Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are Urban Stream Restoration Plans Worth Implementing?

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To manage and conserve ecosystems in a more sustainable way, it is important to identify the importance of the ecosystem services they provide and understand the connection between natural and socio-economic systems. Historically, streams have been an underrated part of the urban environment. Many of them have been straightened and often channelized under pressure of urbanization. However, little knowledge exists concerning the economic value of stream restoration or the value of the improved ecosystem services. We used the contingent valuation method to assess the social acceptability of a policy-level water management plan in the city of Helsinki, Finland, and the values placed on improvements in a set of ecosystem services, accounting for preference uncertainty. According to our study, the action plan would provide high returns on restoration investments, since the benefit–cost ratio was 15–37. Moreover, seventy-two percent of the respondents willing to pay for stream restoration chose “I want to conserve streams as a part of urban nature for future generations” as the most motivating reason. Our study indicates that the water management plan for urban streams in Helsinki has strong public support. If better marketed to the population within the watershed, the future projects could be partly funded by the local residents, making the projects easier to accomplish. The results of this study can be used in planning, management and decision making related to small urban watercourses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acuna V, Diez JR, Flores L, Meleason M, Elosegi A (2013) Does it make economic sense to restore rivers for their ecosystem services? J Appl Ecol 50:988–997. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alam MK, Marinova D (2003) Measuring the total value of a river cleanup. Water Sci Technol 48:149–156

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alberini A, Kahn JR (2006) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing Inc, Massachusetts

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alahuhta J, Joensuu I, Matero J, Vuori K-M, Saastamoinen O (2013) Freshwater ecosystem services in Finland. Reports of Finnish Environment Institute 16/2013, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, p 35

  • Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14:396–402. doi:10.2307/3150783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atasoy M, Palmquist RB, Phaneuf DJ (2006) Estimating the effects of urban residential development on water quality using microdata. J Environ Manag 79:399–408. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.07.012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ayer M, Brunk HD, Ewing GM, Silverman E (1955) An empirical distribution function for sampling with incomplete information. Ann Math Stat 26:641–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bae H (2011) Urban stream restoration in Korea: Design considerations and residents’ willingness to pay. Urban For Urban Green 10:119–126. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain DJ et al. (2014) Characterizing a major urban stream restoration project: nine mile run (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA). J Am Water Resour Assoc 50:1608–1621. doi:10.1111/Jawr.12225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ et al. (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

  • Bernhardt ES et al. (2005) Ecology—synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637. doi:10.1126/science.1109769

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA (2007) Restoring streams in an urbanizing world. Freshw Biol 52:738–751. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01718.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29:293–301. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:67–98. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.32.031306.102758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks AP, Brierley GJ, Millar RG (2003) The long-term control of vegetation and woody debris on channel and flood-plain evolution: insights from a paired catchment study in southeastern. Aust Geomorphol 51:7–29. doi:10.1016/S0169-555x(02)00323-9. doi:Pii S0169-555x(02)00323-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) Ols versus Ml estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manag 17:230–246. doi:10.1016/0095-0696(89)90018-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37:181–210. doi:10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champ PA, Bishop RC, Brown TC, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33:151–162. doi:10.1006/jeem.1997.0988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (2003) A primer on nonmarket valuation. The economics of Non-market goods and resources. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Vol 3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • City of Helsinki (2007) Helsingin pienvesiohjelma (Helsinki Small Water Action Plan). City of Helsinki Public works department, Helsinki. (In Finnish)

  • Collins A, Rosenberger R, Fletcher J (2005) The economic value of stream restoration Water Resour Res 41 doi:Artn W02017. doi:10.1029/2004wr003353

  • De Groot RS, Blignaut J, van der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Elmqvist T, Farley J (2013) Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conserv Biol 27:1286–1293. doi:10.1111/cobi.12158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everard M, Moggridge HL (2012) Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. Urban Ecosyst 15:293–314. doi:10.1007/s11252-011-0174-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filoso S, Palmer MA (2011) Assessing stream restoration effectiveness at reducing nitrogen export to downstream waters. Ecol Appl 21:1989–2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Findlay SJ, Taylor MP (2006) Why rehabilitate urban river systems? Area 38:312–325. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00696.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Avila-Jimenez ML, Edmondson JL (2013) Review: managing urban ecosystems for goods and services. J Appl Ecol 50:830–840. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22:959–972. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH (2012) The NLOGIT pdf manual of LIMDEP- Version 10.0 and NLOGIT- Version 5.0

  • Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu JG, Bai XM, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760. doi:10.1126/science.1150195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guerry AD et al. (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:7348–7355. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503751112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haab TC, McConnell KE (1997) Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. J Environ Econ Manag 32:251–270. doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale R, Barbee NC, Swearer SE (2014) Assessing the likely responses by fishes to stream bank rehabilitation in a large, urban estuary. Aust Ecol 39:479–489. doi:10.1111/Aec.12106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341. doi:10.2307/1240800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes TP, Bergstrom JC, Huszar E, Kask SB, Orr F (2004) Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 49:19–30. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney MA, Wilcock PR, Hobbs BF, Flores NE, Martinez DC (2012) Is urban stream restoration worth it? J Am Water Resour Assoc 48:603–615. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00635.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim JH, Kim SN, Doh S (2015) The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea. Ann Reg Sci 54:835–853. doi:10.1007/s00168-015-0688-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knighton D (1998) Fluvial forms and processes. Oxford University Press, New York, p 383

  • Kristrom B (1990) A nonparametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Econ 66:135–139. doi:10.2307/3146363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33:103–117. doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(99)00131-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmqvist B, Rundle S (2002) Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environ Conserv 29:134–153. doi:10.1017/S0376892902000097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1993) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method, 3rd edn. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore AA, Palmer MA (2005) Invertebrate biodiversity in agricultural and urban headwater streams: implications for conservation and management. Ecol Appl 15:1169–1177. doi:10.1890/04-1484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M, Bernhardt E, Chornesky E, Collins S, Dobson A, Duke C, Gold B, Jacobson R, Kingsland S, Kranz R, Mappin M, Martinez ML, Micheli F, Morse J, Pace M, Pascual M, Palumbi S, Reichman OJ, Simons A, Townsend A (2004a) Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 5:28/2004, 304(5675): 1251–1252

  • Palmer MA, Hart DD, Allan JD, Bernhardt E, Synt NRRS (2004b) Bridging engineering, ecological, and geomorphic science to enhance riverine restoration: local and national efforts Prot Restor Urban Rural Streams:29–37

  • Peipoch M, Brauns M, Hauer FR, Weitere M, Valett HM (2015) Ecological simplification: human influences on riverscape complexity. Bioscience 65:1057–1065. doi:10.1093/biosci/biv120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins DM, Reiss J, Yvon-Durocher G, Woodward G (2010) Global change and food webs in running waters. Hydrobiologia 657:181–198. doi:10.1007/s10750-009-0080-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perni A, Martinez-Paz J, Martinez-Carrasco F (2012) Social preferences and economic valuation for water quality and river restoration: the Segura River, Spain. Water Environ J 26:274–284. doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2011.00286.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL et al. (1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769–784. doi:10.2307/1313099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power M (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems—Daily, GC. Nature 388:529–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB (1999) Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conserv Biol 13:1220–1222. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98380.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roni P, Hanson K, Beechie T (2008) Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. N Am J Fish Manag 28:856–890. doi:10.1577/M06-169.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe RD, Schulze WE, Breffle WS (1996) A test for payment card biases. J Environ Econ Manag 31:178–185. doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searns RM (1995) The evolution of greenways as an adaptive Urban landscape form landscape. Urban Plan 33:65–80. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)02014-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shang ZY, Che Y, Yang K, Jiang Y (2012) Assessing local communities’ willingness to pay for river network protection: A contingent valuation study of Shanghai, China. Int J Environ Res Pub Health 9:3866–3882. doi:10.3390/ijerph9113866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streiner C, Loomis JB (1995) Estimating the benefits of urban stream restoration using the Hedonic. Price Method Rivers 5:267–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson ID et al. (2011) Forest biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem goods and services: Translating science into policy. Bioscience 61:972–981. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin J (1958) Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 26:24–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trabucchi M, Ntshotsho P, O’Farrell P, Comin FA (2012) Ecosystem service trends in basin-scale restoration initiatives: a review. J Environ Manag 111:18–23. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunstall SM, Penning-Rowsell EC, Tapsell SM, Eden SE (2000) River restoration: public attitudes and expectations . J Chart Inst Water E 14:363–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull BW (1976) The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodological) 38:290–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kazmierczak A, Niemela J, James P (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 81:167–178. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Violin CR, Cada P, Sudduth EB, Hassett BA, Penrose DL, Bernhardt ES (2011) Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems. Ecol Appl 21:1932–1949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Liermann CR, Davies PM (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555–561. doi:10.1038/nature09549

  • Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:706–723. doi:10.1899/0887-3593(2005)024\[0706:Tussck\]2.0.Co;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, He J, Kim Y, Kamata T (2013) Willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements in Chinese rivers: an empirical test on the ordering effects of multiple-bounded discrete choices. J Environ Manag 131:256–269. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh MP, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manag 36:170–185. doi:10.1006/jeem.1998.1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer H (1956) Validity of extrapolating nonresponse bias from mail questionnaire follow-ups. J Appl Phycol 40:117–121

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Janne Kotiaho (University of Jyväskylä) and senior researcher Heli Saarikoski (Finnish Environment Institute) for their detailed comments and advice concerning the manuscript. We also thank project manager Päivi Islander and city engineer Raimo K. Saarinen (City of Helsinki) for their good co-operation in the planning and implementation of the study, and Elina Seppälä (Pohjois-Satakunnan peruspalvelukuntayhtymä) and Jukka Jormola (Finnish Environment institute) for their contribution to the study and this manuscript. In addition, we are grateful to our colleagues for testing the questionnaire and to all our respondents, whose valuable effort made this study possible. This work has been funded by the Finnish Ministries of the Environment and Agriculture and Forestry, the Finnish Environment Institute, and the City of Helsinki.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), P. O. Box 140, Helsinki, 00251, Finland

    Auri Sarvilinna, Virpi Lehtoranta & Turo Hjerppe

Authors
  1. Auri Sarvilinna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Virpi Lehtoranta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Turo Hjerppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Auri Sarvilinna.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Description of the state of Helsinki streams in the questionnaire if the measures mentioned in the Small Water Action Plan are not implemented

  • The streams will frequently flood during heavy rains, but during the dry season the channels may dry out.

  • Water quality will be poor, especially during floods.

  • The streams will only support a few habitats, and sea-running brown trout populations may go extinct.

  • Storm waters and bank erosion will continue to increase water turbidity. The streams will be dredged into straight, deep and uniform channels. Stones and large woody debris will be removed from the streams.

  • The surroundings of the streams will only be taken care of in parks. In other places, bushes and other dense vegetation will grow, limiting recreational opportunities in the area.

Wording of the valuation scenario in the CV questionnaire

Below, we provide some background information on the following questions related to the hypothetical Small Water Fund.

The City of Helsinki, the Finnish environmental administration, and several NGOs have been restoring some streams in Helsinki during the past few years. However, holistic, basin-level improvement of the ecological state of the city’s streams requires more effective and long-term water protection actions. These actions will increase the cost of restoration, and at present there are insufficient resources to carry out the actions. One further step listed in the Small Water Action Plan for Helsinki was to explore new funding mechanisms to enable future implementation of the Action Plan.

One possibility to improve the ecological state of small waters in Helsinki is to establish a Small Water Fund to finance the restoration. The City of Helsinki would be one of the contributors, but citizens, private organizations, and NGOs would also be able to support the fund. The fund would be established in 2011, and its first term would be five years, lasting until 2015.

According to the Helsinki Water Vision 2015 introduced in the Action Plan, Helsinki will in the future have a diverse network of streams and other small waters, increasing biodiversity and attracting citizens and wildlife. The Helsinki Small Water Fund would finance the restoration of 25 streams, six ponds, five bogs, and six springs that are listed in the Action Plan. After the restoration:

  • Storm waters will be filtered through soil, infiltration areas, or wetlands before they are directed to the streams;

  • Flood protection of the streams will be improved with flood terraces;

  • Streams will meander and the sound of the flowing water will return to the city. The streams will maintain a high biodiversity and their water flow will be more even, so that even during dry periods they will provide water;

  • Stones and large wood debris will make the flow more diverse and provide shelter and habitats to fauna and flora;

  • Streams and their corridors will provide habitats for various birds, mammals, and insects. Sea-running brown trout populations will continue to return to restored streams;

  • Streams will be more visible and audible in the landscape;

  • There will be stepping-stones, benches, and bins along the streams to attract citizens to outdoor activities, so that they can enjoy nature, or simply relax by the water.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sarvilinna, A., Lehtoranta, V. & Hjerppe, T. Are Urban Stream Restoration Plans Worth Implementing?. Environmental Management 59, 10–20 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0778-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0778-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation