pM United States EPA/600/R-16/177
pMtA Environmental Protection August 2016
Agency www.epa.gov/ord
Barriers,
Opportunities,
and Strategies for
Urban Ecosystem
Restoration:
Lessons Learned
from Restoration
Managers
in Rhode Island,
U.S.A.
Kristen Hychka,
Caroline Gottschalk Druschke
University of Rhode Island
U.S, Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division,
Narragansett, Rl 02882
-------
-------
A PQA United States
Environmental Protection
^#^1 f* Agency
EPA/600/R-16/177
August 2016
www.epa.gov/ord
Barriers, Opportunities, and Strategies for
Urban Ecosystem Restoration: Lessons Learned from
Restoration Managers in Rhode Island, U.S.A.
Kristen Hychka, Caroline Gottschalk Druschke
University of Rhode Island, U.S.A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division,
Narragansett, Rl 02882
-------
Notice and Disc] aim or'
The research described in this article was supported in part by appointments to the Oak Ridge Institute
for Science and Education participant research program supported by an interagency agreement
between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy. This document
has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
and approved for publication. This is contribution number ORD-017589 of the Atlantic Ecology Division,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Ackno^
First we thank our interviewees, whose experiences and efforts form the basis of this paper. We thank
our anonymous reviewers and Kate Mulvaney, Marisa Mazzotta, Marty Chintala, Tim Gleason, and
Wayne Munns for strengthening our manuscript through their generous feedback.
Abstract
Urban ecosystem restoration can be especially difficult to accomplish because of complications like
industrial pollutants, population density, infrastructure, and expense; however, the unique opportunities
in urban settings, including the potential to provide benefits to many people, can make urban
restoration especially rewarding. The success of urban restoration projects—even those focused
primarily on ecological targets—depends on incorporating the findings of social research, though that
research is relatively rare. This work attempts to fill that gap by presenting barriers, opportunities, and
strategies for restoration projects in urban settings. Building from interviews with restoration managers
involved in a suite of aquatic restoration projects in Rhode Island, we contribute to the learning axis of
adaptive management by identifying and synthesizing the lessons learned from managers' work in urban
settings. We then consider how managers can design creative solutions to accomplish restoration goals
by thinking more broadly about the multiple social or institutional, biophysical, and discursive
dimensions of barriers to and opportunities for urban restoration.
Keywords: barriers, beneficiaries, community, community development, contamination, ecological,
engagement, environmental justice, funding, leadership, opportunities, politics, restoration, rivers, scale
brokers, social, urban.
-------
Table of Contents
Notice and Disclaimer
Acknowledgments
I. Introduction
II. Methods
III. Study Site
IV. Overview of Findings
V. Barriers to Restoration
Trashed Ecosystems
Resistance to Change
Lack of Political Will
Funding
VI. Opportunities for Restoration
Many Beneficiaries
Natural Disasters
Community Development and Environmental Justice
Shifting Perception of Urban Ecosystems
VII. Strategies for Restoration
Making Systems Visible
Mobilizing Visionary Leaders
Long-Term Engagement with People and Sites
Working across Spatial Scales
VIII. Identifying and Addressing Multiple Facets of Urban Restoration Barriers and
Opportunities
IX. Conclusions
X. References
-------
-------
I. Introduction
f, INTRODUCTION
Urban ecosystem restoration is increasingly a strategy used not only to improve ecological conditions,
but also to provide a suite of co-benefits to communities (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999, Lundy and
Wade 2011). But even in regions where there is broad scale support for restoration, there is often less
local support for the actual strategies employed or the implementation of projects (Dutcher et al. 2004,
Nassauer 2004, Connolly et al. 2013). That complexity is multiplied in urban ecosystems where the
complications of industrial pollutants, population density, infrastructure, and expense, among other
things, mean that urban restoration projects need to navigate a wider suite of issues to succeed. Despite
these complications, there are real opportunities in urban settings, such as addressing environmental
justice issues and delivering wide-reaching benefits to an increasingly urban populace (Pickett et al.
Some existing research focuses on social dimensions, including public engagement and decision making
processes of restoration (Petts 2007, Junker et al. 2007), perceptions and values of ecosystems (Simcox
and Zube 1989), and support or resistance to restoration (Gobster and Westphal 1998, Wagner 2008,
Buijs 2009, Armstrong and Stedman 2012). But there is still a need for understanding the unique
interplay of social and biophysical factors that influence the outcomes of urban ecological restoration
in order to foster a deeper understanding of urban social-ecological systems and foster success in
urban restoration projects.
Our work here is an attempt to add to this important research by presenting social or institutional,
biophysical, and discursive barriers to - as well as opportunities and strategies for - ecological
restoration projects in urban settings. The managers we spoke with offered an array of challenges they
faced in completing urban restoration projects, but they also spoke about the positive opportunities
that urban settings afford and inventive strategies to overcome barriers. Building from interviews with
restoration managers involved in a suite of aquatic restoration projects in Rhode Island, we contribute
to the learning axis of adaptive management (Palmer et al. 2005, Bernhardt et al. 2005, Bernhardt and
Palmer 2007, Bernhardt et al. 2007) by identifying and synthesizing the lessons learned from managers'
work in urban settings. We then consider how managers can design creative solutions to accomplish
2001).
targets—depends on
incorporating social,
as well as behavioral
and economic factors.'
'the success of urban
restoration projects-
even those focused
primarily on ecological
While researchers have begun to address some of the biophysical
complexity of urban stream restoration (Hughes et al. 2005, Kondolf
2006, Kondolf et al. 2006, Palmer et al. 2007), the success of urban
restoration projects—even those focused primarily on ecological
targets—depends on incorporating social, as well as behavioral and
economic factors (Walsh etal. 2005, Christian-Smith and Merenlender
2008). Literature in urban river restoration ecology urges research
that focuses on the social as well as ecological facets of urban
restoration (Groffman et al. 2003, Walsh et al. 2005, Booth 2005,
Bernhardt and Palmer 2011).
Ill i
-------
Jk'/
Urban Ecosystem Restoration
restoration goals by thinking more broadly about the multiple institutional, social, biophysical, and
discursive dimensions of barriers, opportunities, and strategies for urban restoration.
IL lyirr ops
Our findings are based on semistructured interviews with 27 local, state, federal, and non-profit
managers from a range of institutional and geographic positions. We recruited participants based on a
combination of heterogeneity and nonproportional quota sampling, which, respectively, encourage the
inclusion of a broad spectrum of views and opinions on an issue and ensure that even small groups are
well represented in the sample (Patton 2002, Oliver 2006, Lindlof and Taylor 2011).
Through key informants, we identified an initial list of potential interviewees that included high-profile
managers and organizational representatives involved in restoration efforts throughout Rhode Island
and added names through snowball sampling (Lindlof and Taylor 2011). Participants were spread across
institutional levels (four municipal, six state, seven federal, and ten non-profit) and included both men
and women ranging in age from approximately 35 to 75 years old. We stopped interviewing when we
reached information saturation (Patton 2002). Interviews followed a standard protocol based on prior
research (Gobster 1998, Druschke 2013), best practices (Lindlof and Taylor 2011), and local knowledge
to investigate the self-described opportunities for and challenges to restoration efforts in urban areas.
All interviews were professionally transcribed, and transcripts were analyzed using an exhaustive code
based on Gobster (1998) and inductive and deductive themes, which we calibrated with members of our
wider research team. All responses coded as relating to urban restoration were reviewed to compile a
comprehensive list of barriers, opportunities, and strategies, which were then grouped into emergent
themes. We chose to refer to all managers as "she" in order to help protect the anonymity of the
interviewees.
i i i, Stui • -
Interviews were conducted in Rhode Island, U.S.A. throughout the summer of 2013. While some federal
managers mentioned projects in neighboring New England states, interviewees focused primarily on
work within the state. Rhode Island is small (1,033 sq. miles of land area and 1,052,567 people), dense
(1,018 persons per sq. mile), and heavily aquatic (384 miles of tidal coastline and 1,392 stream miles)
(U.S. Census 2009, U.S. Census 2012, U.S.E.P.A. and U.S.G.S. 1998). Despite the overall population
density (second densest state and all counties categorized as urban by the Office of Management and
Budget [2010]) more than half of the state's area is rural (U.S.D.A. Economic Research Service 2000).
Because of these factors, individuals involved in aquatic restoration projects are a highly networked
group.
-------
IV. Overview of Findings
Rhode Island is strongly divided between urban, coastal, and rural regions. The lowest household
incomes in the state occur in the urban portions of the north and east, while the areas along
Narragansett Bay and the southern coast boast the highest median household incomes and large
influxes of seasonal tourist dollars. The state's river system maps onto these socio-economic divides,
with heavy metals and fecal coliform frequently setting northern and eastern waters near the lowest
income communities on the list of 303d Impaired Waters. The state's more rural rivers tend to be
healthier systems, popular for their recreational value, while southern salt ponds and estuaries draw
locals and tourists alike throughout the year.
Restoration efforts in the more urban north tend to take the form of remediation efforts, urban
greenways, and small-scale wetland restorations for flood mitigation and water quality. Those in the
rural west emphasize stream buffers to stave off negative impacts of agricultural practices (from both
livestock and sod), while efforts in the south tend to focus on aquatic invasive species, salt marsh
accretion, and coastal inundation. In recent years, fish passage projects have occurred on rivers
throughout the state.
IV. Overview of Findings
Working from interview transcripts, we present a comprehensive list of barriers (Table 1), opportunities
(Table 2), and strategies (Table 3) associated with urban restoration projects offered by managers we
interviewed, including those that were self-reported, those they attributed to members of the general
public with whom they had worked, and those gleaned from their responses.
The barriers, opportunities, and strategies identified varied in their degree of "urbanness": some issues
were clearly only present in urban areas, some were present in all restoration projects but were
exacerbated in an urban setting, and others were universal. We focus primarily on urban restoration but
also present universal issues when managers talked about them in relation to urban projects.
The barriers (Table 1), opportunities (Table 2), and strategies (Table 3) are categorized by type, including
social or institutional, biophysical, or discursive. Importantly, individual barriers, opportunities, and
strategies may represent multiple types. For instance, nonpoint source pollution (Table 1) has both
social or institutional and biophysical dimensions. Nonpoint source pollution emerges from certain
policies and practices or lack thereof (social or institutional) and has tangible impacts on urban systems
like increased nutrients and fecal coliform (biophysical). Meanwhile, a similar barrier, contamination
(Table 1), refers to issues like heavy metal contamination in urban waterways (biophysical) and was also
often referred to as a narrative that people tell about urban waterways (discursive), which may or may
not be related to the actual biophysical condition of the river. As we explore below, we point to these
multiple dimensions to emphasize that urban barriers, opportunities, and strategies often exist on
multiple levels, containing components related to policies and practices, biophysical components, and
discursive narratives about urban waterways.
-------
Table 1. Comprehensive list of barriers to restoration projects offered by Rhode Island natural resource managers. Major themes are
shaded in dark gray, while subheadings are shaded in light gray. Items explored in the text are bolded. Columns on the right indicate
whether an item has a social or institutional, biophysical, and/or discursive dimension. Each item is further classified by its degree of
urbanness, indicating whether an item is exclusive to urban areas, exacerbated in urban areas, or universal.
Type
Degree of Urbanness
Barriers to Restoration
Social or
Institutional
Biophysical
Discursive
Urban Issue
Exacerbated
in Urban
setting
Universal
TRASHED ECOSYSTEMS
Too Far Gone
Degradation, extent of
X
X
X
X
Odor
X
X
River as sewer
X
X
X
Target, not possible to achieve pristine
X
X
X
Vandalism
X
X
X
No Nature in the City
River invisible in urban setting
X
X
Unnamed waterbodies
X
X
Contamination
Contamination / concerns about contamination
X
X
X
Non-point source pollution
X
X
X
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Fear of change
X
X
X
Resistance to change
X
X
X
Risk aversion
X
X
X
LACK OF POLITICAL WILL
Within the Political System
-------
Table 1. Continued.
Type
Degree of Urbanness
Exacerbated
Social or
in Urban
Barriers to Restoration
Institutional
Biophysical Discursive
Urban Issue
setting
Universal
Bureaucracy
X
X
X
(In-)consistency in municipal officers
X
X
Institutional resistance
X
X
X
Lack of overall responsibility for environment at municipal level
X
X
Politicians disconnected from public will
X
X
Within the Community
Community feels they don't deserve change
X
X
Lack of pride in river
X
X
X
Locals given up on environment
X
X
X
Politically marginal communities
X
X
X
Political pessimism
X
X
Transient communities
X
X
X
Vocal minority
X
X
X
FUNDING
Availability
X
X
Capacity
X
X
Distribution
X
X
Little for monitoring and maintenance
X
X
Larger economic situation
X
Restrictions
X
X
Timing
X
X
Inequity in distribution
-------
Table 1. Continued.
Barriers to Restoration
MISC. BARRIERS
Buy-in and networking is time consuming
Credibility (of the person or agency spearheading the project)
Environmental Justice
Historic Sites
Interagency collaboration / more networked
Lack of technical expertise
Organizational Capacity
Regulations
Resistance to collaboration with federal agencies
Time
Timing
Union workers-rigidity in time and duties
Type
Degree of Urbanness
Social or
Institutional Biophysical
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Discursive
X
X
Exacerbated
in Urban
Urban Issue setting
X
X
X
X
X
Universal
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 2. Comprehensive list of opportunities for urban restoration projects offered by Rhode Island natural resource managers. Items
explored in the text are bolded. Columns on the right indicate whether an item has a social or institutional, biophysical, and/or
discursive dimension. Each item is further classified by its degree of urbanness, indicating whether an item is exclusive to urban areas,
exacerbated in urban areas, or universal.
Type
Degree of Urbanness
Opportunities for restoration
Social or
Institutional
Biophysical
Discursive
Urban Issue
Increased in
Urban setting
Universal
Capacity (more in cities)
X
X
X
Economic situation
X
X
X
Environmental Justice
X
X
X
Existing community organizations
X
X
Funding - earmarked
X
X
Funding begets funding
X
X
Growing interest in urban ecology
X
X
X
X
Local knowledge
X
X
Local sponsor
X
X
Many beneficiaries
X
X
Memory: vision/history
X
X
X
Motivated partners
X
X
Multi-scale contaminant
X
X
X
Named waterbodies
X
X
X
Natural disasters - floods, storms, etc.
X
X
X
Poverty and contamination
X
X
X
Respected local
X
X
River as source of discovery
X
X
Shifting perceptions of urban ecosystems
X
X
X
Spending money where majority of voters live
X
X
Visionary leader/ship
X
X
-------
Table 3. Comprehensive list of strategies for urban restoration projects offered by Rhode Island natural resource managers. Items
explored in the text are bolded. Columns on the right indicate whether an item has a social or institutional, biophysical, and/or
discursive dimension. Each item is further classified by its degree of urbanness, indicating whether an item is exclusive to urban areas,
exacerbated in urban areas, or universal.
Type
Degree of Urbanness
Social or
Increased in
Strategies for restoration
Institutional
Biophysical
Discursive
Urban Issue Urban setting Universal
Ambassador sites
X
X
X
X
Art (ownership, complex messaging)
X
X
X
Collaboration between diverse partners
X
X
Consistency in municipal officers
X
X
Economic situation
X
X
X
Existing community organizations
X
X
Funding - earmarked
X
X
Funding begets funding - success begets success
X
X
X
Improve delivery of information about the projects
X
X
X
Local knowledge
X
X
X
Local sponsor
X
X
X
Long-term engagement
X
X
X
Making systems visible
X
X
X
X
Memory or historical value
X
X
X
Motivated partners
X
X
X
Multi-scale contaminant
X
X
X
Named waterbodies
X
X
X
Persistence
X
X
Respected local
X
X
Riveras source of discovery
X
X
Visionary leader/ship
X
X
X
Working Across Scales
X
X
X
-------
V. Barriers to Restoration
il I
V. Barriers to Restoration
We found that many of the barriers identified by
interviewees were not uniquely urban, but were
universal issues that were exacerbated in urban
settings for a number of reasons, including density of
stakeholders, multiple layers of biophysical and social
challenges, and pre-existing infrastructure (Table 1).
We offer a comprehensive list of barriers identified by
interviewees (Table 1) and explore in more depth a
subset of emergent themes around which many of the
barriers seemed to cluster: trashed ecosystems,
stakeholders' resistance to change, communities' lack
of political will, and funding constraints.
Trashed Ecosystems
A major barrier to restoration efforts had to do with a characterization of urban ecosystems as being
"trashed." This emerged in several interrelated ways: through arguments that systems were too far
gone, that there is no nature in cities, and that urban sites contain extensive contamination.
Too far gone
Urban restoration differs from restoration in suburban or rural
settings in part because of the extent of human infrastructure and
minimal open space in and around potential restoration sites.
Managers expressed that there were fewer opportunities and more
challenges in urban settings. As one wondered, "How are you going
to get rid of a parking lot and a building? And, you know, who's
gonna say yes to that?" In urban settings, she reasoned, "Industry
rules." As another manager put it, "In most of the city, you know,
like, I can't go and say all right, we're gonna put a field over here or
we're gonna make this big wetland restoration effort here because
there's buildings right up to everything." These physical constraints
are a significant barrier to urban restoration.
Beyond infrastructure, the state of ecosystems themselves posed a challenge (Wolman 1967, Walsh
2000, Paul & Meyer 2001, Chin 2006, Bernhardt and Palmer 2007, Bernhardt and Palmer 2011). As one
manager put it, "It's too late and so much of it is—I mean all cities are like that though—I think so far
from its natural state." Many managers shared this view and talked about how it was difficult to get
traction, both within the management community and with the public, to restore urban ecosystems
because they were considered (or they themselves considered them to be) too far gone from the
"Why bother,
you know, it's not in
great shape, it's not
gonna be in great shape,
so why should I spend
my time and effort."
-------
Urban Ecosystem Restoration
standpoint of ecological health. As one manager explained, there is a sense of "why bother, you know,
it's not in great shape, it's not gonna be in great shape, so why should I spend my time and effort."
Some managers adopted that view themselves, while others simply recognized it in others. One
advocate for urban restoration reflected on a particular colleague: "She would say, 'Forget the urban
environments. Let's throw all our money and efforts into preserving something that's not yet
destroyed.'" Another manager described an interaction with a potential funder who told her, "Don't
waste your time...that river is so degraded...You know, down at the [less urban river] system you can get
way more bang for your buck. You'll never get a decent herring run in that river."
The managers who adopted this "too far gone" perspective themselves argued there is no point tackling
site-level restoration when the larger driving, ecological processes have been fundamentally altered,
and in turn the functions and processes that support those systems have been greatly changed. One
manager reflected that her work deals with a "non-functional river system. You know, we don't know
what's going on. Do we really? I mean you've got, you know, wetlands that aren't wetlands anymore.
You've got dams that might not work. You know, the rivers have been so manipulated for so long." From
this standpoint, some managers have given up on urban ecosystems ecologically and claim that urban
ecosystems are not worth restoring.
No nature in the city
Some interviewees recognized that this argument was sometimes taken a step further to suggest that
there is no nature in the city. This attitude seemed to result in part from invisibility because natural
features in urban areas can sometimes be located underground, behind barriers, or in areas avoided
10
-------
V. Barriers to Restoration
because they are deemed unsafe. In one case, a
manager described taking a group to visit a public park
and walking them to that park's canoe launch on an
urban river. As she recounted, "they're like, 'Wow,
where'd you get the river?' It had been in the
neighborhood, and like nobody even knew this river
existed.'" That same manager recalled hearing
community residents insist, "We don't have environment in this community." Another reflected that
community members, "would say things like, 'I take two buses to show my kids grass... We don't have
environment [here].' Environment to them meant a national park. That was what environment was." If
nature does not exist in the city, the logic goes, then there is no reason for urban constituencies to
support local ecological restoration.
Contamination
Contamination, and the fear of contamination, also posed " then Somebody finds OUt it's
a significant barrier to urban restoration projects and contaminated and the proponent
were cited again and again as a primary reason for .. . .
, . . runs away, walks away, and leaves
abandoning proposed projects. As one manager put it, . n
there are fewer project opportunities in urban areas 0r °thers tO clean up.
because, "You know, often we suggest something and
then somebody finds out it's contaminated and then the proponent runs away, walks away, and leaves
it for others to clean up." Even when potential contamination does not derail a project entirely, it can
often shape the restoration strategies employed. As one manager described a potential dam restoration
project on a pond surrounded by houses, "there wouldn't have been a lotta support for movin' the
impoundment or we would have to deal with the contaminated sediments in some way." So she
decided, instead, to install a fish ladder rather than proceed with full removal. Contamination
dramatically shaped the outcome of that restoration project and others like it, and it can also be a
problem that multiplies. Discussing the identification of sites for a depaving effort, for instance, one
manager questioned the true benefit of the project when, "we're literally digging up another problem."
Resistance to Change
Many managers focused on what they perceived to be the public's fear of change and its role as a
barrier to restoration, a problem that could be exacerbated by larger populations in urban areas.
Managers expressed frustration that many proposed restoration efforts seemed to be quickly rejected
by many local residents simply because they were proposing something new. One manager offered this
common story, "The first and foremost issue always is and always will be change. 'Oh you wanna change
something? Nope, not gonna do it.' You know, it's not so much the 'not in my backyard' philosophy as
much as it is, 'No. No. You know, that dam's been there all this time. Why do you wanna take it out? And
you're gonna tell me you wanna take it out for fish passage, but I don't care.'" The point, for many
managers, is that residents and decision-makers are uncomfortable with the changes demanded by
restoration projects. Rather than focusing on the grounds of public objections to projects, managers
frequently pointed to resistance to change as an all too frequent barrier that stalled out urban
restoration projects.
Ill 11
"Wow, where'd you get the river?
It had been in the neighborhood,
and like nobody even knew this
river existed."
-------
Urban Ecosystem Restoration
I ack of Political Will
Many managers we spoke with argued that restoration does not happen in urban, and particularly poor,
urban, neighborhoods because of a lack of political will both from the political system and local
communities.
Within the political system
Several managers said they faced became the neighborhood
anti-urban sentiment from some where you put everything that no one else wanted."
government officials. Reflecting
on her interactions with city
officials about one disadvantaged, urban neighborhood, one manager explained, "They said there's
nothing you can do [here]. Nothing works... And anything you do [here] will be destroyed." Political
tensions could further exacerbate the issue. Because one urban neighborhood was said to be
"transitional" and "divided politically," a place "the state senator and the state rep didn't even campaign
in," it became the neighborhood "where you put everything that no one else wanted."
One manager suggested that perspectives on urban restoration varied greatly between managers, and
that particular political personalities and positions could pose barriers to urban restoration projects. Her
success with urban restoration projects, she said, came because, "The stars aligned and I would land
with the right people in the different agencies. If I had not spread out, you know, I would've hit that one
person who hated the urban area. I mean, you know, like [one agency] where somebody was wonderful.
A guy comes in says, 'Why the hell are we putting a bike path in Providence?' You know, luckily he
wasn't assigned to it." Individuals in charge could make or break a project based on their own
perspectives, particularly in politically marginalized communities.
Within the community
There was also a perception among some managers that lower-income residents in cities did not
prioritize environmental issues in the face of other more critical concerns in their lives. As one manager
suggested, "I don't know how much people are even engaged with the natural environment if they live
in these urban settings, and particularly in the areas where people are just scratchin' out a living. It may
almost seem like a luxury to be concerned about you know, the birds and the bees, and so there may
not be much connection." Another felt that "the populace does not care about and will not do anything
about [restoration] because they have to focus on survival." One manager found that a particular
neighborhood was considered a community of least political resistance. She described urban
disaffection there: "When the park equipment fell apart
nobody called the parks department. When
prostitution took over the streets nobody called the city
police. A lot of people were undocumented and didn't
want to call police." She saw this apathy as a significant
barrier to restoration efforts in the community, though
it could potentially be seen as an opportunity to
accomplish restoration projects with little local
resistance.
12 III
"the populace does not care about
and will not do anything about
[restoration] because they have
to focus on survival."
-------
V. Barriers to Restoration
Another major barrier to urban restoration projects was funding, in a variety of ways. Funding was
raised again and again as a significant barrier in terms of availability, but also in terms of lack of capacity
for spending, restrictions on spending, timing, and distribution.
Availability of funding
Restoration efforts, particularly in urban settings, are often expensive due to the layers of problems in
urban settings including contamination, extent of existing infrastructure, and degree of degradation of
the systems. Managers told us, "You know, you can get maybe a quarter of an acre of restoration in,
where if you go down to [a more rural part of the state] the same money will buy you, you know, 20
acres," and "if you have, you know, $2 million, you can save a huge pristine wetland area. Or you can
restore a five acre contaminated site in an inner city. And that is the challenge." Urban restoration
costs money.
Lack of capacity for spending
Even when funds were available, we heard some federal employees complain that restoration groups
"didn't want our money." One federal manager recalled her frustration: "Every year we would go to the
city and we would say, 'You have $424,000 sitting in this account... Do you want to use it?' Nobody
would ever get back to us." There was a perception that groups did not want federal funding, when, in
fact, they simply did not have the capacity to spend it.
Managers described lack of capacity for spending funds in a variety of ways: from the ability to write a
technical contract, to the financial reserves to cover funding matches or reimbursements, to the staff
available to meet with funders at inconvenient times or write complex grant applications. This lack of
capacity resulted in some organizations not applying for available funding that might be useful in their
communities, and also resulted in funders' distrust of some smaller grantees. Larger funders had serious
concerns about the ability of small groups to spend money on a large contract.
Restrictions on funding
Some grantees are very experienced with restrictions on funding and gifted at balancing the
requirements of the funders with the goals of the organization. But some funds, particularly federal
funds, require permitting or procedures that are too onerous for smaller organizations to deal with. In
addition, the "acres restored" success metric of many federal funding streams means that urban
projects are rarely competitive despite the social co-benefits they provide. (This problem is compounded
in Rhode Island, the smallest and the second most urban state in the country.) Restrictions prove also to
be a barrier when funds are available for certain portions of the restoration process and not others: for
planning, for instance, but not for implementation, monitoring, or maintenance, or for restoring
watershed functions on a broad scale.
-------
il f
Urban Ecosystem Restoration
Timing of funding
Funding streams often stipulate spending on very specific time frames. This constrained timing poses
difficulties for implementation, particularly on projects with multiple collaborators and/or public
engagement components. Further, many projects require multiple partners for matching funds or to
implement different phases of projects. Many managers said that working with communities and
incorporating their ideas and feedback in the design and implementation of projects—moves they
framed as important for project success in urban areas—meant that the restoration process took more
time and was more unpredictable than if the public was minimally involved. While many managers saw
value in engagement and collaboration, funding timelines often did not support this model.
"How you get the restoration money
to the right places is a real challenge.''
Inequity of distribution
Restoration funding is often prioritized away from cities. As one manager explained, in Rhode Island,
"Providence is overwhelmingly the majority of votes for bond issues for open space, acquisition,
protection of habitat. And almost nothing gets done in Providence." Another manager pointed to
remediation funds from one urban Superfund site, which were channeled away from affected
communities and towards more pristine areas in the region. One manager pointed to decision makers
considering what to do with this Superfund remediation funding from New Bedford, Massachusetts. She
described them saying, '"Let's restore terns on Penikese Island and let's go down Buzzard's Bay and
restore, you know, this salt marsh and that salt marsh.'" As she explained, "To people in New Bedford,
it's like, 'Oh great, you know, you're restoring, you know, salt marsh in the mill owner's backyard and
not doing anything up where we were affected by this contamination, you know?"' One manager
summarized this issue well by suggesting, "There are lots of areas in lots of places that should be
restored that will not. How you get the restoration money to the right places is a real challenge." Urban
areas often seem to fall on the losing end of restoration prioritization decisions.
-------
VII. Strategies for Restoration
¥1, Opportunities for Restoration
Despite this wide suite of barriers to urban restoration projects, managers also highlighted important—
and often surprising—opportunities for project support and implementation in urban areas (Table 2).
We provide a comprehensive list of opportunities gleaned from the interviews (Table 2), while we
explore here some of the most powerful and persuasive opportunities, which included: the potential for
many beneficiaries in urban areas, the impact of natural disasters as prompting restoration action, the
demand for addressing issues of community development and environmental justice, and shifting
perceptions of urban ecosystems.
Many Beneficiaries
Another major shift in the perception of urban ecosystems demonstrated in our interviews was about
thinking of urban ecosystems as offering real opportunities to provide ecosystem service benefits to a
broad community, with implications for equity, fairness, and democratic values.
One manager summarized the argument for serving many beneficiaries well when talking about a unit in
her agency that focuses on urban rivers. As she explained, "We have more utilities and flooding
potential and contaminated sediments. The projects are more expensive. But from our perspective...
there's a greater number of people receiving the
direct benefit." And beneficiaries matter.
urban settings where more people could benefit
was a democratic good. They reasoned that it
was important to spend restoration funds where many voters and taxpayers live. As one argued that this
was an issue of "geographical equity. That, you know, people in Providence pay taxes just like people in
[a more affluent community]. So why should we do a lot of work [in the affluent community]?" Voters
and taxpayers, they reasoned, deserved to benefit from restoration efforts at a local scale. Another
manager described her thinking about urban restoration as, shifting from urban ecosystems being "so
far gone already, so polluted. And there are so many cases that you're never gonna get it back to what it
was." She, instead, started thinking about "reaching those urban populations. And that such a huge
proportion of our population lived in urban areas and they're all voters and they're all voting and making
decisions about how the federal budget and all the other budgets are spent and about how much
people value natural spaces." For this manager and others we spoke with this emphasis on community
and beneficiaries of restoration marked a real shift in their perspectives.
Some managers linked this number of
beneficiaries to democratic arguments,
suggesting that creating restoration projects in
"From our perspective... there's a
greater number of people
receiving the direct benefit."
-------
iiLi Urban Ecosystem Restoration
Despite the challenges they pose, as several managers noted, natural disasters, particularly large floods,
can serve as opportunities that not only focus the community's attention on water resource issues, but
allow the public to see the need for benefits a project might provide. Disasters in urban settings are
times when unseen natural systems become visible, because the stream that usually is confined to
culverts is now flowing down Main Street. One manager discussed a restoration effort where "in the
middle of the whole process we had the horrible flooding in 2010, which kind of shifted people's
perception of what this could mean for them." She found that it was much easier to tout the benefits
of restoration, in this case flood abatement, when people's concerns about the issues were raised
through the storm event and other natural disasters like hurricanes and other coastal storms.
The layered challenges present at urban sites, while often
a barrier to restoration, could also multiply opportunities.
One manager claimed that success often emerged
"whenever you can get an overlap with cultural and
natural resources, that's a hot spot in the town, that's
something that people really care about." She continued,
"That's something we tried to bring out in the green
space projects where you had that overlap. And, then if
you can throw in a recreational resource it becomes even
more valuable." Many of the projects that managers talked about as "successes" were projects that
blended natural improvements and community improvements. One manager went so far as saying,
"to me, wetland restoration is not distinct from community... My personal goal in everything I do is to,
you know, try to improve communities by, you know, restoring the environment, whether it's the built
environment or the natural environment." Managers framed the ways that urban restoration had the
potential to achieve positive outcomes for non-human and human components of ecosystems especially
in areas where both human and non-human communities had suffered.
Poverty and contamination provided a critical nexus to many managers for getting work done. Singly,
both were also considered barriers to restoration, the nexus of the two not only created a clear and
present biophysical health issue to face, but often presented a challenge that political institutions
wanted to and were primed to address. These large, overwhelming issues in some cases provided a
catalyst for action. One manager described an abandoned lot, for instance, where "there were
hazardous materials like volatile organics that had been spilled on the site, and it sort of became the
playground for the neighborhood children." Once brought to the attention of policymakers, this injustice
became a sounding call that led to the eventual restoration of the site and creation of nearby parks.
There are changing attitudes, particularly within the natural resource management community, about
whether the goal of restoration should be to attempt to restore systems to a more natural state or to
manage fundamentally altered or "novel ecosystems" (Hobbs et al. 2006). As one manager asserted,
... "successes" were projects that
blended natural improvements
and community improvements.
-------
VII. Strategies for Restoration JilLiL
"I see the environment as, like it or not, a managed system. I mean the entire environment, you know
what I mean? So the kind of notion that there's this, you know, pristine system that we're working
toward, I don't even really see that. I see everything we do in restoration as tradeoffs, you know?" While
this perspective could lead some managers (and members of the public) to devalue urban restoration, it
could also prompt an opposite effect. When it becomes more and more common to see all ecosystems
as human-altered and that achieving "pristine" conditions through restoration is unattainable, urban
restoration may seem like less of an outlier. This broad shift in attitude, then, has the capacity to change
managers' and funders' perceptions about the value of urban restoration.
VII. ' '-GIES FOR PiL'STC'RATION
In the face of many of these significant barriers, and thanks to capitalizing on some of the urban-specific
opportunities they highlighted, managers were able to find creative strategies for completing
restoration projects in urban areas (Table 3). We offer a comprehensive list (Table 3) and discuss four of
those strategies in depth: making natural features and ecological systems visible; mobilizing visionary
leaders; engaging with people and sites long-term; and working across scales (Table 3).
Making Systems Visible
Making urban systems visible can take several forms. It can mean physically changing the view in an
urban setting, by removing barriers or daylighting rivers, which can have both social and ecological
benefits, for example, but it can also mean taking people to systems, improving access, and even
teaching them how to make use of available ecosystem benefits. Managers suggested that all of these
strategies help people to see and value urban ecosystems.
Some managers recommended general outreach efforts. As one
explained, "I think we need to do a much better job as a
conservation movement in making our work attractive and palatable
to urban communities and to get them to see the economic and
social value of the work which I believe very strongly is there and
they don't really see. And, most people in the cities still don't see."
Many managers suggested getting urban residents out interacting
with urban ecosystems to recognize some of their values. As one
described, "I've taken kids out for hikes and they're scared of like squirrels or I mean just anything that
they see 'cause it's so foreign. So I think it's really important just to have an experience so that people
realize that it's relaxing, that it's peaceful, that there's that something positive about just being able to
be out, you know, on the water or in the woods." Another reflected on the change in perception
prompted by that sort of engagement. As she recalled, "We had kids canoeing on the river in their
neighborhood. And suddenly this filthy river became an asset." In her view, it took organizing just one
short canoe trip to radically change the group's perception of the river.
Ill 17
"... let them know
that nature is part of
their city and that it's
there for them to use
and enjoy."
-------
mli
Urban Ecosystem Restoration
otrr
©tj
-------
Y| ft
VII. Strategies for Restoration Jsii.
examples of these scale-brokers who, in some cases, were institutionally powerful and politically
networked, and, in others, were charismatic, local people who had the innate ability to navigate layers
of bureaucracy and power.
Many of the managers we spoke with found that performing urban restoration projects required a long-
term commitment to public engagement from managers. Long-term success depended upon managers
improving their communication of content about restoration projects to public audiences, as well as
creating an iterative community dialogue that fosters project ownership (Druschke and Hychka 2015).
One dam removal project exemplified this type of long-term community engagement. In this case, the
community had recently dealt with contamination issues in the same river and was particularly
concerned despite an informational campaign about the project's minimal risk. When concerns about
contamination persisted, project managers decided to complete "an extensive amount of sediment
testing that, you know, probably wasn't necessary." But, as this manager explained, "We just felt like it
needed to be done because there were these concerns, and we needed to say we have looked at this
and this is what we found," or, in this case, did not find. These extra tests were ordered, in large part,
because managers on the project had spent an extended amount of time in the community getting to
know their concerns and interests and building mutual trust. As a result, rather than dismiss community
members' concerns, they were able to listen and respond to the community's particular objections. We
have detailed more examples of long-term engagement with aquatic restoration in previous work
(Druschke and Hychka 2015).
Many managers suggested the need to start small on urban restoration projects in order to achieve
demonstrable change, help make problems seem less insurmountable, share the burden, build
partnerships and relationships needed to complete long term projects, and breed success from success.
They found that these smaller efforts could often act as demonstration sites that, particularly in urban
areas, could put residents in contact with and ultimately affect how they value these ecosystems.
Despite these real advantages of local scale projects, it is important to recognize that smaller victories
often do little to fix ecological problems throughout the wider catchment such as non-point source
pollution or altered hydrology (Bernhardt and Palmer 2011). We heard our interviewees suggesting that
urban ecosystem restoration requires tiered changes, with site-level restorations that engage the
citizenry and build the capacity to do more projects, coupled with broader efforts and enabling
legislation to improve some of the larger, often non-point source problems. Christian-Smith and
Merenlender (2008) captured that sentiment of pairing local scale with wider watershed and ecological
with social. As they argued, "Real solutions will only be found when restoration looks beyond the stream
to address the entire watershed as a combination of social and ecological forces that interact to produce
watershed conditions" (p. 7).
19
-------
Urban Ecosystem Restoration
Similarly, it is important to recognize that communities act within much larger socio-political
frameworks and that some of these structural issues occur across scales: from the very local to the
global geo-political situation (Braun 2005).
Moving forward in the face of these systemic, structural issues can be
daunting, which emphasizes the need to make small-scale, recognizable
change while promoting or pushing for larger structural change
VIII. Identifying and Addressing Multiple Facets of Urban Restoration
Barriers and Opportunities
The barriers, opportunities, and strategies presented by restoration managers and captured here can
make an important addition to the learning component of adaptive management. Managers would be
well served by thinking deliberately about and planning in advance for the barriers, opportunities, and
strategies presented above. But in addition to taking these barriers, opportunities, and strategies at face
value, we encourage restoration managers to also consider the multiple dimensions of the issues
presented here (Table 1, 2, and 3). Managers can plan in advance and employ some of these strategies
(Table 3) to address the seemingly straightforward barriers outlined here (Table 1). In addition, by
thinking broadly about—and then responding to—the multiple institutional, social, biophysical, and
discursive facets of these barriers, managers can design creative solutions to accomplish restoration
goals.
As we grouped the urban restoration barriers that emerged from interviews into emergent themes, we
recognized that barriers sometimes described precise biophysical or institutional issues, like heavy metal
contamination and funding restrictions. In many cases, identified barriers had multiple dimensions that
were not always recognized or acknowledged by interviewees. We suggest that recognizing and
addressing the multiple dimensions of restoration barriers and opportunities is essential to employing
appropriate and successful solutions that enable urban restoration projects.
In general, this work to anticipate multiple facets of restoration barriers and to capitalize on
opportunities in urban settings takes three forms: 1) recognizing the existence of different types of
barriers and different facets of individual barriers or opportunities; 2) recognizing mismatches between
the labels that managers place on particular barriers or opportunities and their actual facets; and 3)
matching types of solutions with types of barriers. In all three of these forms, it is important to cultivate
or seek expertise in dealing with the socio-cultural aspects of barriers.
First, many of the managers we spoke with did not differentiate between different types and multiple
facets of restoration barriers. While the managers we spoke with as a group identified and responded to
20 HI
-------
VIII. Identifying and Addressing Multiple Facets
all types of barriers, some presented themselves as being focused only on the seemingly rational or
objective aspects of structural issues. But non-technical barriers are very real and, even after many years
of work and lots of money spent, can derail a project. We suggest that managers recognize the socio-
cultural aspects of barriers, such as residents not believing there is nature in the city or lacking trust in
resource managers, and cultivate or call on outside expertise in identifying and addressing those types
of barriers.
Because of this complexity, managers need to cultivate a broad
stance about the multiple facets of restoration barriers and listen
closely and open-mindedly to stakeholders' concerns.
Second, we noted a number of mismatches between the labels that managers placed on some barriers
and what those barriers actually seemed to represent, as we listened to their stories about the projects
and triangulated with others' descriptions. For example, many managers spoke with us about
community members' "fear of change" as a significant barrier to urban restoration. But when we probed
these examples more deeply, it seemed apparent that this "fear of change" argument often named a
fear of risk, a lack of trust, and/or a clash of values. For instance, one manager expressed her dismay at
the opposition posed to one coastal restoration project, that "even though this is positive ecological
restoration, bringing back something to its former state, you know, people fear change. And particularly
they fear flooding, flooding from coastal waters." As in this case, the potential hydrologic changes from
some ecological restoration can be complex and difficult to explain and understand, and they also may
have very serious implications for local people: raising flood levels, lowering water levels in a reservoir,
or dropping water levels in wells. In situations with high stakes and difficult communication challenges,
these difficulties were often conflated into a straightforward and irrational fear of change. In other
cases, what was presented as the public fearing change seemed more like a lack of public trust in the
agency promoting the change (Stern 2008). In still others, residents had concerns that were not
addressed by project managers or had different perceptions about the benefits of the system. All of
these issues are different kinds of barriers than fear of change, and they require different strategies.
Third, we often heard from managers who described trying to address any source of public resistance to
restoration with a structural response: searching for more funding or filling a technical deficit in the
community, but neglecting the social, discursive, or ideological facets of barriers. Sometimes projects
simply need more money to move forward, while other times projects need flexibility, capacity building,
or trust-building to succeed. Because of this complexity, managers need to cultivate a broad stance
about the multiple facets of restoration barriers and listen closely and open-mindedly to stakeholders'
concerns. While non-technical, public concerns were exasperating to some managers, the work
presented here provides an opportunity to learn from managers who have been able to deal with socio-
cultural barriers and build from opportunities, coming up with constructive strategies to address
frustrating concerns.
21
-------
Urban Ecosystem Restoration
.. there is a need to move beyond the simple metric of aerial extent
or acreage restored into the use of ecosystem services or benefits
as indicators of value or success.
IX. Conclusions
We conclude with a few synthetic recommendations to managers, funders, and policy makers related to
urban ecological restoration. For urban ecosystem restoration to be recognized as valuable when
compared to restoration in more pristine settings, there is a need to move beyond the simple metric of
aerial extent or acreage restored into the use of ecosystem services or benefits as indicators of value or
success. This approach recognizes the suite of co-benefits-including flood reduction, quality of life, and
public health improvements-provided to a larger group of people when restoration is done in a more
populated area. In addition, creating education campaigns targeted at regulators, funders, and
ecologists could help to expand their views about the value of urban ecosystem restoration. Further,
creating time for learning from projects or funding retrospective or cross-scale analyses can promote
adaptive management. Many of our interviewees expressed appreciation for the work presented here
because their funding environment and workloads rarely allowed time to synthesize and learn from
their collective knowledge.
For policy makers and regulators, it is important to develop policies and guidance, such as technical
manuals, that account for urban restoration and not just expect those developed for rural and suburban
settings to work in a more developed, urban setting. Also, it is critical to support institutions or
individuals that can promote or facilitate urban ecosystem restoration through long-term public
engagement or scale-brokering. Additionally, supporting all phases of restoration efforts—including
planning, implementation, and monitoring—and developing transparency in the prioritization process,
particularly for publicly funded projects, is critical.
Finally, one way to begin to tease apart the scaled, social barriers to and opportunities for ecosystem
restoration is to take an adaptive management approach to urban restoration and learn through the
joining of ecological and stakeholder insights. We encourage managers to reflect on the variety of
complex barriers they encounter in their restoration work to consider barriers' multiple structural and
discursive facets. Crucially, for urban restoration projects to proceed, managers need to address all
types of barriers and recognize that certain barriers have multiple components, all of which need to be
sensitively addressed.
22
-------
X. References
X. References
Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-
Smith J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS,
Lave R, Meyer JL, O'Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B and Sudduth E. (2005). Synthesizing U. S. river
restoration efforts. Science, 308(5722), 636-637.
Bernhardt ES and Palmer MA. 2007. Restoring streams in an urbanizing world. Freshwater Biology, 52(4),
738-751.
Bernhardt ES and Palmer MA. 2011. River restoration: The fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse
catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 1926-1931.
