Advertisement

Balancing Flood Control and Ecological Preservation/Restoration of Urban Watersheds

  • V. Novotny
  • D. Clark
  • R. Griffin
  • A. Bartošová
Chapter
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NAIV, volume 6)

Abstract

Throughout recent history, urbanisation has altered the ecological structure of urban streams and rivers. They have been channelised, constricted, and ultimately covered to gain space for urban development and to accommodate increased flood flows. The Los Angeles River in California and the Kinnikinnic River in Milwaukee represent the ultimate transformation of an urban stream into a concrete, high flow velocity channel with very little biological habitat. Concurrently, as a result of these modifications and diminished water quality, indigenous aquatic species have disappeared, resulting in a complete loss of sensitive species and the propagation of a few unwanted species tolerant to pollution and low quality habitat.

Keywords

Ecological Risk Flood Risk Flood Control Ecological Integrity Urban Stream 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McCuen, R.H. (1998) Hydrologie Analysis and Design, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    US EPA (1992) Framework for ecological risk assessment, Risk Assessment Forum, EPA 630/R-92/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parkhurst, B.R. Warren-Hicks, W., Cardwell, R.D., Volosin, J., Etchinson, T., Butcher, J.B., and Covington, S.M. (1996) Aquatic ecological risks assessment: a multi-tiered approach. Report 91-AER-l, Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Novotny, V. and Witte, J.W. (1997) Ascertaining aquatic ecological risks of urban stormwater discharges, Water Research 31(10):2573–2585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartošová, A. (2000) Statistical considerations in aquatic ecological risk estimation, Technical Memorandum # 1. Institute for Urban Environmental Risk Management, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B. (1997) Revisions to rapid bioassessment protocol for use in streams and rivers: peryphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish. EPA-84 l/D-97/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Randall, A., Ives, B.C., and Eastman, C. (1974) Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1, 132–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eastman, C, Randall, A., and Hoffer, P. (1978) A socioeconomic analysis of environmental concern: Case of the four corners electric power complex, Bulletin 62, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Acton, J.P. (1973) Evaluating public programs to save lives: the case of heart attacks, Research Report R-73-02, Santa Monica, Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanneman, M. (1978) A methodological and empirical study of the recreation benefits from water quality improvement, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Binkley, CS. and Hanneman, W.M. (1978) The recreation benefits of water quality improvement: Analysis of day trips in an urban setting, Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thunberg, E.M. (1988) Willingness to pay for property and nonproperty flood hazard reduction benefits: An experiment using the contingent valuation survey method, Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Ann Arbor, UMI Dissertation Services.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shabman, L. and Stephenson, K. (1996) Searching for the correct benefit estimate: evidence for an alternative perspective, Land Economics 72 (Nov), 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson, R.J., Swallow, S.K., and Weaver, T.F. (1999) Estimating willingness to pay and resource tradeoffs with different payment mechanisms: an evaluation of a funding guarantee for watershed management, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ajzen, I. (1988) Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Griffin, R.J., Dunwoody, S., and Neuwirth, K. (1999) Proposed model of the relationship of information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors, Environmental Research 80: S230–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ajzen, I. and Sexton, J. (In press) Depth of processing, belief congruence, and attitude behavior correspondence, in S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, Eds. Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guilford, New York.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Griffin, R.J., Neuwirth, K., Giese, J., and Dunwoody, S. (1999) The Relationship of Risk Information Processing to Consideration of Behavioral Beliefs, Presented to the Science Communication Interest Group, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, annual convention. New Orleans LA. August.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J. (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Novotny
    • 1
  • D. Clark
    • 1
  • R. Griffin
    • 1
  • A. Bartošová
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Urban Environmental Risk ManagementMarquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations