oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-17/292 | September 2018 | www.epa.gov/research
How the community value of
ecosystem goods and services
empowers communities to
impact the outcome of
remediation, restoration, and
revitalization projects
RESES FINAL REPORT
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Mid-Continent Ecology Division
-------
EPA Report Number EPA/600/R-17/292
September 2018
How the community value of
ecosystem goods and services
empowers communities to
impact the outcomes of
remediation, restoration, and
revitalization projects
RESES Final Report
by
Kathleen Williams1, David Bolgrien1, Joel Hoffman1' Ted Angradi1,
Jessica Carlson2, Rosita Clarke1, Adam Fulton3, Heidi Timm-Bijold3,
Molly MacGregor5, Anett Trebitz1, and Salaam Witherspoon4
1 US Environmental Protection Agency
2 Oak Ridge Affiliated Universities
3 City of Duluth, Minnesota
4 Health in All Policies Coalition
5 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Regional Sustainability and Environmental Science Research (RESES)
Project Officers:
David Bolgrien, Office of Research and Development Lead
Rosita Clarke, Region 5 Lead
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Mid-Continent Ecology Division
Duluth, Minnesota, 55804
-------
Notice/Disclaimer Statement
The research described in this document was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
through the Office of Research and Development. The research described herein was conducted at the
Mid-Continent Ecology Division of the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
in Duluth, Minnesota.
This document has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does
not imply an endorsement or recommendation for use.
This is a contribution to the EPA ORD Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program.
The citation for this report is:
Williams, K.C., Bolgrien, D.W., Hoffman, J.C., Angradi, T.R., Carlson, J., Clarke, R., Fulton, A.,
MacGregor, M., Timm-Bijold, H., Trebitz, A., Witherspoon, S. (2018). How the community value of
ecosystem goods and services empowers communities to impact the outcomes of remediation,
restoration, and revitalization projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN EPA/600/R-
17/292. 61 pages.
-------
Abstract
Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R) is a place-based practice that requires ongoing
communication amongst federal and state agencies, local governments, and citizens. Each of these
entities has a different relationship with and responsibility for sites where R2R2R progresses.
Sediment remediation and habitat restoration project goals, community planning, and lived
experiences diverge depending on the agency or individual, and can make collaboration or
communication difficult. To better understand the dynamics of R2R2R in a Great Lakes Area of
Concern (AOC), data were collected between June 2015 and December 2016 to examine the
collaborations happening in the St. Louis River AOC in Duluth, Minnesota. Participant observation
was conducted at AOC management meetings, St. Louis River Habitat Committee, City of Duluth St.
Louis River Technical Advisory Committee, and City of Duluth St. Louis River Corridor (hereafter
SLR Corridor) park planning public meetings, as well as community group meetings. In addition to
regular attendance at meetings and document analysis, ongoing consultation with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, City of Duluth, and USEPA Region 5 and Great Lakes National
Program Office officials provided opportunities for consideration of partner research interests, as well
as dissemination of findings. Data were analyzed to identify forces that shaped decisions,
participation, and the inclusion of stakeholder and the public values. The results are the creation of
two frameworks that can be used to facilitate interpretation and transparency. One framework can be
applied to decision contexts to discuss the who-what-how-outcomes of the decisions. The second
framework can be used to interpret distinct values and facilitate communication or comparison across
boundaries of experience or responsibility. The frameworks are designed to improve transparency and
facilitate conversations about decisions and ecosystem services.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of the Regional Sustainability and Environmental Science
(RESES) research program by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Mid-Continent Ecology Division under the sponsorship of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. This report covers a period from August
2015 to August 2017.
iv
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, USEPA strives
to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, USEPA's research program
is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) conducts systems-
based, effects research needed to achieve sustainable health and wellbeing. Research encompasses both
human and ecosystem health, in that they are inextricably linked. NHEERL Strategic Goals include
leading innovative research and predictive modeling efforts that link environmental condition to the
health and wellbeing of people and society; advancing research and tools for achieving sustainable and
resilient watersheds and water resources; and translate and communicate integrated environmental and
health effects science to impact decisions positively at all levels.
The Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED) conducts innovative research and predictive modeling to
document and forecast the effects of pollutants on the integrity of watersheds and freshwater
ecosystems, to characterize adverse outcome pathways of toxic exposure at multiple scales and levels of
biological organization, and to link environmental condition to human health and wellbeing. One of the
MED research areas is the quantification the outputs of freshwater ecosystems and how they contribute
to human well-being and social welfare, including developing ecological, biophysical and
socioeconomic indicators of ecosystem services. MED researchers contribute to EPA's EnviroAtlas,
create models for translating ecosystem structure and function into services and thence to human
benefits, and develop methods to quantify tradeoffs among services resulting from environmental
remediation and restoration in Great Lakes AOCs.
This report is a summary of a systematic and comprehensive investigation of Remediation to Restoration
to Revitalization (R2R2R) in the Great Lakes region. This report furthers MED's research in
understanding the connections between ecosystem services, human benefits, and decision support.
Dale Hoff, Director
ORD/NHEERL/MED
v
-------
Table of Contents
Notice/Disclaimer Statement
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Great Lakes Areas of Concern
1.2 Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R)
1.3 Ecosystem Goods and Services
1.4 Case Study Research Objectives
2.0 Methodology
2.1 R2R2R in the St. Louis River AOC and City of Duluth, Minnesota
2.1.1 Habitat Committee
2.2 City of Duluth and the SLR Corridor
2.3 Making a Visible Difference, Economic Development and USEPA Region 5
2.4 Other Study Sites Related to the AOC, SLR Corridor or Community Development..
2.4.1 Community Organizations
2.4.2 Comprehensive Planning and Community Participation
2.4.3 Health in All Policies Campaign
vi
-------
2.5 Collaboration with GLNPO 27
2.5.1 2016 Great Lakes AOC Conference 27
3.0 Analysis 29
3.1 Who Participates in R2R2R? 29
3.2 What Types of Decisions are Made in Different Contexts? 31
3.2.1 Policy or Implementation? 32
3.3 Neighborhood Model 33
4.0 Conclusion 35
5.0 References 37
6.0 Appendices 42
Appendix A: Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI) 42
Appendix B: Trade-off Analysis to Inform AOC Projects 43
Appendix C: Use of ORD Decision Tools 44
C.1.1 Application of Eco-Health Browser 44
Appendix D: Health in All Policies (HIAP) survey analysis instrument 46
Appendix E: Social networks in the St. Louis River community of knowledge 51
Appendix F: Neighborhood Model Tool: Mapping the Human Ecosystem for a Place
(Reprinted from Johnston et al., 2017) 53
vii
-------
Table of Figures
Figure 1. US and bi-national Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Source: USEPA) 14
Figure 2. Schematic of how consultation in AOCs, leads to RAPs and implementation by state
agencies 15
Figure 3. St. Louis River Area of Concern (Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources) 19
Figure 4. Map of the St. Louis River Corridor in Duluth, Minnesota (Source: City of Duluth). The
Duluth-Winnipeg-Pacific (DWP) is a multi-use trail 20
Figure 5. Map of the MVD projects. AOC projects are delineated in blue and other projects are
depicted in brown 22
Figure 6. One of the questions from the ORD-organized R2R2R session at the 2016 AOC
Conference held in Dearborn, Michigan (Williams & Hoffman, in review) 28
Figure 7. The figure illustrates a synthesis of the potential differences in the types of R2R2R
decisions and results in AOCs and adjacent communities, as identified at the 2016 AOC
Conference. R2R is used to demonstrate that remediation and restoration are the desired
end 28
Figure 8. Comparison of the AOC decision-making process and the City of Duluth decision
process. Each decision context interfaces with different USEPA offices; consults with the
public at different points in the process, and use ecosystem services for distinct reasons.
31
Figure 9. Process diagram for the Imagine Duluth 2035 planning process. **Denotes where the
plan was reviewed and revised before passing on to a subsequent step or final approval.
32
Figure 10. The Community framework, also known as the Neighborhood Model. The colors
represent how individuals might interact with individual attributes. Blue attributes are
representative of the built environment, the reasons that individuals might choose their
neighborhoods, or what cities plan to change. Black attributes are structural dimensions, or
the important elements that are fixed part of larger process, or expressed in statistics.
Orange characteristics reflect personal attachments, values, or motivations of individuals.
Green attributes represent human-environment relationships 34
Figure 11. Eco-Health Relationship Browser, illustrating the ecosystem elements that
constitute the service Aesthetics and Engagement with Nature and the dimensions of
health and well-being to which the service contributes, including mental health. (Source:
USEPA, 2017) 44
Figure 12. MNDNR poster from 2016 St. Louis River Summit asking participants about their
role in, connection to, and activities in the St. Louis River and AOC 51
Figure 13. Network nodes in St. Louis River AOC by self-identified role. About half of the
scientists and managers self-identify only in a professional role 52
Figure 14. The Neighborhood Model 53
viii
-------
Tables
Table 1. Matrix identifying which groups participate in R2R2R decision or information sharing
contexts. USEPA is the consistent participant in all decision contexts 30
Table 2. Ecosystem services trade-off analysis created to inform habitat restoration in Spirit
Lake for MPCA 42
Table 3. Ecosystem services trade-off analysis created to inform habitat restoration in Spirit
Lake for MPCA 43
ix
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AOC
Area of Concern
AWP
Brownfields Area Wide Plan
BUI
Beneficial Use Impairment
DSRP
Distinctions-Systems-Relationships-Perspectives
DWP
Duluth-Winnipeg-Pacific
EGS
Ecosystem goods and services
FEGS-CS
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services - Classification System
GLNPO
Great Lakes National Program Office
GLLA
Great Lakes Legacy Act
GLRI
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
GLWQA
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
HIA
Health Impact Assessment
HIAP
Health in All Policies Coalition
HWBI
Human Weil-Being Index
LISC
Local Initiatives Support Corporation
LSNERR
Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve
MED
Mid-Continent Ecology Division
MLT
Minnesota Land Trust
MNDNR
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
MPCA
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MVD
Making a Visible Difference
NGO
Non-governmental organization
NHEERL
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
NO A A
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRRI
University Minnesota-Duluth Natural Resources Research Institute
ORD
Office of Research and Development
PAC
Public or Citizen Advisory Committee
R2R
Remediation to Restoration
R2R2R
Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization
RAP
Remedial Action Plan
RESES
Regional Sustainability and Environmental Science Research Program
SLRA
St. Louis River Alliance
SHC
Sustainable and Healthy Communities (Program)
WNDR
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
United States Fist and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
X
-------
Acknowledgments
Katie Williams drafted the report with assistance from David Bolgrien and Joel Hoffman. Kate Preiner
contributed both data analysis and editing for this report.
We acknowledge our collaborators at the Great Lakes National Program Office, City of Duluth, River
Corridor Coalition, Friends of Western Duluth Parks and Trails, and Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources who shared much of their time, knowledge, and experiences with the team.
We also acknowledge our reviewers Emily Eisenhauer, Susan Yee, John Johnston, and Matt Liesch for
comments that greatly improved the readability and applicability of the report.
Cover photo credits:
Habitat restoration construction at Radio Tower Bay (USEPA)
Radio Tower Bay (USEPA)
xi
-------
Executive Summary
This report provides an examination of how ecosystem services are valued by agencies, organizations,
and individuals in context of program implementation, environmental restoration activity, and lived
experiences. This examination was conducted as part of the Regional and Environmental Science and
Sustainability research (RESES) Research Program in the St. Louis River Area of Concern (AOC) and
Duluth, Minnesota. This site was chosen because the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(USEPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) and Office of Research and Development
(ORD) have been working to understand Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization or "R2R2R." The
number of ongoing R2R2R-related activities provide an instructive representative case study.
R2R2R2 is a term that is used to characterize the process of remediating contaminated sediments and
restoring aquatic habitat to help revitalize coastal communities in AOCs. AOCs are coastal communities
identified in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) where environmental conditions
impair (or have historically impaired) beneficial uses and diminish ecosystem goods and services (EGS)
supply, meaning that historic uses limited the use and benefits of the water bodies and riparian area.
ORD is working to understand the R2R2R process because identifying and characterizing the steps
between each "R" will enhance the potential to appreciate how USEPA programs (e.g., AOCs and
brownfields), community development, and community values result in different R2R2R outcomes.
There were three goals for this research:
• Determine how communities (both local governments and citizens) perceive and value EGS,
as expressed through routine activities.
• Determine how EGS or human well-being is incorporated or utilized in the various
associated planning and community outreach processes, including EPA and state agency
programs, local planning, and agency decision tools.
• Apply this research to create guidance strategies for AOC communities to demonstrate how
EGS can be used to advance community revitalization following sediment remediation and
aquatic habitat restoration projects. The ultimate goal is to illustrate how knowledge of EGS
or human well-being could be used to facilitate two-way knowledge exchange between
agencies, community decision-makers, and scientists.
Our results indicate that the value of EGS is context-dependent and changes according to an agency's,
organization's, or individual's relationship to an environmental resource. Two conceptual models
facilitate the identification of values for organizations and individuals. One model aids in the
identification and characterization of who makes decisions, the programmatic mechanism, the project
implementation, and the project outcomes. The utilization of this conceptual model creates
opportunities for better understanding the research-program-community relationship to promote
communication and research application.
A second conceptual model delineates distinct neighborhood components that agencies, organizations,
and individuals value or make decisions about in the context of a physical space. Because the
conceptual model was built using a neighborhood, it is known as the Neighborhood Model. The model
comprises a mix of built environment types, structural dimensions, personal experiences, and human-
environment relationships and includes: parks/open spaces, trails or connections, housing, schools,
infrastructure, local businesses, macro-economy, natural features, governmental rules or regulations,
demographics/crime statistics/health care facilities, safety, self-determination or participation, identity,
social cohesion, sustainability, and aesthetics.
12
-------
This investigation of R2R2R illustrates a complex process with many overlapping sites where
decisions were made. This analysis provides tools with which to understand the relationships between
USEPA programs, states, and communities to facilitate communication and cooperation. Facilitation
is critical in a complex process, like R2R2R, because the goals of the AOC program and community
development unfold as parallel processes, thus bridging them meaningfully requires intentional action,
network connections, and common projects. Lessons learned in the AOCs can be applied to other
programs with USEPA-state agency-local government relationships.
13
-------
1.0 Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) uses the term Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization or "R2R2R" to characterize the
process of remediating contaminated sediments and restoring aquatic habitat to help revitalize coastal
communities. Understanding the process is important because there are 43 geographic areas in the US
and Canada that either have in the past or currently fail to meet the objectives of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA; Fig. 1) called Areas of Concern (AOC). GLNPO is actively working with
state agencies and local communities in the 29 US or bi-national AOCs (Fig. 1) to remediate the
contaminated sediment and restore the aquatic and riparian habitat that supports community
revitalization through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI).
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
St. Marys River
^ Delisted before GLRI
Delisted during GLRI
Management actions completed
during GLRI Action Plan I
Management actions targeted for
completion during GLRI Action Plan II
£ Remaining Areas of Concern
Manistigue River
Menominee River
Fox River/ ^
Lower Green Bay
Sheboygan River^t
Milwaukee Estuary A
Waukegan Harbor
A
Saginaw River and Bay
White Lake
Muskegon Lake
Kalamazoo River
Grand Calumet River
Clinton River
^Detroit River
River Raisin •^ouge River
St Lawrence River
Eighteen Mile Creek
£ PfOswego River
Niagara River^ Rochester Embayment
Buffalo River
Maumee River
~ m!«.r ^
Tiesque Isle Bay
Ashtabula River
Black RiTer ^ahoga River
October 30,2014
Figure 1. US and bi-national Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Source: USEPA).
1.1 Great Lakes Areas of Concern
According to the GLWQA, an AOC is defined as a geographic area designated by the Parties (i.e., the
governments of the US and Canada) where "significant impairment of beneficial uses has occurred
because of human activities at the local level" (International Joint Commission, 2012). The GLWQA
specified fourteen potential Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI; Appendix A). In the past, Great Lakes
coastal communities literally turned their backs on their rivers (Pioneer Press, 2014). For example,
Milwaukee Historian John Gurda explained that many buildings in the business district were built with
entry doors on the side of the building that did not face the river (Gurda, 2015). Today, however,
USEPA and other federal agencies are investing heavily in the remediation of contaminated aquatic
sediments and habitat restoration in AOCs through the GLRI and Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) to
improve the environmental conditions.
14
-------
AOCs are a unique construct in which state agencies are the lead, but the public is involved throughout
the process, most often through a Public or Citizen Advisory Council (PAC). AOCs were defined in the
1980s; much of the early activity to define the problems and envision potential solutions was conducted
in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As part of the process, each AOC developed a set of Remedial Action
Plans (RAP) in consultation with stakeholders (i.e., the PAC) that function as guiding policy to restore
the impaired beneficial uses (Williams, 2015; Fig. 2). While the cleanup of most AOCs was not
completed as quickly as expected, many PACs continued to meet and advocate for Great Lakes water
quality, as well as their AOCs.
The state agency is the lead, but AOCs are a cooperative program1 wherein GLNPO provides technical,
logistical, and financial support to implement management actions and remove the BUIs defined in the
RAPs and are present at every step in the process.
Public
Advisory
Council
Stakeho ders
Remedial Action Plans
Stage 1: Problem definition
Stage 2: Plan for remediation
and restoration
Stage 3: Monitoring
State Agency
Implementation
Coordinated by state agency
Identify BUI and
locations
Create plan to
remediate and restore
Figure 2. Schematic of how consultation in AOCs, leads to RAPs and implementation by state agencies.
The AOC model provides one of the first methods for considering local concerns in environmental
management (MacKenzie, 1997). R2R2R is an evolution of the AOC process, focusing new attention on
community well-being and values, as well as ecosystem health and water quality.
1.2 Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R)
The USEPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) and GLNPO started exploring what
"revitalization" might look like throughout the Great Lakes at a workshop held at GLNPO in May 2014
(Hoffman et al., 2014). Representatives from GLNPO, ORD in Duluth and Cincinnati, Wisconsin and
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grants, the Great Lakes Commission, and US Geological Survey (USGS) discussed
revitalization in four AOCs (Fig. 1), including Ashtabula, Ohio; Presque Isle, Pennsylvania; and the
cities of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Sheboygan, Wisconsin. They concluded that revitalization looked
1 When GLNPO was asked about this model during the review process, they remarked that this system has been replaced
with the "buckets." The bucket system is implemented in each AOC through a modified cooperative model where the state
agency presents a list of management actions needed to remove all the BUIs from the list to delist the AOC. GLNPO or ORD
may be consulted in the creation of individual lists. The "bucket" represents the expect completion date for the list of
management actions (Tuchman, 2016).
15
-------
different in each AOC: new tourist traffic, a waterfront brewpub, new waterfront businesses, increased
fishing, and an open-water swim race. There was no one definition of revitalization, but new activity on
the waterfront emerged as a potential indicator of revitalization. The workshop increased interest in
R2R2R, as well as collaboration amongst the partners, and the identification of potential project
attributes that contribute to R2R2R success.
Effective communication, opportunities for economic development, the geographic setting of associated
amenities, and proactive planning for revitalization were identified as factors determining the benefits
realized from remediation and restoration projects (Hoffman et al., 2014). The factors are valuable for
R2R2R research because as an aquatic restoration program, AOC activities are implemented almost
exclusively in the water body or riparian areas, while revitalization more often occurs on land and not
necessarily adjacent to the water.
1.3 Ecosystem Goods and Services
We hypothesized that ecosystem goods and services (EGS) could be a useful concept for quantifying the
contribution to social welfare of Great Lakes remediation and restoration (Hoffman et al., 2014;
Wainger & Mazzotta, 2011; Yee et al., 2017). EGS are the biophysical products of ecosystems that
contribute to human well-being (Boyd & Banzhalf, 2007; Munns, Rea, Mazzotta, Wainger, & Saterson,
2015). In other words, they are the elements of nature from which we benefit (e.g., shade provided by
trees or identity through spiritual connection to wild rice). We expected one of the barriers to
implementing comprehensive R2R2R projects to be a lack the tools with which to determine the benefits
they derive from the ecosystem and then communicate with different audiences about relative values of
EGS upon which revitalization depends. Valuing EGS may be complicated because values may be
determined by individual or collective preferences, institutional agendas, or community relationships
(Wainger & Mazzotta, 2011; Wegner & Pascual, 2011). We hope that EGS can become a useful
common currency for quantifying R2R2R project outcomes and recognition of different perspectives
and values of the benefits of R2R2R projects, as well as develop an approach to identify context-
relevant opportunities.
1.4 Case Study Research Objectives
R2R2R is a complex process comprised of both AOC activities and community revitalization. The goal
of this research is to better understand the relationships between these processes. Therefore, we had
several objectives in this Regional and Environmental Science and Sustainability research (RESES)
project:
1. To determine how communities (both local governments and citizens) perceive and value
EGS, as expressed through routine activities.
2. To determine how EGS or human well-being concepts are incorporated or utilized in the
various associated planning and community outreach processes, including USEPA and state
agency programs, local planning, and agency decision tools.
3. To create guidance strategies for AOC communities to demonstrate how EGS can be used to
advance community revitalization following sediment remediation and aquatic habitat
restoration projects. The goal is to illustrate how knowledge of EGS or human well-being
could be used to facilitate two-way knowledge exchange between agencies, community
decision-makers, and scientists.
16
-------
MED has been working with GLNPO, USEPA Region 5, and the four AOC coordinators to include EGS
consideration of in planning AOC projects for St. Louis River BUI removal and AOC delisting. Through
ongoing contacts, EGS became a concept that could have meanings across the normal silos of
communication and activity (e.g., writing research outcomes that speak directly to resource management
problems). To make the effort more intentional and systematic, scientists are utilizing two concepts to
create and apply scientific research that can be utilized by agencies: the co-production of knowledge and
boundary work.
Closing conceptual gaps among diverging perspectives (i.e., federal and state agencies, local
government, and communities) is important because creating usable information requires navigating and
bridging "any differences that might exist between what scientists might think is useful and what is
actually useful in practice" (Dilling & Lemos, 2011). Lemos and Rood (2010) argued that "scientists, for
example, when choosing the focus of their research, may make an assumption about what they think
decision-makers need and hope their work will meet that need. Users, in turn may define their need
differently" (p. 673). Including stakeholders, agencies or the public, in the research process offers a
potential solution to the disconnect, and may increase the production of usable science. Lemos and
Morehouse (2005) and Dilling and Lemos (2011) argued that scientists were both more responsive to the
informational needs of stakeholders and scientific results were utilized more often by stakeholders.
2.0 Methodology
An exploratory case study was utilized to understand the complexities of R2R2R through a study of how
the process unfolds in an AOC and the adjoining community. A case study approach is a research
method that may be employed when the phenomenon under investigation cannot be separated from its
context (Yin, 2014). Additionally, exploratory case studies are utilized to answer "how" and "why"
questions and to build theories (Yin, 2014). We used an exploratory case study to identify and
characterize the elements of the different decision contexts where EGS or human well-being might be
discussed in relation to the AOC or community revitalization through an investigation of R2R2R in
Duluth, Minnesota. Understanding who makes decision, as well as where and when stakeholders might
discuss ecosystem services empowers ORD researchers to address the informational needs of
stakeholders. This is important because ecosystem services are often place and relationship dependent.
In other words, perceived EGS may change based on the biophysical environment, as well as the
perspective of the agency, stakeholder, or community.
Data were collected between August 2015 and December 2016 using ethnographic methods (de Volo &
Schatz, 2004; Hoggart, Lees, & Davies, 2002; Laurier, 2006). Participant observation was conducted at
regularly occurring and public input meetings related to R2R2R in the St. Louis River AOC. The eight
sites where data were collected were:
1. St. Louis River AOC,
2. St. Louis River Habitat Committee (subsequently called the Habitat Committee),2
3. City of Duluth St. Louis River Corridor (hereafter SLR Corridor) planning process,
4. City of Duluth Technical Advisory Committee,
5. City of Duluth Comprehensive Planning,
6. Health in All Policies (HIAP) survey,
2 The Habitat Committee was originally organized by the St. Louis River Citizen Action Committee, now known as the St.
Louis River Alliance. It is commonly called "the Habitat Committee" without reference to the parent organization. Currently,
the Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve organizes the committee.
17
-------
7. Community organizations responding to SLR Corridor planning, and
8. GLNPO and 2016 USEPA AOC Conference.
Document analysis was conducted on City of Duluth park and small area plans.3 For meetings, we
analyzed the invitations and agendas to identify who was invited and what was discussed. Data were
also analyzed using content analysis and grounded theory (Glaser, 2002; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). We
used guiding questions in the analysis: who is the organizer or author; what did they talk or write about,
and were there results. Lastly, initial results were presented to agencies and organizations at the end of
the project for collaborative review and advice.
Meadow et al., (2015) identified participatory action research as a model of knowledge co-production
where research is meant to provide usable scientific evidence to solve a specific problem, as well as to
create generalizable knowledge. This study utilized participatory action research principles (Baum,
MacDougall, & Smith, 2006), to ensure regular contact between researchers, agencies, and communities.
Ongoing conversations with the Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), City of Duluth, USEPA Region 5, and community groups created
opportunities for knowledge co-production and ensured their interests were included in the research
project.
Duluth provides an advantageous study site because it is an active and complex AOC, and the City of
Duluth acknowledges the AOC in its revitalization efforts. The St. Louis AOC-City of Duluth
relationship demonstrates activity in all three R's and had observational and participatory opportunities
this study utilized for data collection. Further details of the site follow in the next section.
2.1 R2R2R in the St. Louis River AOC and City of Duluth, Minnesota
Our study site, the St. Louis River AOC, at the far western edge of the Great Lakes, contains several
cities, the largest of which are Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin (Fig. 3). Because the St.
Louis River AOC is a bi-state, Minnesota (i.e., MPCA and MNDNR)-Wisconsin (i.e., Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources; WDNR) and tribal (Fond du Lac Band) site, there is a significant
need to coordinate agencies' activity to ensure integrated progress in remediation and restoration to
implement RAP components. Funding for implementing the RAP was provided by multiple federal
agencies, including USEPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE). The AOC has eight BUIs
related to industrial contaminants, habitat degradation or loss, and excess nutrients and sediments
(Appendix A).
3 City of SLR Corridor plans can be found at http://duluthmn.gov/st-louis-river-corridor/. City of Duluth small area plans can
be found here: http://duluthmn.gov/communitv-planning/planning-librarv/.
18
-------
St. Louis River AOC
Duluth.
Cloquet
I AOC Boundary
Municipality
Figure 3. St. Louis River Area of Concern (Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources).
Many AOC decisions are guided by existing polices outlined by two documents, the St. Louis River
Area of Concern Implementation Framework: Roadmap to Delisting (Remedial Action Plan Update)
(MPCA, 2013) and the Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan (St. Louis River Citizen Action Committee,
2002). MED scientists contribute regularly to the implementation of the policies through information
requests and through the participation on technical teams that inform the removal of BUIs.
Through the AOC process, MED scientists participate in a variety of venues that provide opportunities
for creating and sharing usable science. The opportunities facilitate the co-production of knowledge
relevant to R2R2R. For example, MED scientists were able to provide the requested model-based
estimates of ecosystem service indicators for project alternatives to state agency officials (Angradi et al.,
2016). More specifically, the state agency was interested in the production of ecosystem services in two
different project alternatives. Thus, MED scientists created a report that outlined how 26 different
ecosystem services might change because of potential management actions. The ecosystem services
included in the analysis include residential property views, fishing, boating, habitat, wave attenuation,
and Native American spiritual use (Appendix B).
Similarly, MED scientists regularly contribute knowledge and expertise to the study and assessment of
fish health in the St. Louis River estuary through the assessment teams that create recommendations for
the AOC. A five-year study on fish tumors and deformities assisted state and tribal resource managers to
assess progress towards the removal of the Fish Tumors and Other Deformities BUI (Appendix A;
Blazer, Mazik, & Hoffman, 2017). The impairment was identified based on observations at the time.
However, no studies to document the types, severity, or prevalence of fish tumors were conducted until
the assessment was initiated in 2011 (Blazer et al., 2014). Collaborators at USGS, MNDNR, MPCA,
WDNR, Fond du Lac Band Natural Resources, 1854 Treaty Authority, and MED determined the
prevalence of white sucker (Catostomus commersonii) fish tumors and deformities, and the risk factors
for liver and skin neoplasms. Multi-agency field sampling took place in 2011, 2013 and 2015. The study
served to provide the methods for future assessments, and to determine the status of fish tumors and
deformities in the AOC.
19
-------
2.1.1 Habitat Committee
The Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan (St. Louis River Citizen Action Committee, 2002) is one of the
foundational documents in the St. Louis River AOC. The plan was created through a cooperative effort
better known as the "Habitat Committee." The Habitat Committee was sponsored by the St. Louis River
Citizen Action Committee, now known as the St. Louis River Alliance (SLRA) (Williams, 2015) and
largely concluded work after publication of the plan. In 2016, AOC collaborators advocated for the
Habitat Committee to start meeting again, and the effort was organized by the Lake Superior National
Estuarine Research Reserve (LSNERR). The regular attendees of the meetings include the natural
resource management community in the region. Attendees are representatives from Fond du Lac Band
Natural Resources, 1854 Treaty Authority, SLRA, WDNR, MNDNR, MED, MPCA, University of
Minnesota-Duluth Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI), City of Duluth Parks, Minnesota Land
Trust (MLT), and the USACE.
The Habitat Committee started each meeting with introductions and agency updates. Agencies described
land management, fish and wildlife monitoring, other types of environmental monitoring, and progress
tracking. Updates included agency progress on BUI removal and park improvements from a slightly
different perspective (e.g., the natural resource manager perspective). The land managers were
specifically focused on management actions they could employ to reach defined goals that may or may
not contribute to AOC delisting criteria. This venue actively brings together researchers and land
managers from different agencies and institutions to exchange knowledge about ongoing activities.
2.2 City of Duluth and the SLR Corridor
AOC remediation and restoration projects are an important driver of change in the City of Duluth's
effort to revitalize former industrial and commercial areas. Former Duluth Mayor Don Ness remarked,
"restoring the St. Louis River is an important part of our vision for Duluth as a premier outdoor city. The
health of the river is important to residents and the city is an active participant in these clean-up efforts"
(St. Louis River Alliance, 2012, p. 2). To that end, the City of Duluth is implementing a multi-faceted
revitalization effort focused on the SLR Corridor, an area that includes neighborhoods (Lincoln Park,
Spirit Valley, Morgan Park, Gary-New Duluth, and Fond du Lac), brownfields, and undeveloped areas
adjacent to the AOC (Fig. 4).
I Indian Point]
Kingsbury
Figure 4. Map of the St. Louis River Corridor in Duluth, Minnesota (Source: City of Duluth). The Duluth-Winnipeg-Pacific (DWP) is a multi-
use trail.
The expectation is that enhanced trail amenities and improved access to the river will spur the
development of small shops, restaurants, and related businesses. The SLR Corridor will be a visitor
20
-------
destination and outdoor recreation hub, as well as spur housing demand. Major activities include
developing or upgrading parks and completing city-wide trails, both paved multi-use and natural-surface
mountain bike trails. The City of Duluth has demonstrated considerable commitment to implementing
this new vision through creating a new tax to secure the bonding to fund the effort.
The SLR Corridor is the industrial heart of Duluth, but also home to a rich outdoor tradition and
multiple high-value natural areas. The City's SLR Corridor Plan is intended to achieve six goals: support
environmental restoration, enrich neighborhood quality of life, attract new homebuyers, establish a new
visitor destination, stimulate appropriate development, and leverage additional funding (City of Duluth,
2017c). Under this effort, Duluth is developing city park and amenity plans to inform development
strategies and grant proposals (to federal, state and private funding sources) in the St. Louis River
Corridor, as approved in Resolution 16-0455R (City of Duluth, 2016). The City recognizes the ongoing
and planned AOC restoration activities in their grant applications, and is leveraging this progress in their
quest to revitalize the SLR Corridor, indicating a strong connection between AOC restoration and
brownfield redevelopment.
To understand this process better, MED scientists attended City-organized park meetings, as well as
obtained and analyzed park planning documents. During the study period timeframe, the City organized
the planning and input for at least seven different park projects (as well as the implementation of other
parks projects). This number, of seven parks, is conservative, as some projects required far more
planning or were more visible than others. A typical mini-master plan was created to update existing
park facilities and conditions. The ways stakeholders or communities were identified in City plans
varied from general references to "children," "people of all abilities," and "West Duluth residents," to
specific user groups. The named user groups included the Cyclists of Gitchi Gumi Shores (COGGS),
Duluth Climbers Coalition, Duluth Cross Country Ski Club, and the Duluth Area Horse Trail Alliance.
2.3 Making a Visible Difference, Economic Development and USEPA Region 5
In addition to recreational resource enhancements, the City of Duluth is actively creating plans to
reclaim and reuse brownfield sites,4 as well as consider the future of two Superfund sites. These
activities are supported by USEPA Region 5, in contrast to AOC work which is supported by GLNPO.
The City of Duluth, was one of Region 5's "Making a Visible Difference" (MVD) communities. USEPA
identified 50 overburdened and underserved communities for additional support and coordination to
address complex environmental and community goals (USEPA, 2018a). The goal of MVD was to
"align community-based activities to provide seamless assistance to communities, both urban and rural,
while maximizing efficiency and results"(Performance.gov, 2016). The focus of the MVD initiative in
Duluth was to improve water quality and economic development in the AOC and SLR Corridor.
Specific neighborhoods targeted in the MVD portfolio of projects included Lincoln Park, West Duluth,
Morgan Park, and Gary-New Duluth.
One example of a non-AOC project in the MVD portfolio was a Brownfields Area Wide Plan (AWP).
Instead of a piecemeal approach to R2R2R, AWP is a program which "enables communities to research
and evaluate brownfields cleanup and reuse opportunities in light of priorities and existing plans, local
market, infrastructure, and other conditions, and resource availability" (USEPA, 2012). An AWP was
developed for the Irving-Fairmount neighborhoods in the SLR Corridor. The Irving and Fairmount
neighborhoods in Duluth contain many formerly industrial sites, or sites that would benefit from
4 Brownfields are properties that "the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or
potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant" (USEPA, 2012).
https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview-brownfields-program.
21
-------
remediation of environmental conditions. Furthermore, Irving is a neighborhood adjacent to the river,
and was significantly impacted by major flooding in 2012. The AWP includes Smart Growth elements,
green and sustainable infrastructure needs, and community-identified needs (City of Duluth, 2017b).
The AWP was one of the planning projects identified by USEPA Region 5 as one that was important for
community participation, thus was observed for this research.
As alluded to earlier, a complicating factor in the implementation of R2R2R is the difficulty in
communicating and aligning remediation, restoration and revitalization goals among federal and state
agencies, local government entities, nonprofit organizations, and citizens. This disconnect is exemplified
in the management of the St. Louis River AOC and SLR Corridor. To illustrate, a map of the MVD
projects in Duluth (Fig. 5) was created. MVD projects were coded to reflect whether the project was an
AOC project or a community or land-side project. The picture illustrates a story: the AOC ends where it
meets land. This observation represents a broad pattern with some exceptions. For example, the
Knowlton Creek habitat restoration is considered an AOC project because upland restoration projects
contribute to improved water quality and habitat in the St. Louis River (Fig. 5; USEPA, 2018b).
Strategic methods targeted at traversing the land-water barrier to create conversation about a
comprehensive vision for an AOC and adjoining communities are essential to communicating across
program boundaries.
Legend
Land projects
Water projects
Northland Pier,8. AGP Slip"
MnTAP- Lincoln Park
Azco"niG~fi^i I -1
IFBRP and SG!A
Knowiton Creek
i1 m is]
[lil:SEBAtslMaki nq a V i s i b leSD ifference - DmluthlMinnesotal
PMinnesota Slip I' M
-2
fe
-------
researchers attended and participated in the City of Duluth's St. Louis River Technical Advisory
Committee meetings that were organized by the City's Business and Economic Development
Department. Attendees in the forum included the state agencies working in the AOC, St. Louis River
Alliance5, Duluth Seaway Authority, Jay Cooke State Park, Duluth Local Support Initiatives
Corporation (LISC), and City Departments including Parks, Economic Development and Community
Planning. The meetings featured networking, an agenda of rotating topics, and agency updates. Agenda
items included updates of park projects in the SLR Corridor, updates on USEPA-funded brownfields
projects, progress on the large US Steel Superfund site, and regular RESES research updates.
2.4 Other Study Sites Related to the AOC, SLR Corridor or Community Development
2.4.1 Community Organizations
Although there is support in the western neighborhoods of Duluth for new economic activity (i.e.,
revitalization), some communities have questioned the City's perceived focus on parks at the expense of
other priorities (i.e., housing). More specifically, some conservationists and residents who live in the
SLR Corridor were concerned that the City has not adequately included them in planning and have
expressed that concern through organizing their own events and opportunities for public input.
Several different groups were active in organizing citizen input about some of the planned projects. For
example, one conservation organization organized an event where over fifty people participated and
shared their thoughts about the Western Waterfront Trail, one of the SLR Corridor projects. This
conservation organization has membership from throughout the area and values the natural areas
adjacent to the St. Louis River as habitat for fish, pollinators, and birds. The group organized
presentations by natural resource professionals and city officials working on the trail. More importantly,
the organization had a grant and contracted with a community design professional to explain the
importance of community input in conservation planning (Rader, 2015). The event modeled a
community input exercise which participants could share input through verbal, written, or artistic modes.
Citizens who lived in the SLR Corridor responded to the City's Initiative by creating a new
organization, which is here identified as "Community Organization." The organization was comprised of
residents representing different neighborhoods throughout the SLR Corridor. MED researchers attended
meetings of the organization and its committees and took notes. City of Duluth representatives also
attended the meetings, as well as other guests. For example, at one meeting a representative from the
Duluth Transit Authority shared information about a new bus service specifically planned to provide
service between an underserved community and a grocery store.
Citizens expressed concern that the City was developing parks and trails to attract visitors, while failing
to market the neighborhoods and ignoring the condition of existing housing and parks. In response to the
concerns, the Community Organization met monthly and had three committees representing the most
salient issues to the organization: Housing, Marketing, and Parks and Trails. The individual committees
organized events and improvement efforts. The Housing Committee organized a housing fair. The
Marketing Committee maintained the organizations' Facebook page.
The Parks and Trails Committee was the most active, in part, because of the amount of park planning
activity happening in Duluth. In particular, the Parks and Trails Committee created a website about their
proposed alternative trail alignments for a regional trail and provided maps and videos of the experience
(Trails, 2017). Their research included consulting with experts about safety issues and counting the
5 The St. Louis River Alliance was formerly known as the St. Louis River Citizen Action Committee.
23
-------
number of times a trail alignment crossed city streets. The information was shared with the City of
Duluth Parks Department through phone calls, emails, and appearances at public meetings. The City
responded to citizen activism in different ways. For example, the City Parks Department sent a
representative to update the community organization about the progress of projects in the SLR Corridor.
Moreover, after the election of a new mayor in November 2015, the Parks Department adopted a new
approach and started to more actively solicit public input.6
2.4.2 Comprehensive Planning and Community Participation
Comprehensive plans are typically created through long and intensive processes, which include
consultation with residents, stakeholders and other professionals (Hoch, Dalton, & So, 2000). In June
2016, the City of Duluth Planning Department implemented extensive community outreach campaign to
support the development of a new comprehensive plan called Imagine Duluth 2035 (City of Duluth,
2017a). Imagine Duluth 2035 had engaged the community at a wide range of events including annual
neighborhood gatherings, community club meetings, professional organization meetings, and regional
planning collaboration meetings. Between June and the official Comprehensive Plan kick-off event in
September 2016, City of Duluth Community Planning Department staff (hereafter Community Planning)
attended over 60 events, with an average of four events per week. The outreach effort continued into
2017, with regular events and focus group meetings continually scheduled (City of Duluth, 2017a).
Twelve principles guided the planning effort (City of Duluth, 2017a), including:
1. Reuse of previously developed lands.
2. Declare the necessity and secure the future of undeveloped places.
3. Support existing economic base.
4. Support economic growth sectors.
5. Promote reinvestment in neighborhoods.
6. Reinforce the place-specific.
7. Create and maintain connectivity.
8. Encourage a mix of activities, uses and densities.
9. Support private actions that contribute to the public realm.
10. Take actions that enhance the environment, economic, and social well-being of the
community.
11. Consider the education system in land use actions.
12. Create efficiencies in delivery of public services.
In addition to these twelve principles, Mayor Emily Larson asked Community Planning to add two new
principles: fairness and health. Planning for land use or economic development is normal practice, thus
6 Per City of Duluth officials during the presentation of results in August 2017.
24
-------
Community Planning staff elicited feedback from the public through the community survey and
comprehensive plan kick-off events about meanings of health and fairness, as well as their community
priorities.
At the Comprehensive Plan Kick-off Meeting on September 21, 2016 at Denfeld High School,
participants were asked to submit sticky notes with their interpretations of health in one exercise, and
fairness in another. Community Planning transcribed the comments and shared them with MED. MED
analyzed the data using conventional content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) and Nvivo software
(QSR International, 2016) to identify major themes in the data. MED staff researchers then created
recommendations for the City based on the analysis of citizen comments and the use of data tools
(Appendix C).
The analysis revealed that some participants felt there were barriers to fairness (e.g., housing
discrimination, lack of participation opportunities, and unequal economic opportunities) and signaled a
desire for access to social and environmental resources (e.g., health care, housing, education, parks). The
analysis demonstrated that participants identified specific vulnerable populations (e.g., families with
children, people of color, and those with a criminal background). Lastly, participants made policy
recommendations to achieve fairness (i.e., equitable distribution of investments, inclusive decision-
making processes).
Furthermore, the analysis illustrated that most participants were concerned with a lack of opportunities
in employment, housing and education for persons who may be socioeconomically vulnerable because
of factors outside of their control (i.e., race or color, family status, or disability). Recent research
demonstrates that these individual factors can impact income and wealth disparities, as well as
incarceration status (Kochhar & Fry, 2014; Vogel & Porter, 2015; Williams, Priest, & Anderson, 2016).
Moreover, participants' comments reflect that respondents thought that everyone should have access to
the building blocks of a good life, regardless of race, age, gender or income. In other words, people
should have access to "affordable and equitable housing - should be no more than one-third of income,
safe, modern, up-to-date living spaces" and that "landlords need to be held accountable for housing
upkeep."
In addition to housing, participants felt that neighborhood quality was important, and "all residents
deserve to reside in locations that provide a sense of place."7 This means, "some green space, trees,
views and architectural beauty should surround them or be within walking distance." Moreover,
affordable housing should not be limited to particular neighborhoods. Participants felt that efforts should
be made to "increase opportunity and access to affordable housing in all areas of Duluth."
Participant comments provided a spatial dimension to fairness (e.g., distribution of affordable housing
and parks). The spatial dimension of fairness is important because public health researchers find links
between where people live and health disparities which result from an unequal distribution of wealth,
power, goods and services (Marmot et al., 2008; Morello-Frosch, Zuk, Jerrett, Shamasunder, & Kyle,
2011; White & Borrell, 2011).
Recognizing that there are equal opportunity laws and policies, but that unfair conditions persist implies
that intentional effort is needed to avoid compounding structural inequalities, or the inequities produced
by society (Gee & Ford, 2011). One place to start is recognizing that some neighborhoods are home to
7 All quotes in the paragraph are from participant submissions about health and fairness from the September 2016 Imagine
Duluth event.
25
-------
more vulnerable populations, and these neighborhoods are some of the places with the highest needs.
One participant cited the need "equity - matching resources to needs, not equally."
2.4.3 Health in All Policies Campaign
Some community members did not recognize their own life experiences reflected in the initial City
survey results. Consequently, the Health in All Policies (HIAP) Campaign met with the City. They were
concerned because the survey results would shape policy through the Comprehensive Plan, including
how the concepts health and fairness would be included in the plan. The Mayor's interest in "fairness" in
the provision of city services (including planning, parks, infrastructure) or development is well
supported in the public health literature. Scholars argue there is a strong relationship between where one
lives and her or his health and well-being outcomes (Cummins, Curtis, Diez-Roux, & Macintyre, 2007;
Ellen & Turner, 1997; Kramer & Hogue, 2009; Morello-Frosch & Lopez, 2006).
To ensure that the voices of the Duluthians who may have not been heard during the survey and public
input process were included in the comprehensive plan process, HIAP contacted the Community
Planning Department to conduct their own survey. The Community Planning Department was
supportive of the suggestion and referred HIAP to ORD as a technical resource. Scientists at MED
offered technical assistance in survey creation, data analysis, and reporting. HIAP conducted about 500
face-to-face surveys, through door-knocking. Because their survey was conducted as an interview with
open-ended questions, MED helped to create a data analysis tool that would function as the qualitative
analysis software they use (Appendix D) and then reviewed and provided editorial comments on their
report.
HIAP organized an event in March 2017 to present the results to the community and city officials. The
event was created to be inclusive, and included a welcome; a youth-delivered spoken-word poetry; the
survey results; and a panel with the canvassers who conducted the survey. HIAP then presented their
recommendations for a principle on fairness. City officials agreed to share recommendation with the
policy-making bodies (e.g., Planning Commission and Vision Committee for the comprehensive plan).
The final recommendations adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council to inform the
Comprehensive Plan (City of Duluth, 2017a) are:
Principle #13 - Develop a healthy community.
Supporting health and well-being is a priority. The City will actively promote access for all to
health resources, quality food, recreation, social and economic opportunities, and a clean and
secure environment. Investments and polices will advance and maximize health and healthy
equity in the city.
Principle #14 - Integrate fairness into the fabric of the community.
All people will have equitable access to resources and opportunities that stabilize and enhance
their lives. The City recognizes historical and current disparities and will actively promote
inclusive and participatory decision-making that addresses systemic barriers to success.
Investments and policies will advance and maximize equity in the City.
The important observation between the health and fairness principles is that they mirror and reinforce
each other. In other words, the City recognizes that fairness and access to resources are integral to
achieving health and health equity.
26
-------
2.5 Collaboration with GLNPO
In May 2014, GLNPO leadership and ORD scientists conducted a workshop and invited representatives
from Wisconsin and Illinois-Indiana Sea Grants, the Great Lakes Commission, and industry to discuss
the observation that sediment remediation and habitat restoration might be providing economic and
social benefits in AOCs (Hoffman et al., 2014; Section 1.2). In December 2015, a two-day meeting to
build on the earlier work and plan further R2R2R case studies was held in Chicago, Illinois. Participants
were USEPA Region 5, GLNPO, ORD, and the Deputy Director of the ORD Sustainable and Healthy
Communities (SHC) Research Program. The goal of the meeting was to develop a GLNPO-ORD
strategy to address revitalization. The workshop included sessions on problem framing, current
approaches to contaminated sediment remediation and habitat restoration, as well as potential
approaches to investigating community revitalization. As a result, GLNPO invited MED to organize a
session at GLNPO's annual AOC conference the following year.
2.5.1 2016 Great Lakes AOC Conference
Scientists from MED organized a session at the 2016 Annual Great Lakes AOC Conference in
Dearborn, Michigan.8 Participants in the session included community members, state and federal agency
staff, and technical advisors who work with and support the AOC program. Instead of a traditional
conference session with a panel of speakers who give presentations, this session was organized as an
interactive discussion about brownfields and revitalization. The scientists utilized an instructional
technique to guide learning about the connections between brownfields and community revitalization
and AOC remediation actions. An experiential learning approach gave participants a chance to reflect on
their own experiences while exploring new ideas through discussion (Baker, Jensen, & Kolb, 2005;
Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2001).
This method was chosen based on experiences working with AOC professionals. Because the AOC
program is an aquatic program, agency officials often are reluctant to address or consider land-based
activities (Fig. 6). To mitigate this reaction, the questions were structured to invite participants to share
their observations and ask them to explain their local experiences. Utilizing a similar approach to a
classroom discussion, the session included a short introduction and thought-provoking questions. The
list of questions was based on brownfields revitalization literature and R2R2R field research. Questions
were constructed to encourage participants to reflect on their own observations of their AOCs so they
would identify the potential relationships between cleaner water and community revitalization.
One of the major observations of the session was that most participants felt that water quality had
improved in their AOC (Fig. 6). In addition to improved water quality, participants discussed increased
recreational use of the water and riparian zones. Riparian uses identified by participants included trails,
retail and other businesses, as well as new housing developments or improvements in the built
environment. Participants further noticed increased kayaking and stand-up paddle boarding. Moreover,
participants felt that there was a lot of cooperation in the AOC to attract sustainable businesses and to
negotiate with industry to restore waterfronts (Williams & Hoffman, in review).
8 The conference agenda can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/aoc-
conference-agenda-2016.pdf.
27
-------
Is improved water quality evident in your AOC?
(n=36)
Not sure
No
19.4%
Yes
P SR 3%
0%
10%
20% 30% 40%
50%
y
60%
Figure 6. One of the questions from the ORD-organized R2R2R session at the 2016
AOC Conference held in Dearborn, Michigan (Williams & Hoffman, in review).
Two patterns were identified through researching the observations shared by participants. While the
AOC program is similar in structure in every AOC (i.e., a state agency leads the effort, a PAC
participates, and GLNPO works with the state agencies), the R2R2R process looks different in each
location. Contextual factors appeared to influence how AOCs are revitalized. Participants in urban
AOCs such as Cuyahoga River, Buffalo River and St. Louis River recognized more successes and
different types of development. The representatives from rural AOCs described more social and
economic challenges and fewer successes. This observation raises research questions about how AOC
size, location and resources (e.g., human, institutional, economic) influence R2R2R outcomes.
A second observation was the divergence in activities and decisions between the aquatic restoration and
the land uses adjacent to the AOCs. The divergence confounds traditional ideas of success. For example,
success in AOCs, from GLNPO's perspective, is normally measured in cubic yards of sediment removed
and acres of habitat restored, which is applied to AOC metrics (Tuchman, 2016). Communities, on the
other hand, are making entirely different decisions. For example, they are responsible for the amenities
that improve access to the newly restored resources and facilitating economic development in
neighborhoods (Fig. 7)
Environmental
Changes
Trails
Retail, restaurants
Riverwalks
New manufacturing
Housing
Marinas
Mechanisms or types of decisions
Comprehensive planning
Land use and neighborhood planning
Park and/or transportation plans
Brownfields remediation
Stormwater management
/green infrastructure
Results
Increased use of water
Stormwater reduction
Improved aesthetics
Land reuse
Neighborhood enhancements
Land side of AOC
Cleaner water, soil, air
create opportunities
for revitalization
Water body side of AOC
Environmental
Changes
Clean sediment
Restored habitat
Increased
ecosystem services
Mechanisms or types of decisions
Remedial Action Plans
Public Advisory Councils
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Results
Remove BUI
Cleaner water
Safer fish
More habitat
Environmental R2R IS
the desired end
Figure 7. The figure illustrates a synthesis of the potential differences in the types of R2R2R decisions and results in AOCs and adjacent
communities, as identified at the 2016 AOC Conference. R2R is used to demonstrate that remediation and restoration are the desired end.
Through this exercise, MED researchers identified potential revitalization indicators. The indicators
28
-------
reflected new uses of the water ways in the Great Lakes, including high-tech or advanced
manufacturing, higher education or medical facility expansion, and land and water-based recreation.
Much of the redevelopment appears to be occurring in urban environments. Comprehensive and other
land-use plans appear to be the mechanism through which changes are initiated (Williams & Hoffman,
in review).
3.0 Analysis
3.1 Who Participates in R2R2R?
The St. Louis River AOC is an ideal place to investigate R2R2R because of the number of activities in
different sites to investigate. While not exhaustive, this investigation created a list of at least eight sites
where distinct dimensions of R2R2R may be discussed or decisions made (Section 2, Methodology).
Recognition of the different sites may serve as a step towards understanding the unique
conceptualizations of the benefits ecosystems provide.
MNDNR also understands that there are multiple kinds of connections to EGS and benefits. To find out
more about how different stakeholders are connected to the St. Louis River, MNDNR organized a
visualization exercise at the St. Louis River Summit, a regional research conference organized by the
LSNERR, to determine how people relate to the St. Louis River by occupation and activity (Appendix
E). MNDNR created a poster as a method to capture how participants identify themselves and their
personal or professional relationship with the river. Some people self-identified multiple roles and
answered more than once (Appendix E).
Most of the presentations at the two-day conference reflect the breadth and depth of the research and
management activities conducted about the St. Louis River, both in and beyond the AOC (LSNERR,
2017). Although decisions are not made there, the St. Louis River Summit serves as a rare opportunity
for individuals in research and management across agencies, academia, and industry to network and
share information (Appendix E). The exercise illustrates the importance of recognizing different
audiences and that the audiences may not be connected to one another.
Thus, a challenge to involving stakeholders is that their interests are nearly always context dependent.
One observation from this research is that sometimes people and activities related to R2R2R might
overlap, but it is not necessarily the norm (Appendix E). Table 1 outlines in the broadest terms how
participation in R2R2R changes among settings arranged by the City of Duluth and the AOC planning
projects. Particularly, the state and federal agencies that are most responsible for natural resource and
environmental management are largely absent from City of Duluth activities, and City officials are
absent in most AOC discussions. Citizens participate in City planning processes, but appear to be absent
from most AOC activities. One explanation for this discrepancy is the City of Duluth park or other types
of planning meetings are open to and organized for the public to inform or gather input. Many AOC
meetings are more technical and not necessarily open to a general audience.
29
-------
Table 1: Matrix identifying which groups participate in R2R2R decision or information sharing contexts.
USEPA is the consistent participant in all decision contexts.
Group/
AOC
Habitat
St. Louis
St. Louis River
Park
Comprehensive,
Setting
Mgmt.
Committee
River
Technical
Plan9
Brownfields or
Summit
Committee
Other Plans
State
X
X
X
X (brownfields
agencies
plan only)
Federal
X
X
X
X
agencies
USEPA
GLNPO
ORD
ORD
ORD
ORD
ORD
ORD
R5
R5
R510
NGOs
X
X
X
X
X
X
City
X (Economic
X
X (Economic
agencies
Development,
(Parks)
Development,
Parks,
Community
Community
Planning, Parks)
Planning)
Researchers
X
X
X
Citizens
X
X
The City of Duluth makes an intentional effort to bridge the AOC-City of Duluth divide through the St.
Louis River Technical Committee organized by the City's Business and Economic Development
Department. The group meets every two months and participants include: USEPA Region 5 and ORD,
several City of Duluth departments (i.e., Parks, Community Planning and Engineering), MPCA,
MNDNR, a representative from Jay Cooke State Park, SLRA, MLT, and the Duluth Seaway Port
Authority. The group's purpose is information sharing, the agenda typically includes updates about City-
led initiatives and an opportunity for participants to share their organization's updates.
Although Table 1 is meant to depict a broad pattern, it also attempts to capture nuance to agency
participation. For example, USEPA plays a unique role in the distinct decision contexts. ORD
participates in each of the decision contexts, and often contributes research-based knowledge to
discussions. GLNPO and Region 5 participate in AOC and St. Louis River neighborhood decision
contexts, respectively. Furthermore, MVD created a connection for Region 5 to AOC projects (Fig. 5).
Similarly, the City of Duluth is not a single entity. Parks, Economic Development, and Community
Planning all have distinct responsibilities. Therefore, it becomes very important to ask who is
participating, because existing relationships influence how stakeholders are identified and subsequently
invited to participate.
When Table 1 was presented to one of the stakeholders, she was surprised and challenged the finding
that the public was only involved in city processes, because she expected that participation was more
universal. This particular stakeholder, an agency official, noted that she does interact with the public, but
9 The nongovernmental organizations (NGO)s who participate in City of Duluth planning activities are not the same as the
ones who participate in AOC-related events. The environmental NGOs with extensive technical knowledge (e.g., a land
trust) participate in AOC activities. The NGOs who participate in City-related activities are more often focused on health and
quality of life. Some environmental groups do participate in City planning.
10 USEPA Region 5 officials are involved in AOC activities through MVD, not usually at the project level.
30
-------
often informally. This table demonstrates that most AOC and planning contexts are organized by and for
technical purposes, it is not clear that there are opportunities for the public or residents to participate.
3.2 What Types of Decisions are Made in Different Contexts?
This report has established that R2R2R decision processes overlap, but might also be disconnected
because of institutional, agency, or structural perspectives or connections to place. The disconnection is
to be expected, as the AOC, City of Duluth, and public all have particular decisions to make with unique
starting points. For example, most of the decisions in the AOC are project-based, because the policy that
guides the AOC implementation already exists (MPCA, 2013). Most of the decisions that remain are
about where and how much sediment or substrate to remediate, what kind of habitat to construct and the
site designs. The details matter and EGS may inform the decisions because they are large and complex
sites (e.g., the US Steel Superfund site 600 is acres, requiring both river sediment and land cleanup;
MPCA, 2018), where the design will impact the amount and type of EGS that result from the
management actions.
In contrast, the City of Duluth is both developing policies and plans, as well as implementing them.
Examples of policy-making decisions by the City of Duluth include the development of a new
Comprehensive Plan to guide land use and service provision throughout the City. Examples of
implementation include the remediation of brownfields and the building of trails. For the City, decision
scales range from remediating individual brownfields to city-wide policy creation. The EGS decisions
can have a large impact because City resources are in neighborhoods where people live, so people
access them more easily.
This contrast between the two settings presents two epistemic challenges for ORD as we investigate how
EGS might become a common language or bridging concept for decision makers who operate in
different spheres of influence. The first challenge is to learn how EGS might inform a decision. Figure 8
illustrates a framework for understanding how differences in the decision processes are created by
different actors initiating a decision (who), program opportunities (what), management options (how)
and desired endpoints (outcomes). The framework further illustrates that EGS knowledge plays different
roles in the decision process for the AOC and the City of Duluth.
WHO WHAT HOW OUTCOMES
City of
Duluth
EPA: R5
AOC
EPA: GLNPO
Citizen-stakeholder
input goes here
(during planning
process)
Urban Waters the means to an end
Brownfields Assessments
Irving-Fairmount AWP
Chambers Grove Park improvements
Citizen-stakeholder
input goes here
(during planning
and/or
implementation
processes)
Minnesota Slip
21st Ave W
40lh Ave W
Knowlton Creek
Kingsbury Bay-Grassy Point
EGS valuation can
be applied here
EGS was utilized in AOC
because of technical assistance
Environmental R2Rare StOfmwater reduction
Estimate of EGS benefits
motivated decisions
Improved aesthetics
Land reuse
Neighborhood enhancements
More equitabledevelopment
Environmental R2R IS
the desired end
Remove BUI
Cleaner water
Safer fish
More habitat
EGS valuation has impact
here to tell success story
Figure 8. Comparison of the AOC decision-making process and the City of Duluth decision process. Each decision context interfaces with
different USEPA offices; consults with the public at different points in the process, and use ecosystem services for distinct reasons.
31
-------
In this analysis, MVD and the RAP serve as cohesive strategies to accomplish complex goals restoring
both the AOC and the SLR Corridor neighborhoods. For purposes of comparison, both the City and
AOC managers have lists of projects that will eventually lead to a set of desired outcomes, but EGS play
distinct roles in each process. For the AOC, ecosystem benefits are the outcome of R2R projects. In
other words, project managers might request EGS data for the AOC. In other contexts, EGS might help
explain the benefits of R2R, or be an input to a desired public or ecosystem service. The City assumes
that clean soil becomes a development opportunity and access to natural areas yield recreational assets.
This contrasts with the AOC, where the clean sediment is the end goal. Utilizing this framework will
empower ORD to better identify and characterize the impact of EGS research will have in different
types of decision contexts.
3.2.1 Policy or Implementation?
One goal of this research was to determine community values of EGS in R2R2R. One of the results of
observing community groups is that housing, trails, and parks motivate action, but community input
does not always have an impact from the community's perspective (Section 2.4.1). Moreover, citizens
are not present in all decision contexts (Table 1). By comparing the activity of the citizen groups that
mobilized in response to the SLR Corridor initiative and the comprehensive plan we can discern a
pattern. First, the SLR Corridor initiative was in the implementation stages when citizen input was
solicited (Section 2.4.1). One interpretation from this experience is that even if input is gathered during
the project design phase, it cannot address the public's concerns if they did not have input to the policy
or plan that was in the implementation stage.11
In contrast, the Comprehensive Planning and HIAP experience illuminates some possibilities to better
appreciate how input can be meaningfully integrated into an existing policy creation effort (Fig. 9). This
analysis should be transferrable. For example, RAPs might be considered analogous to the
comprehensive plan because they were created through an iterative process and serve as the policy each
AOC follows (Section 1.1).
Focus
groups,
community
meetings
Guiding
principles**
Figure 9. Process diagram for the Imagine Duluth 2035 planning process. **Denotes where the plan was reviewed and revised before
passing on to a subsequent step or final approval.
Community planning used an iterative process to revise the Comprehensive Plan. The first step for
Community Planning was outreach and attendance at community events throughout the City of Duluth
and collection of over 4000 surveys. The kick-off event collected additional input, which was analyzed
by staff to inform subsequent steps in the process. Focus groups both informed policy recommendations
and presented a sounding board for Community Planning staff. A Vision Committee with a broad
representation of the community provide oversight for the entire process. Public input is the foundation
11 This observation was presented to the activist community group that organized around the City's SLR Corridor project
plans in August 2017 and they agreed this was the case. They further expressed concerns about what they perceive as
inadequate maintenance of the existing facilities in Western Duluth neighborhoods.
32
-------
for the Comprehensive Plan, where the Community Planning staff took input from diverse sources,
including the HIAP and USEPA reports, and translated the values and experiences into policy.
3.3 Neighborhood Model
We used the idea of R2R2R as a complex system of overlapping decisions to identify who made
decisions, where, and who was involved. This report demonstrates the complication of integrating such
different perspectives. To better characterize the values and interests of these different perspectives, we
have treated them as an addition problem, and created a mental map to accommodate as many of the
values and constraints that motivate agencies, organizations, and individuals to act.
For example, natural resource managers desire to improve habitat for fish and wildlife; the City has the
responsibility and obligation to improve the environment and foster economic opportunities; and citizens
organize to support trails and amenities that reflect their interests. City officials (e.g., mayors) create and
implement policies that city staff must implement. The biophysical environment creates constraints and
opportunities for EGS creation and access. The development of a relational model to translate across
perspectives creates opportunities to examine the relationships between actors (i.e., city officials and
citizens) and the landscape.
The Neighborhood Model (Fig. 10; Appendix F) utilizes approaches rooted in conflict resolution theory
and systems thinking. The DSRP or Distinctions-Systems-Relationships-Perspectives heuristic (Cabrera,
Cabrera & Powers, 2015) guided the development of the framework. The DSRP model explains how
people think, more specifically that we each have our own perspective, make distinctions, and identify
part-whole relationships. Thus, we created a method to capture different perspectives to identify and
explain relationships among them. The model is specifically designed to capture what is important to
different individuals or organizations but might be difficult to quantify, including elements in the
environment that contribute to personal identity or organizational mission, safety and connection to
place, or professional ethic. The model enables researchers to compare perspectives and identify
multiple conceptualizations of value.
33
-------
Neighborhood Model
May not be a personal relationship...
These categories reflect the
relationship people have with the
environment.
Sustainability
or resilience
Aesthetics
Equity
These categories
reflect the
neighborhood
attributes with
which people most
Parks or
public spaces
Safety
These categories
Spatial Unit or Neighborhood
reflect the personal
Trails or
connections
Parti ci pation
attachments to self,
community, and
engage in the built
identity that might
motivate action.
environment.
Housing
Identity or place
attachment
Infrastructure
Natural features
Schools or
education
Economy
Local businesses
Social cohesion
Governance
Anchor
or rules
institutions
Demographics
Crime
Political
constraints
The structural dimensions of the community
that shape how people and organizations
navigate their neighborhood.
Biophysical environment is in this category
Figure 10. The Community framework, also known as the Neighborhood Model. The colors represent how individuals might interact with
individual attributes. Blue attributes are representative of the built environment, the reasons that individuals might choose their
neighborhoods, or what cities plan to change. Black attributes are structural dimensions, or the important elements that are fixed part of
larger process, or expressed in statistics. Orange characteristics reflect personal attachments, values, or motivations of individuals. Green
attributes represent human-environment relationships.
The model was built by treating the themes identified in the R2R2R case descriptions as an addition
problem (Section 2; Johnston et al., 2017). There are four dimensions: the built environment; human-
environment relationships; personal attachments to self and others; and structural dimensions (Fig. 10;
Appendix F). The community organizations organized around and the City of Duluth plans for parks,
trails, housing. Communities advocated for equity, safety, participation, place, social cohesion. Political
constraints were discussed often as a motivation, and sometimes as a deterrent. Management decisions
were based on improving the economy and infrastructure, as well as altering natural features. The
decisions were based on data about economic data, demographics, and crime statistics. Two additional
categories have been added to the earlier version of this model based on input from the stakeholder
groups: equity and political constraints. One stakeholder group appreciated a framework that could make
their concerns more visible because they are often marginalized. Another stakeholder group stated that
political constraints can drive activity in agencies, and staff needs to adapt to changing leadership.
34
-------
The conceptual model is meant to disentangle and classify some of the place meanings that are
embedded in speech and practice to better understand how the environment influences (positively or
negatively) community life, and how environmental attributes might be valued by individuals or entities.
The model is designed to identify and describe the value of the resources or EGS based on what the
resource provides to different groups - including agencies, local governments, and the public. We
applied the model by using it to answer the question, "What does a resource (a trail, river, vegetation)
provide to an individual or organization (e.g., sense of place, fish to catch, agency goals)" (Appendix F).
The components of the Neighborhood Model are dimensions or features of nearly every city, town,
village, or neighborhood. While every community is a unique mix of components, the components
themselves are universal. Components of human well-being and EGS are embedded in these individual
neighborhood components. For example, parks are an important pathway through which people
experience nature EGS (Buchel & Frantzeskaki, 2015; Landers & Nahlik, 2013).
4.0 Conclusion
This research characterized and embraced the complexity of R2R2R in the Great Lakes Region through
a case study of the process in the St. Louis River AOC. ORD and GLNPO endeavor to understand the
relationships among the three R's in R2R2R because AOCs and their adjoining communities throughout
the Great Lakes region are interested in revitalizing. The case study in Duluth established that the City
identified outdoor recreation as a desired benefit of the natural assets next to the restored AOC, and is
creating and implementing plans to achieve that goal. Outdoor recreation or visitor destination will not
be the economic answer for every AOC, but what this study demonstrates is that it is possible to identify
the institutional context for remediation and restoration, as well as community revitalization goals.
We examined the overlapping dimensions of R2R2R and identified eight institutional contexts where
different dimensions of remediation, restoration, or revitalization were discussed. The sites were
organized or convened by USEPA offices (GLNPO and Region 5), state agencies (AOC meetings),
research partners (LSNERR), the City of Duluth, and local citizens. They were organized for specific
purposes and often discussed EGS as it related to project goals or outcomes or personal experiences.
Research and community participation informed different parts of the R2R2R process when it directly
answered the problem the agency was trying to solve.
Case studies are valuable for building theories or hypotheses. The outcomes of this study include the
development of two conceptual models (i.e., theories) to help interpret individual decision contexts.
Because R2R2R is a complex system comprising USEPA entities, tribal agencies, state agencies, local
governments, NGOs, and citizens, this research presents a possible model that demonstrates how the
entities work together that should be transferrable to other sites. Identifying who can initiate an action,
what policies and programs are appropriate, and how to implement through specific projects, can
facilitate the application of research and integration of desired outcomes into management actions and
decision-making.
The second conceptual model can be used interpret the value of the environment or modifications to it
from different perspectives. The model uses systems thinking to determine how agencies, organizations,
and individuals benefit from EGS by interpreting relationships with resources. The model is
intentionally broad to capture many dimensions of environmental management (e.g., legal frameworks
and funding mechanisms), biophysical environment, and emotional attachments to place.
35
-------
The conceptual models developed in this research should be tested to evaluate applicability to different
USEPA programs and Regional Office-defined problems. This case study started with a description of
AOCs as a collaborative approach to environmental management executed by federal and state agencies
and local communities to remediate and restore ecosystems. We demonstrated how this approach has
created improved environmental conditions, and that communities recognize them and wish to utilize
these newly available EGS. We also demonstrated that USEPA supports state agency and local
government efforts to remediate and restore the EGS in the aquatic resources (AOC) and on land
(revitalization). In the words of one stakeholder, "EPA helps to solve locally-defined problems."
Finally, this research study has informed partners throughout the process and will continue to be applied.
For example, MED has communicated with USEPA's Region 5 and GLNPO contacts throughout the
study to ensure Regional research needs were met and to extend opportunities for collaboration. In
another example, USEPA Region 5 was invited to participate on the Leadership Team for MED's Health
Impact Assessment (HIA)12 on an AOC project. Furthermore, the findings of this report were applied to
the scooping phase of the HIA to identify an appropriate project. This report outlines the broad findings,
but there are further plans to make these findings useful to SHC, USEPA Region 5, and GLNPO. Future
applications include developing applicable fact sheets for specific program elements (e.g., MVD and
brownfields) and testing the frameworks in ongoing SHC research areas.
12 A Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is "a systematic process that uses an array of data sources and analytic methods and
considers input from stakeholders to determine the potential effects of a proposed policy, plan, program, or project on the
health of a population and the distribution of those effects within the population. HIA provides recommendations on
monitoring and managing those effects" (National Research Council, 2011).
36
-------
5.0 References
Angradi, T. R., Launspach, J. J., Bolgrien, D. W., Bellinger, B. J., Starry, M. A., Hoffman, J. C., . . .
Hollenhorst, T. P. (2016). Mapping ecosystem service indicators in a Great Lakes estuarine Area of
Concern. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 42(3), 717-727.
Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Conversation as experiential learning. Management
Learning, 36(4), 411-427.
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, 60(10), 854-857. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.028662.
Blazer, V., Mazik, P., & Hoffman, J.C. (2017). St. Louis River Area of Concern fish tumors and other
deformities beneficial use impairment study summary report. Extramural report. 6451 020822.
Blazer, V.S., Hoffman, J.C., Walsh, H.L., Braham, R.P., Hahn, C., Collins, P... & Ledder, T. (2014).
Health of white sucker within the St. Louis River Area of Concern associated with habitat usage as
assessed using stable isotopes. Ecotoxicology 23, 236-251.
Boyd, J. & S. Banzhaf. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecological Economics 63, 616-626.
Buchel, S., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Citizens' voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem
services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosystem Services, 12, 169-177.
Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L., & Powers, E. (2015). A unifying theory of systems thinking with psychosocial
applications. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(5), 534-545.
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H, ... & Mitchell, R. B.
(2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 700(14), 8086-8091.
Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E., & Daniels, S. E. (2003). " Place" as an integrating concept in natural
resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society & Natural Resources, 16(2),
87-104.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 68(1), 129-138.
Childers, D. L., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Marshall, V., McGrath, B., & Pickett, S. T. (2015). An
ecology for cities: A transformational nexus of design and ecology to advance climate change resilience
and urban sustainability. Sustainability, 7(4), 3774-3791.
City of Duluth, MN. (2016) Resolution 16-0455R. FINAL River Corridor Neighborhood Parks Master
Plans.
City of Duluth, MN. (2017a). Imagine Duluth 2035 - Forward Together.
City of Duluth, MN. (2017b). Irving-Fairmount Brownfields Revitalization Plan.
37
-------
City of Duluth, MN. (2017c). St. Louis Corridor Vision. Retrieved from http://www.duluthmn.gov/st-
louis-river-corridor/.
Council, N. R. (2011). Improving health in the United States: The role of health impact assessment.
National Academies Press.
Cummins, S., Curtis, S., Diez-Roux, A. V., & Macintyre, S. (2007). Understanding and representing
'place'in health research: A relational approach. Social Science & Medicine, 65(9), 1825-1838.
de Volo, L. B., & Schatz, E. (2004). From the inside out: Ethnographic methods in political research.
PS: Political Science and Politics, 37(2), 267-271.
Dilling, L., & Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate
knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 680-
689.
Ellen, I. G., & Turner, M. A. (1997). Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing
Policy Debate, 5(4), 833-866.
Erickson, D. (2012). MetroGreen: Connecting open space in North American cities. Island Press.
Gee, G. C., & Ford, C. L. (2011). Structural racism and health inequities: Old issues, new
directions. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 5(1), 115-132.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23-38.
Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: What does
aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landscape Ecology, 22(1), 959-972.
Gurda, J. (2015). Milwaukee: A City Built on Water (lecture).
Hoch, C., Dalton, L. C., & So, F. S. (2000). The practice of local government planning: International
City/County Management Association (ICMA).
Hoffman, J., Sierszen, M., Angradi, T., Bolgrien, D., Burkhart, L. & Trebitz, A. (2014). Remediation
to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R): Past Successes, New Approaches and Emerging Information
Needs: Why Great Lakes Communities Benefit from Area of Concern (AOC) Delisting. Report on a
Joint Workshop of the Office of Research and Development and the Great Lakes National Program
Office.
Hoggart, K., Lees, L., & Davies, A. (2002). Researching human geography. London: Arnold.
Hsieh, H.F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
International Joint Commission. (2012). Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Johnston, J.M., de Jesus Crespo, R., Harwell, M.C., Jackson, C., Myer, M., Seeteram, N,.. & Hoffman,
J. (2017). Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: Human Health and
Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic Valuation. U.S. Environmental Protection
38
-------
Agency, Athens, GA, EPA/600/R-17/309.
Kochhar, R., & Fry, R. (2014). Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of
Great Recession. Pew Research Center, 12.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research
and new directions. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, 7(8), 227-247.
Kramer, M. R., & Hogue, C. R. (2009). Is Segregation Bad for Your Health? Epidemiologic Reviews,
37(1), 178-194. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxp001.
Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve (LSNERR). (2017). 2017 St. Louis River Summit
Agenda.
Landers, D. H., & Nahlik, A. M. (2013). Final ecosystem goods and services classification system
(FEGS-CS). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Report Number EPA/600/R-13/ORD-
004914.
Laurier, E. (2006). Participant Observation. InN. Cilfford, S. French, & G. Valentine (Eds.), Key
Methods in Geography (pp. 133-148). Thousand Oaks, CA London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.
Lemos, M. C., & Morehouse, B. J. (2005). The co-production of science and policy in integrated
climate assessments. Global Environmental Change, 75(1), 57-68.
Lemos, M. C., & Rood, R. B. (2010). Climate projections and their impact on policy and practice.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(5), 670-682.
MacGregor, M., Williams, K., & Bolgrien, D. (2017). A Community Runs Through It: Collaboration in
the SLRE (St. Louis River Estuary). Presentation to the St. Louis River Summit, March 14, 2017.
Superior, WI.
MacKenzie, S. H. (1997). Toward Integrated Resource Management: Lessons About the Ecosystem
Approach from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Environmental Management, 21(2), 173-183.
Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A., Taylor, S., & Health, C. o. S. D. o. (2008). Closing
the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet,
372(9650), 1661-1669.
Meadow, A. M., Ferguson, D. B., Guido, Z., Horangic, A., Owen, G., & Wall, T. (2015). Moving
toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7(2),
179-191.
Merriam-Webster. (2018). Defintion of safety.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2013). St. Louis River Area of Concern Implementation
Framework: Roadmap to Delisting (Remedial Action Plan Update).
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2018), St. Louis River-US Steel Superfund Site.
Morello-Frosch, R., & Lopez, R. (2006). The riskscape and the color line: Examining the role of
segregation in environmental health disparities. Environmental Research, 702(2), 181-196.
39
-------
Morello-Frosch, R., Zuk, M., Jerrett, M., Shamasunder, B., & Kyle, A. D. (2011). Understanding The
Cumulative Impacts Of Inequalities In Environmental Health: Implications For Policy. Health Affairs,
30(5), 879-887.
Munns, W.R., Rea, A.W., Mazzotta, M.J., Wainger, L.A., & Saterson, K. (2015). Toward a standard
lexicon for ecosystem services. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 11(4), 666-673.
Performance.gov. (2016). Working to Make a Visible Difference in Communities. Accessed through
the Web Archive saved June 28. 2017.
Pioneer Press. (2015). Mayor lays out vision for revitalizing west Duluth. Newspaper article. Retrieved
from https://www.twincities.com/2014/03/04/mayor-lays-out-vision-for-revitalizing-west-duluth/.
QSR, International. (2016). Nvivo [Computer software], Burlington, MA.
Rader, J. (2015). Western Waterfront Trail Citizen Forum #1. Report prepared for McCabe Chapter
Izaak Walton League. Duluth, MN.
Random House, (n.d.) Defintion of aesthetics.
St. Louis River Alliance. (2012). The River Voice. Newsletter 7(2). Retrieved from
http://stlouisriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/River-Voice-March-2012.pdf.
St. Louis River Citizen Action Committee (aka St. Louis River Alliance). (2002). Lower St. Louis
River Habitat Plan.
Smith, L. M., Case, J. L., Smith, H. M., Harwell, L. C., & Summers, J. K. (2013). Relating ecoystem
services to domains of human well-being: Foundation for a US index. Ecological Indicators, 28, 79-90.
Smith, M., Ceni A., Milic-Frayling, N., Shneiderman, B., Mendes Rodrigues, E., Leskovec, J., Dunne,
C., (2010). NodeXL: A free and open network overview, discovery and exploration add-in for Excel
2007/2010/2013/2016, from the Social Media Research Foundation, https://www.smrfoundation.org.
Summers, J. K., & Smith, L. M. (2014). The role of social and intergenerational equity in making
changes in human well-being sustainable. Ambio, 43(6), 718-728.
Trails (Friends of Western Parks and Trails). (2017). Cross City Trail Duluth, MN. Retrieved from
http://www.crosscitvtrailduluth.com/.
Tuchman, M. (2016). Getting Work Done at AOCs: How are the Federal GLRI agencies implementing
the AOC program? Presentation to 2016 Great Lakes National Program Office Areas of Concern
Conference. March 2, 2016. Grand Rapids, Michigan.
USEPA. (2012). Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Program Fact Sheet.
USEPA. (2017). Eco-Health Relationship Browser.
USEPA. (2018a). Making a Visible Difference.
USEPA. (2018b). Restoring the St. Louis River AOC Timeline.
40
-------
Vogel, M., & Porter, L. C. (2015). Toward a Demographic Understanding of Incarceration Disparities:
Race, Ethnicity, and Age Structure. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1-16. doi:10.1007/sl0940-
015-9265-6.
Wainger, L., & Mazzotta, M. (2011). Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: A framework for
relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environmental Management, 48(4), 710.
Wegner, G., & Pascual, U. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human
well-being: A multidisciplinary critique. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 492-504.
White, K., & Borrell, L. N. (2011). Racial/ethnic residential segregation: Framing the context of health
risk and health disparities. Health & Place, 17(2), 438-448. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.002.
Williams, D. R., Priest, N., & Anderson, N. (2016). Understanding Associations between Race,
Socioeconomic Status and Health: Patterns and Prospects. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the
Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 35(4), 407-411.
doi: 10.103 7/hea0000242.
Williams, K. (2015). Relationships, knowledge, and resilience: A comparative case study of
stakeholder participation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. PhD. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee.
Williams, K.C., & Hoffman, J.C. (in review). Learning in Great Lakes Areas of Concern - Connecting
remediation, restoration, and revitalization. In Restoring Great Lakes Areas of Concern: A story of
struggle and success. J.H. Hartig & M. Munawar (Eds.). Ecovision World Monograph Series, AEHMS.
Yee, S., Bousquin, J., Bruins, R., Canfield, T.J., DeWitt, T.H., de Jesus-Crespo, R., ... Williams, K.
(2017). Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services into Community
Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-17/266.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (Fifth ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
publications.
41
-------
6.0 Appendices
Appendix A: Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI)
Table 2: List of BUIs (International Joint Commission, 2012).
Beneficial Use Impairments
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor
Degraded fish and wildlife populations
Fish tumors and other deformities
Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems
Degradation of benthos
Restrictions on dredging activities
Eutrophication or undesirable algae
Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odor problems
Beach closings
Degradation of aesthetics
Added cost to agriculture or industry
Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
42
-------
Appendix B: Trade-off Analysis to Inform AOC Projects
The table below was submitted to MPCA to inform project designs related to Spirit Lake restoration.
The data is not the focus of this demonstration, it is the illustration of how EGS research was organized
and presented to a decision-maker to respond to state agency management needs (Angradi et al., 2016).
Table 3. Ecosystem services trade-off analysis created to inform habitat restoration in Spirit Lake for
MPCA.
Ecosystem service *
Alternative 8
Alternative 12
Explanation **
Residential-property views
The CDF in Alt 8 blocks river views for a small number of
property owners; Alt 12 does not change views.
Fishing from boat or ice
More deep water favored by anglers results from Alt 8;
Alt 12 only increases shallow areas.
Human-powered boating
New open water for human-powered boating results
from Alt 12; Alt 8 removes open water
Nitrogen processing
Denitrification rates are higher in deeper water provided
by Alt 8.
Power boating
Alt 8 provides deep water accessible to power boats.
Esocid spawning
More shallow vegetated habitat favored for spawning
results from Alt 12
Wave-energy attenuation
For northeast winds, more wave-energy-reducing shoals
result from Alt 12.
Waterfowl hunting
Waterfowl hunting not permitted on MN side of SLRE
Dredged sand for industrial
reuse
Service not relevant in project area
Deer hunting1
More upland area results from Alt 8; land lost with Alt 12
Aquatic-terrestrial
connectivity2
More new aquatic-terrestrial interface results from Alt 8
Semi-aquatic fur-bearer
trapping2
More new aquatic-terrestrial interface results from Alt 8
Native-American
spiritual/ceremonial use
Tribes objects to river-adjacent placement of CDF in Alt 8
Wild-rice harvesting
Shallow area created with Alt 12 more favorable to
emergent vegetation
Park and trail recreation
Created land (CDF) could be developed for trails; land lost
with Alt 12
Waterbird nesting
Riparian CDF resulting from Alt 8 provides potential
nesting habitats; Land lost with Alt 12
Fishing from shore
More deep water favored by fisherman results from Alt 8
= Ecosystem service researc
1
** = State agency management information need
43
-------
Appendix C: Use of ORD Decision Tools
Decision tools have an impact on local decisions when the tool can be applied to the problem the
decision-maker needs to solve. What follows is a discussion of how an ORD tool was applied to support
the recommendations made to the City of Duluth's comprehensive planning process. We used the tools
to provide evidence about the ecosystem service engagement with nature and social vulnerability which
were connected to the comments participants submitted about health and fairness.
We should note that the tools were useful because our relationships with the City of Duluth staff
provided opportunities to share ORD tools by creating examples based on their data and information
needs.
C.1.1 Application of Eco-Health Browser
The City of Duluth's Comprehensive Plan afforded a chance to demonstrate how the Eco-Health
Browser might be applied to create evidence-based recommendations. As described in Section 2.3 and
4.2, the data analysis provided to the City of Duluth was based on a qualitative analysis of submitted
public comments that revealed access to social and environmental resources were important to those
who participated in the Imagine Duluth event. In a report to the City of Duluth Community Planning,
MED scientists shared a demonstration of the Eco-Health Browser with the analysis of public input.
MED scientists explained that the tool might be useful in the community planning context because open
space and conservation of nature was a major focal area for the Comprehensive Plan.
Figure 11 uses "aestheti cs and engagement with nature," one of the ecosystem services contained the
Eco-Health Browser, as an example. The figure illustrates how the ecosystem is comprised of
environmental components (wetlands, urban ecosystems, forests, and agroecosystems; delineated with
green arrows), but the availability or absence impact specific dimensions of health (delineated with blue
arrows).
Aesthetics &
Engagement
\with Nature
Longevity
Bibliography Eco-Health Relationship Browser: Public Health Linkages to Ecosystem Services Topics: Aesthetics & Engagement wit »
Click a topic bubble or choose a topic from the dropdown list above.
Hover over linkages (+) to view the relationship between elements.
You are here: Social Relations I Aesthetics & Engagement with Nature
Details
Description: Aesthetics &
Engagement with Nature
Many people around the world enjoy
recreating, relaxing, and spending time
outdoors. Scientific studies show that
exposure to nature is positively
associated with numerous aspects of
both physiological and psychological
health, as well as with good social
relations. Causal mechanisms for some
of these associations have been
demonstrated in the laboratory: faster
recovery from neurological fatigue
appears to be responsible for the
observed effects that greenness has on
mental concentration and the alleviation
of ADHD symptoms in children.
Exposure to natural scenery, even
through a window or a photograph,
slows the heart rate and calms anxiety.
Humans" innate affinity for nature may
be responsible for observations that
people are preferentially drawn to
community green space, where they are
more inclined to interact with neighbors
while relaxing or recreating. These
interactions are directly beneficial by
increasing social capital (Putnam 2000),
which in turn contributes positively to a
Citations/ Sources
Louv, 2005; Putnam, 2000; Wilson, 1984
Figure 11. Eco-Health Relationship Browser, illustrating the ecosystem elements that constitute the service Aesthetics and Engagement with
Nature and the dimensions of health and well-being to which the service contributes, including mental health. (Source: USEPA, 2017).
44
-------
MED scientists suggested that the Eco-Health Relationship Browser might be particularly useful
because several respondents in the health-fairness exercise specifically suggested that the physical
environment of the City could impact health outcomes. In particular: "city environment that reduces
stress" and "well planned.. .and land use provides mental health and quality of life." MED further
explained that the ecosystem service contributes to the improvement of a few health states or conditions,
including COPD and cardiovascular disease, anxiety and stress, social relations, high blood pressure,
and mental health.
45
-------
Appendix D: Health in All Policies (HIAP) survey analysis instrument
To support the HIAP efforts to conduct and analyze a survey, MED worked with them to co-produce an
analysis instrument that would function similarly to qualitative analysis software. The codes were
established by conducting a conventional content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) on a sample of the
returned surveys. The instrument was refined through consultation with the HIAP members who would
be analyzing the survey. HIAP members analyzed the remaining surveys.
The list below represents the codebook that resulted from the HIAP survey analysis.
Housing Questions
Current housing situation
Check all that apply.
o Apartment
o Not Affordable
o Can't afford to move
o Formerly homeless
o Through Employment
o Manufactured housing
o Own home
o Problem with landlord
o Problem with other tenants
o Smaller than desired
o Student loans barrier to better housing
o Subsidized housing
o Other:
What would be more fair in housing
Check all that apply.
o Accept pets
o Accountability for landlords
o Affordable
o Allow smoking
o Assistance to save/get ahead
o Maintained well
o More choices
o Not having to beg
o Safe
o Other:
What is not fair in housing
Check all that apply.
o Housing discrimination
o Long wait lists/not enough subsidized housing
o Other:
Transportation Questions
46
-------
Current transportation situation
Check all that apply.
o Walk
o Bus
o No driver's license
o Old car
o Own car
o Parking tickets
o Taxi
o Walk
o Other:
What would be more fair in transportation
Check all that apply.
o Allow pets on public transportation
o Case manager services
o Grocery bus
o Lighting for pedestrian and bike routes
o Lower insurance premiums
o More bus routes or longer hours
o More services
o Protected bike lanes
o Safe pedestrian routes to schools
o Sidewalks better maintained
o Other:
What is unfair in transportation
Check all that apply.
o Limited bus schedules/routes
o Other:
Economic Opportunity Questions
Current economic situation
Check all that apply.
o Background makes it hard to change jobs
o Disabled
o Employed
o Employed in different field (than trained or previous career)
o Looking for work
o Lack of degree makes it hard to change jobs
o Social Security or other Fixed Income
o Unemployed
o Use free bus pass
o Other:
47
-------
What would be more fair in economic opportunities
Check all that apply.
o Benefits such as sick-time
o Child care - affordable, available, easier to access
o More (Employment) opportunities for young people
o Equal opportunities
o Living wages
o Libraries distributed throughout city
o More services/support
o Neighborhood technology centers
o Resources for entrepreneurs
o Other:
What is unfair in economic opportunities?
Mark only one oval.
o Option 1
Open Space Questions
Current situation with open spaces
Check all that apply.
o Visit Canal Park
o Use Lakewalk
o Not accessible
o No problems
o Pollution can wreck them
o Pretty fair and equal
o Spend time outside - NOT in parks
o Other:
What would be more fair in open spaces?
Check all that apply.
o More ATV trails
o Don't use or don't use in winter
o More Events
o More green space
o More police/security
o Equitable Neighborhood park maintenance
o Neighborhood recreation opportunities
o Police/DPD can be unreasonable
o Transportation/Easier to get to
How Housing, Transportation, Economic Opportunities, and Open Spaces Impact Health
Check all that apply.
o Absence = negative impact
48
-------
o Access —> improves health
o Access = less stress
o Housing = not homeless
o Jobs —> access to basic necessities
o No impact
o Open space —> enjoy nature, people, good for mental health
o Transportation —> access food, medicine, visit family, get to work
o Other:
Demographics
Enter Demographics here
Gender
Mark only one oval.
o Female
o Male
o Other:
Age
Mark only one oval.
o Under 20
o 21-30
o 31-40
o 41-50
o 51-60
o 61-65
o 65+
Ethnicity
Check all that apply,
o Asian
o Black or African American
o Latino/a
o Native American
o Pacific Islander
o White or Caucasian
o More than one of the above
o Other:
Zip Code
Mark only one oval.
O 55802
o 55803
o 55804
o 55805
o 55806
49
-------
O 55807
o 55808
o Other:
Household Income
Mark only one oval.
o 0-$10,000
o $10,000 - $20,000
o $20,001 - $30,000
o $30,001 - $40,000
o $40,001 - $50,000
o $50,001 - $60,000
o $60,000+
Identification Information
50
-------
Appendix E: Social networks in the St. Louis River community of knowledge
Although academic presentations are most numerous on the conference schedule, the St. Louis River
Summit organizers support alternative opportunities for discussion and mutual learning. For example,
the MNDNR organized a poster at the 2016 Summit to capture participants' relationships with the river.
As many participants both live and conduct research in the region, place is both a personal and
professional attachment, and an attribute that the agency wished to know more about. MNDNR posted a
timeline of the St. Louis River AOC, from the time it was listed until 2050 (Fig. 12). They asked
participants to describe their relationships with the St. Louis River AOC as a scientist, manager,
educator, media, recreationalist or citizen (could answer more than once) and their specific activities.
MNDNR approached scientists at MED for assistance in analyzing the data about how participants
describe their role in the AOC and relationships to the river. Although the poster was not conducted as a
scientifically-designed survey, there are several observations that surface.
WMl
r
Figure 12. MNDNR poster from 2016 St. Louis River Summit asking participants about their role in, connection to, and activities in the St.
Louis River and AOC.
To analyze the submissions, all answers were transcribed and entered into a spreadsheet. The data were
then analyzed quantitatively using Node XL (Smith et al., 2010), which is used to visualize basic
networks. The data were analyzed along several dimensions, including identity and role (Fig. 13). When
examining the results for identity, two trends stand out. First, those who identified as recreators,
educators, and citizens nearly always named a second role. In contrast, about half of the scientists and
managers did not identify other relationships with the AOC or the river. One observation that can be
made from this chart is that in the St. Louis River Summit Community, there appears to be a disconnect
between knowledge producers (scientists), knowledge users (managers), or those who might use the
resource (recreators, educators, or citizens).
51
-------
Figure 13. Network nodes in St. Louis River AOC by self-identified role. About half of the scientists and managers self-identify only in a
professional role.
Identifying the connections and disconnects is important to MNDNR because of their determination to
work collaboratively with other partners in the AOC. They believe that reaching agreements contributes
to their ability to connects organizations and agencies, programs, and funding to achieving mutually
beneficial goals, as well as plan for the future (MacGregor, Williams, & Bolgrien, 2017).
About half of the scientists and
managers did not identify other
relationships.
52
-------
Appendix F: Neighborhood Model Tool: Mapping the Human Ecosystem for a Place
(Reprinted from Johnston et al., 2017)
Overview
The Neighborhood Model is an interpretive
or translational tool designed to help identify
how elements of the environment (built,
social, or natural) contribute to well-being. In
this case, the environment may consist of
more than the biophysical elements.
The neighborhood model is an organizational
tool to sort and classify data collected
through inductive research methods such as
document or archive analysis or participant
observation (Fig. 14). Inductive methods
facilitate the identification of lived experiences, or day-to-day practices that might be taken for granted,
through the participation in events or collection of materials that were created for a purpose important to
the organizers or authors. Cheng, Kruger, and Daniels (2003) argued that the physical environment is
"not an inert, physical entity 'out there'.. .but a dynamic system of interconnected, meaning-laden
places," (p. 96). The tool is meant to disentangle and classify some of the place meanings to better
understand how the environment influences (positively or negatively) community life and how
environmental attributes might be valued.
These categories reflect the
relationship people have with the
environment.
Sustainability
or resilience
Aesthetics
"Furthermore, engaging in environmental restoration
work may provide benefits to workers beyond simple
employment, including exposure to and interactions
with nature, which is a limited "commodity" in many
urban locations. In short, cities are habitat for people,
so the urban design process should include city
residents and integrate a social component into design
objectives and actions."
(Childers et al., 2015, p. 3778; emphasis added)
These categories
reflect the
neighborhood
attributes with
which people most
engage.
Parks or
publicspaces
Trails or
connections
Housing
Schools or
education
Neighborhood
or spatial unit of analysis
Infrastructure
Economy
Governance
or rules
Demographics
Natural features
Local businesses
Anchor
institutions
Crime
Figure 14. The Neighborhood Model.