Bernhardt ES, Sudduth EB, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Meyer JL, Alexander G, Follastad-Shah J, Hassett B,
Jenkinson R, Lave R, Rumps J and Pagano L. 2007. Restoring rivers one reach at a time: Results from
a survey of US river restoration practitioners. Restoration Ecology, 15(3), 482-493.
Bolund P and Hunhammar S. 1999 Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29.2:
293-301.
Booth DB. 2005. Challenges and prospects for restoring urban streams: A perspective from the Pacific
Northwest of North America. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(3), 724-737.
Braun B. 2005. Environmental issues: Writing a more-than-human urban geography. Progress in Human
Geography, 29 (5), 635-650.
Buijs AE. 2009. Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents' support
for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. Journal of
Environmental Management, 90(8), 2680-2689.
Chin A. 2006. Urban transformation of river landscapes in a global context. Geomorphology, 79(3),
460-487.
Christian-Smith J and Merenlender AM. 2008. The disconnect between restoration goals and practices:
A case study of watershed restoration in the Russian River Basin, California. Restoration Ecology,
18(1), 95-102.
Connolly JJ, Svendsen ES, Fisher DR and Campbell LK. 2013. Organizing urban ecosystem services
through environmental stewardship governance in New York City. Landscape and Urban Planning
109 (1), 76-84.
Crona B and Hubacek K. 2010. The right connections: How do social networks lubricate the machinery
of natural resource governance? Ecology and Society 15(4): 18 [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/voll5/iss4/artl8/
Druschke CG. 2013. Watershed as common-place: Communicating for conservation at the watershed
scale. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 7(1), 80-96.
Druschke CG and Hychka KC. 2015. Manager perspectives on communication and public engagement
in ecological restoration project success. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 58.
-------
Urban Ecosystem Restoration
Ernstson H, Barthel S, Andersson E and Borgstrom ST. 2010. Scale-crossing brokers and network
governance of urban ecosystem services: The case of Stockholm. Ecology and Society 15(4): 28.
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/voll5/iss4/art28/.
Gobster PH. 1998. Nearby neighborhood residents' images and perceptions of the river. People and the
river: Perception and use of Chicago waterways for recreation. Ed. P. H. Gobster and L. M. Westphal.
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance
Program, Milwaukee, Wl. 5-48.
Gobster PH and Westphal LM. 1998. People and the River: Perception and Use of Chicago Waterways for
Recreation. Misc. Publ., Milwaukee, Wl: U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service Rivers,
Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program.
Groffman PM, Bain DJ, Band LE, Belt KT, Brush GS, Grove JM, Pouyat RV, Yesilonis IC and Zipperer WC.
2003. Down by the riverside: Urban riparian ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(6),
315-321.
Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE,
Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, Vila M, Zamora R and Zobel M.
2006. Novel ecosystems: Theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order.
Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15(1), 1-7.
Hughes FMR, Colston A and Mountford JO. 2005. Restoring riparian ecosystems: The challenge of
accommodating variability and designing restoration trajectories. Ecology and Society 10(1): 12.
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/voll0/issl/artl2/
Junker B, Buchecker M and Miiller-Boker U. 2007. Objectives of public participation: Which actors
should be involved in the decision making for river restorations? Water Resources Research, 43(10),
W10438.
Kondolf GM. 2006. River restoration and meanders. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 42.
Kondolf GM, Boulton AJ, O'Daniel S, Poole GC, Rahel FJ, Stanley EH, Wohl E, Bang A, Carlstrom J, Cristoni
C, Huber H, Koljonen S, Louhi P and Nakamura K. 2006. Process-based ecological river restoration:
Visualizing three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecology and
Society, 11(2), 5.
Lindlof TR and Taylor BC. 2011. Qualitative communication research methods 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Lundy L and R Wade. 2011. Integrating sciences to sustain urban ecosystem services. Progress in Physical
Geography 35(5), 653-669.
Nassauer J. 2004. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural sustainability
and ecological function. Wetlands, 24 (4), 756-765.
O.M.B. (Office of Management and Budget). (2010). Standards for Delineating
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Part IV. Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 123 / Monday,
June 28, 2010 / Notices.
Oliver P. 2006. Purposive sampling. In: Jupp V (Ed). The SAGE dictionary of social research methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
-------
X. References H!
Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Shah JF,
Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondole GM, Lave R, Meyer JL,
O'Donnell TK, Pagano L and Sudduth E. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 208-217.
Palmer M, Allan JD, Meyer J and Bernhardt ES. 2007. River restoration in the twenty-first century:
Data and experiential knowledge to inform future efforts. Restoration Ecology, 15(3), 472-481.
Patton MQ. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
Paul MJ and Meyer JL. 2001 Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,
32, 333-365.
Petts J. 2007. Learning about learning: Lessons from public engagement and deliberation on urban river
restoration. The Geographical Journal, 173(4), 300-311.
Prell C, Hubacek K and Reed M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural
resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 501-518.
Simcox DE and Zube EH. 1989. Public value orientations toward urban riparian landscapes. Society and
Natural Resources, 2(1), 229-239.
Stern MJ. 2008. The power of trust: Toward a theory of local opposition to neighboring protected areas.
Society and Natural Resources, 21(10), 859-875.
Suren AM. 2008. Using Macrophytes in Urban Stream Rehabilitation: A Cautionary Tale. Restoration
Ecology, 17, 873-883.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. State and County Quickfacts: Rhode Island. Retrieved August 9, 2015 from
http://quickfacts.census.gov.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Table 364. Coastline and Shoreline of the United States by State. Retrieved
August 9, 2015 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0364.pdf.
U.S.D.A. Economic Research Service. 2000. Rural Definitions: Rhode Island. Retrieved August 9, 2015
from http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Rural_Definitions/StateLevel_Maps/RI.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. National
Hydrography Dataset-NHD. http://www.epa.gov/waters.
Walsh G. 2000. Urban impacts on the ecology of receiving waters: A framework for assessment,
conservation and restoration. Hydrobiologia, 431, 107-114.
Walsh G, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM and Morgan RP. 2005. The urban stream
syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society, 24(3), 706-723.
Wolman MG. 1967. A cycle of sedimentation and erosion in urban channels. Geography Annals, 49a,
385-395.
Woolsey S, Capelli F, Gonser T, Hoehn E, Hostmann M, Junker B, Paetzold A, Roulier C, Schweizer S,
Tiegs SD, Tockner K, Weber C and Peter A. 2007. A Strategy to Assess River Restoration Success.
Freshwater Biology, 52(4), 752-769.
------- |