitor planning
• Interpret settlement history through existing paths and buildings
• Protect river edges and avoid treating all constrained land as available for development

What differs: Sainte-Énimie is a recognized medieval tourism destination within a UNESCO-listed cultural landscape region; Haysi is not an equivalent heritage or visitor-market place.

• Use existing buildings for low-footprint visitor or community functions rather than expanding the footprint
• Link any visitor offer to local stewardship and resident needs
• Track actual resident, business and visitor outcomes instead of assuming that visibility creates population recovery

What differs: Corippo is a protected historic stone village with an established heritage foundation and scattered-hotel model; Haysi’s housing, building stock, economy and governance differ.

• Present industrial and community history as a connected place narrative
• Reuse an existing landmark or route as an interpretation anchor
• Separate verified heritage assets from tourism aspirations and measure outcomes over time

What differs: Rjukan was a large, planned hydro-industrial company town and is part of a UNESCO World Heritage property; Haysi is a much smaller Appalachian confluence settlement without that industrial system.

• National Park Service interpretation places Matewan within the West Virginia Mine Wars story and a designated historic district
• Use place-based interpretation to explain labor, community and industry together rather than reduce the story to scenic tourism
• Tie any visitor route to accurate local history and existing public sites
• Do not infer current employment or community benefit from heritage designation alone

What differs: Matewan’s nationally recognized Mine Wars history and historic-district designation are distinctive; Haysi’s confluence geography and local industrial story require their own evidence and interpretation.

• Municipal tourism information links a riverside promenade, covered bridge, beach, wharves and local museum as a compact visitor offer
• Use an existing riverfront network to connect public spaces and local interpretation
• Coordinate outdoor access with community-serving destinations rather than rely on a single attraction
• Treat this as a coastal-region example, not proof that the same visitor economy fits inland Haysi

What differs: Grande-Vallée faces the maritime Gulf and has coastal access, a municipal tourism network and a different settlement/economic history; Haysi is an inland Virginia confluence settlement.