Safety
Participation
Identity or place
attachment
Social cohesion
The structural dimensions of the community
that shape how people and organizations
navigate their neighborhood.
Physical environment is in this category
These categories
reflect the personal
attachments to self,
community, and
identity that might
motivate action.
53
-------
Attribute definitions
The neighborhood model tool identifies many neighborhood components that individuals, organizations,
or local governments may discuss in the context of their community. The characteristics are a mix of
built environment types, structural dimensions, personal experiences, and human-environment
relationships. The assemblage of attributes functions as a framework and can be broken into four broad
categories. Definitions for each type of attribute are listed in the Methodology section.
Role of critical questions
Critical questions are guiding questions meant to direct the analyst's attention toward the reasons that a
particular item might have been included in a document (i.e., they have particular meaning for the
neighborhood, organization, document author or other entity in question). Recognition and
documentation of such details in environmental research might be a way to integrate local knowledge
into inquiry. The application of the framework is meant to shift the discussion away from residents want
"x," to why "x" is important for residents. Changing the direction of the conversation is important
because "x" is often context dependent - as in the context of the neighborhood or geographic area. The
item in question is attached to something else that is an essential element to how "x" is perceived to be
important for residents. A set of critical questions for each attribute are listed in the Methodology
section.
Methodology
A two-step process can be used to guide in the coding of text-based data:
1. Decide to which broad category, and the subsequent attributes, a piece of text data belongs:
(1) engaging attributes (parks, trails, housing, schools); (2) physical environment attributes
(infrastructure, economy, anchor institutions, governance, including rules, politics, program
requirements ,natural features, demographics, crime); (3) personal attachment attributes
(safety, identity, self-determination or participation, identity or character, or social cohesion);
or (4) relationship with the environment attributes (sustainability, aesthetics).
2. Conduct a content analysis on the answers to the critical questions for each category. The
pattern that emerges reflects what the identified element contributes to well-being as defined
by the source of the text data.
ENGAGING ATTRIBUTES IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Parks
People visit parks to relax, commune with nature, find peace, be with friends, play sports, or experience
other recreation (Chiesura, 2004). Parks are an integral part of a sustainable city. Access to quality parks
and green space is often cited as a positive contributor to health and well-being.
Critical questions:
• What do residents/the authors/document say about the parks?
o Are they a pi ace to gather?
o A place to avoid?
o A place for events?
• What do people do in the parks?
o Both positive and negative
54
-------
Trails or Connections
Trails can connect neighborhoods to each other, as well as amenities and other destinations. Trails can
be considered both linear parks and infrastructure for transportation. "The cities that are deemed most
vibrant and alive are the ones where large numbers of people move around outside their cars in the
public realm (Erickson, 2006, p. 139)."
Critical questions:
• What do residents/the authors/document say about the trails?
o Are they for transportation?
o Do they link the neighborhood to important things?
¦ Businesses
¦ Features or points of interest
¦ Important resources (water, scenic places)
¦ Cultural resources
o Something to avoid?
¦ Go by dangerous/undesirable sites
¦ Not enough lights
¦ Trash, debris, industry (smells bad)
¦ No
• Important for visitors
o Both positive and negative
o From the suburbs or somewhere el se nearby
o From far away (tourist destination)
Housing
Community advocates argue that overburdened neighborhoods are impacted by multiple environmental
stressors (Morello-Forsch et al., 2011). Community leaders further contend that social factors including
housing quality and neighborhood composition may impact long-term well-being. "We conclude that
current environmental policy... should be broadened to take into account the cumulative impact of
exposures and vulnerabilities encounter by people who live in neighborhoods consisting of largely racial
or ethnic minorities or people of low socio-economic status (Morello-Forsch et al., 2011, p.
879/abstract)."
Critical questions:
• What do residents/the authors/document say about housing?
o Is the housing adequate'.'
o Does the document refer to the demographics of the residents?
o Talk about foreclosures/tear-downs?
• Does the document mention vacant lots?
• Opportunities for building'.'
• Substantial repair'.'
• What is the voice of the document'.'
o Protective of the neighborhood'.'
55
-------
o A need to change or improve the neighborhood?
Schools/Education
Schools are a critical community resource for learning, community cohesion and sometimes other basic
needs. Schools are the place where children spend a lot of time - in class and in after-school activities.
Additionally, schools can be important to the identity of the neighborhood, especially through sports.
Scholars argue that the quality of schools is often linked to the quality of the neighborhood.
Critical questions:
• What do residents/the authors/document say about the schools?
o Are they a pi ace to gather?
o A place to avoid?
o A place for events?
o A place to leam?
o A place to access services?
• What do people do in the schools?
o Both positive and negative
• Do they (the source of the documents or notes) mention intergenerational programming?
• Are the schools a source of pride?
• Is there a neighborhood school or is the school somewhere else?
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ATTRIBUTES
Infrastructure
Infrastructure shapes and facilitates how people move around their neighborhood. Roads, sidewalks,
water/sewer, street lights, interstates, ports, pipelines can enhance or detract from connectivity and/or
quality of life in the neighborhood.
Critical questions:
• What do residents/the authors/document say about infrastructure?
o It is in good/bad repair?
o It works well/does not?
o It enhances/detracts from the neighborhood?
o Infrastructure serves... residents? Industry?
o It directs users to or away from the neighborhood?
Natural Features
The dominant natural features shape neighborhood layout, experience, and affect (or disaffect). Parks
are often the access points to natural features such as hills, grasslands, rivers and streams. Natural
features include topography, water, vegetation, and climate. In Sustainable and Healthy Communities
research, natural features may be an ecosystem service or an indicator of an ecosystem service.
Critical questions:
• What do residents/the authors/document say about natural features?
56
-------
o Water bodies, rivers/streams, rocks (including bedrock), mountains, soil
• Do they mention natural features?
• Does the neighborhood have access or do they want it?
• Is the natural feature a positive feature?
• Is it or has it been a hazard?
• Why was it mentioned?
• What do they want to do with it?
Government (any level) or Rules
Government might be local, state, or federal governments. These governmental entities might be
impacting the neighborhood in positive and/or negative ways. Government may be repairing something
in the landscape (e.g., road, park, water/sewer line, interstate highway), creating plans (e.g., land use,
site, neighborhood) for the neighborhoods or whole city. A short hand for knowing whether government
is the right category is if there is something wrong - is there an office that someone might call to get the
problem resolved?
Critical questions:
• What do residents/the authors/document say about natural features?
o Water bodies, rivers/streams, rocks (including bedrock), mountains, soil
• Do they mention natural features?
• Does the neighborhood have access or do they want it?
• Is the natural feature a positive feature?
• Is it or has it been a hazard?
• Why was it mentioned?
• What do they want to do with it?
Demographics & Crime
Demographics and crime (i.e., statistics, numbers, or objective data) are generally large datasets that
summarize the characteristics that can be counted and aggregated for a geographic area. The most
common source of demographic data is the U.S. Census Bureau. The Pew Research Trust, the Centers
for Disease Control, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as state and
local governmental entities, have all analyzed the data to produce demographic products (i.e., the Social
Vulnerability Index).
Critical questions:
• What do residents/the authors/document say about demographics or crime?
o It is in good/bad for the neighborhood or geographic area?
o It enhances/detracts from the neighborhood?
o It directs visitors or residents to or away from the neighborhood?
• Why was it mentioned?
Economy
Economy in the context of document analysis might include: discussion of the macro-economy (e.g.,
national economy and how it impacts the neighborhood - such as the loss of large industrial
57
-------
manufacturers); local economy and local businesses; the purchasing behavior of residents; development
of industrial sectors (e.g., tourism, retail, agriculture, or manufacturing); and/or property values.
Critical questions:
• Do residents/the authors/document discuss any economic indicators?
o Discussed as a positive or negative for the neighborhood or geographic area?
o It enhances/detracts from the neighborhood?
o It directs visitors or residents to or away from the neighborhood?
Health Care and/or Facilities (Anchor Institutions)
The presence of health care facilities and pharmacies in a neighborhood is an important indicator of
access to care for families and the elderly (less mobile). At the same time, the presence of such facilities
is considered assets. Place-based enterprises, including universities, hospitals and cultural institutions,
are important foci of community redevelopment efforts.
Critical questions:
• What do residents/the authors/document say about health care facilities?
o It is in good/bad for the neighborhood or geographic area?
o It enhances/detracts from the neighborhood?
o It directs visitors or residents to or away from the neighborhood?
• Why was it mentioned?
PERSONAL ATTACHMENT ATTRIBUTES
Safety (lighting, traffic, etc.)
Safety, a rather large concept, is "the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or
loss" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2017). In a neighborhood, there are any number of conditions that
could cause harm: environmental conditions that promote the growth or movement of disease vectors;
exposure to risk (e.g., air or water pollution); inadequate lighting; poorly maintained infrastructure;
hazardous traffic conditions. In many ways, safety issues are the conditions that cause residents or other
stakeholders to contact governmental entities. If crime is mentioned and coded in this section, it means
the author/speaker feels that their personal safety is threatened by perceived crime.
Critical questions:
• What do residents/the authors/document say about safety?
o It is in good/bad for the neighborhood or geographic area?
o It enhances/detracts from the neighborhood?
o It directs visitors or residents to or away from the neighborhood?
• Why was it mentioned?
Participation (desire to/opportunity for/capacity to)
Participation or participatory democracy is often held up as a method for improving environmental
decisions that impact the public by giving residents a voice in the process. In short, citizens often (not
always) want a voice in their own neighborhood's development. In fact, the outcome may not matter - a
seat at the table and knowing they were heard is sometimes enough.
58
-------
Critical questions
• Do residents/the authors/document mention a desire to participate?
• If so, why?
• Are they asking for any particular "thing" or are they asking to be part of the process?
Identity and Place Attachment
Identity is complex and can include the personal, political, social, or organizational. Identity is a
function psychological processes, but might manifest themselves in a number of ways in neighborhoods
or communities. Identity with a neighborhood or place can be affective, reactionary, and protective
based on the type of connection to the place.
Identity and place are also contested terms and might result in competing definitions of the potential
value of a place. For the purpose of this guide, identity will refer to how a group (neighborhood or
otherwise) describes itself or origin; how the place is rooted in history; and/or how the group identifies
the space they claim.
Critical questions
• How residents/the authors/document describe themselves?
o Do they articulate a "claim" for a particular place (e.g., this neighborhood is...)?
o How/do they describe history?
o What do the residents/authors/document want to protect?
Social Cohesion (Local Groups, Organizations, Churches)
Local organizations, including service and advocacy groups, are important resources in a community.
They are potential community assets, knowledge brokers, gatekeepers and collaborators. Religious
communities, libraries, block groups, park organizations, cultural or neighborhood groups might all be
reflections of collective action in the area.
Critical questions
• Are local organizations mentioned by residents/authors/document?
• Are these groups considered stakeholders?
• How are they described? What are their roles?
RELATIONSHIP WITH HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT ATTRIBUTES
Sustainability
Sustainability could mean sustainability in the intergenerational equity sense (Summers & Smith, 2014),
or might mean how the neighborhood can be sustained and less vulnerable to elements such as pollution,
flooding, loss of jobs or food insecurity. Sustainability can refer to how a neighborhood enhances its
own sustainability or builds resilience including neighborhood beautification, other placemaking
activities, community gardens, or green infrastructure.
Scholars debate sustainability, but many are beginning to recognize that sustainability is a process that is
or should be inclusive, interdisciplinary, and intentional. Sustainability might be reflected in any strategy
that attempts to improve well-being of both humans and the environment simultaneously.
59
-------
Critical potential indicators (not an exhaustive list):
• Food security or community gardens
• Green infrastructure
• Floodplain enhancement
• Trees/shade/temperature control
• Targeted plantings
• Improving ecological function for the human population
Aesthetics (i.e., how the neighborhood should look)
One definition of aesthetics is the governing principles that define an idea of beauty at a particular time
or place (Random House, 2016). Furthermore, landscape ecologists have argued that what makes a
landscape pleasing is context dependent and limited to the "human perceptual realm" (Gobster,
Nassauer, Daniel, & Fry, 2007).
Critical questions
• Do residents/the authors/document mention changing the landscape to change their
experience with some element in the neighborhood?
o It could be positive... want to enhance views of a feature
o It could be negative and framed as a buffer to some element that detracts from the
neighborhood experience, (e.g., a buffer for noise, sound, smells)
• If so, do they describe why the enhancement would be important?
"The environment is not an inert, physical entity "out there" with trees, water, animals, and the like,
but a dynamic system of interconnected, meaning-laden places. Biophysical attributes may be the
most obvious features of places; however, those attributes are constantly altered by social and
political processes (e.g., personal experiences, community uses, regional economic production,
national conservation policies) and vary greatly in their social and cultural significance."
(Cheng, Kruger, & Daniels, 2003, p. 96; emphasis added)
Example
As an example, a set of comments from a neighborhood planning exercise were sorted according to the
model. All comments regarding how participants felt the neighborhood should look were coded as
"aesthetics", one attribute within the broader category of human-environment relationships. The source
of comments is provided at the end of each comment.
Aesthetics
Cohesion and design
• Consult local organization/urban design student plans for reuse site. (Stakeholders)
• Major arterial road lacks the presence of businesses that provide "cues" to the proximity
of the nearby trail system. (Technical advisors)
• Major arterial road needs an "amenity plan" that extends from the business area down to
the recreational hubs further to the west. E.g., banners. (Technical advisors)
• Entrance to arterial highway has blight and lots of scrub vegetation... .if this were cut
down and cleaned up, it would make a more inviting entrance to the regional recreation
area. (Conservation organization)
60
-------
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Offal Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
61
------- |