Stream restoration in Andean cities: learning from contrasting restoration approaches

Abstract

The Andes region is one of the fastest urbanizing regions of the world. The current rate of environmental degradation of streams in this region create an urgent need for sanitation and restoration programs that restore the ecological quality of streams while providing green and recreational areas. The tectonics of the area and its vulnerability to climate change adds relevance to wise landscape management in urban areas. Recent restoration efforts have been conducted with differing degrees of community involvement. Based on their social and ecological restoration goals, we analyzed the achievements of two projects in Quito, Ecuador. Our analysis revealed systemic challenges as well as opportunities to construct projects that are self-sustainable and more resilient in the Andean context. We found that the collaborative project, designed and executed by the community, had better overall results than the project led by the government, demonstrating that community involvement played a major role on the success of the project. The implications of these findings and the evaluation methods applied could benefit future decisions and the success of stream restoration projects in the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Acosta R, Ríos B, Rieradevall M, Fornells N (2009) Propuesta de un protocolo de evaluación de la calidad ecológica de ríos andinos (CERA) y su aplicación a dos cuencas en Ecuador y Perú. Limnetica 28(1):35–64

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allan J (2004) Landscapes and Riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.120202.110122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beechie T, Sear D, Olden J, Pess G, Buffington J, Moir H, Pollock M (2010) Process-based principles for Restoring River ecosystems. Bioscience 60(3):209–222. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berke PR, Campanella TJ (2006) Planning for postdisaster resiliency. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 604(1):192–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205285533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernhardt ES, Palmer M, Allan J, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J (2005) Synthesizing U. S. River restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109769

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. BES (Bureau of Environmental Services, City of Portland) (2005) Portland Watershed Management Plan http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/107808

  7. Booth DB (2005) Challenges and prospects for restoring urban streams: a perspective from the Pacific northwest of North America. J N Am Benthol Soc 24(3):724–737. https://doi.org/10.1899/04-025.1

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brown D (1999) Incas: Lords of Gold and Glory. (first edition edition). Alexandria: Time-Life Books

  9. Buytaert W, De Bièvre B (2012) Water for cities: the impact of climate change and demographic growth in the tropical Andes. Water Resour Res 48:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011755

  10. Comunidad Andina (2016) Recuperación de los Ríos Machángara y Monjas. http://www.comunidadandina.org/predecan/catalogovirtual/documentos/ecuador/doc02.pdf. Document accessed on 2016/04/04

  11. Corsair H, Ruch J, Zheng P, Hobbs B, Koonce J (2009) Multicriteria decision analysis of stream restoration: potential and examples. Group Decis Negot 18(4):387–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9148-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cruz e Sousa R da (2012). Participatory Stormwater Management for Quito, Ecuador. (Master of landscape architecture). University of California, Berkeley. https://issuu.com/dacki_guacki/docs/participatorystormwatermanagement

  13. Danver S (2015) Native peoples of the world: an Encylopedia of groups, cultures and contemporary issues. Routledge, Abingdon

  14. Denevan W (2001) Cultivated landscapes of native Amazonia and the Andes. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  15. ECLAC (2016) CEPALSTAT: databases and statistical publications. Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean. http://estadisticas.cepal.org/cepalstat/WEB_CEPALSTAT/perfilesNacionales.html?idioma=english. Website accessed on 2016/05/06

  16. Galarza E, Gómez R (2005) Cities in the Andes: threats and hopes. Environment and Poverty Times, 4. UNEP/GRID-Arendal

  17. Grimm NB, Sheibley RW, Crenshaw CL, Dahm CN, Roach WJ, Zeglin LH (2005) N retention and transformation in urban streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 24(3):626–642. https://doi.org/10.1899/04-027.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gutiérrez C (2012) Estudio Meteorológico-Climatológico e Hidrológico de la zona de influencia del Metro de Quito (Informe preliminar). DMQ

  19. INEC (2016) Estadísticas Ambientales. Vdatos. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC). Website accessed on 2016/03/31

  20. Kenney MA, Wilcock PR, Hobbs BF, Flores NE, Martínez DC (2012) Is urban stream restoration worth it? J Am Water Resour Assoc 48(3):603–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00635.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kondolf GM, Anderson S, Lave R, Pagano L, Merenlender A, Bernhardt ES (2007) Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn? Restor Ecol 15(3):516–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00247.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Meyer JL, Paul MJ, Taulbee WK (2005) Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. J N Am Benthol Soc 24(3):602–612. https://doi.org/10.1899/04-021.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Miserendino ML, Casaux R, Archangelsky M, Di Prinzio CY, Brand C, Kutschker AM (2011) Assessing land-use effects on water quality, in-stream habitat, riparian ecosystems and biodiversity in Patagonian northwest streams. Sci Total Environ 409(3):612–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.10.034

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moreano M (2010) La biografía secreta de las aguas Quiteñas. Revista Terra Incógnita. http://www.terraecuador.net/revista_65/65_agua.html. Website accessed on 2016/03/25

  25. Municipio del Distrito Metropolitano de Quito (2012) Resolución 350 del Concejo Metropolitano que establece al sistema de quebradas del DMQ como patrimonio natural, histórico, cultural y paisajístico del Distrito Metropolitado de Quito. Quito

  26. Neill D, Jorgensen P (2016) Catalogue of the Vascular Plants of Ecuador: Climate. Retrieved 8 July 2015, from http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/ecuador/climates.shtml

  27. Oleas N, Ríos-Touma B, Altamirano PP, Bustamante MR (2016). Plantas de las quebradas de Quito: guía práctica de identificación de plantas de ribera. Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica. pp 131

  28. Palmer MA, Hondula KL, Koch BJ (2014) Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: shifting strategies and shifting goals. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 45(1):247–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pardo I, Alvarez M, Casas J, Moreno JL, Vivas S, Bonada N, Alba-Tercedor J, Jaimez-Cuellar P, Moya G, Prat N, Robles S (2002) The habitat of the Mediterranean rivers. Design of the habitat diversity index. Limnetica 21(3):115-133.

  30. Peltre P (1989) Quebradas y riesgos naturales en Quito, periodo 1900-1988. In: Peltre P (ed) Riesgos naturales en Quito: lahares, aluviones y derrumbes del Pichincha y del Cotopaxi. Corporación Editora Nacional, Quito, pp 45–90 Retrieved from http://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:31649

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rahman A (1996) Groundwater as source of contamination for water supply in rapidly growing megacities of Asia: case of Karachi, Pakistan. Water Sci Technol 34:285–292

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Reynoldson TB, Norris RH, Resh VH, Day KE, Rosenberg DM (1997) The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 16(4):833–852. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rios-Touma B, Acosta R, Prat N (2014) The Andean biotic index (ABI): revised tolerance to pollution values for macroinvertebrate families and index performance evaluation. Rev Biol Trop 62:249–273. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v62i0.15791

  34. Rios-Touma B, Prescott C, Axtell S, Kondolf GM (2015) Habitat Restoration in the Context of Watershed Prioritization: The Ecological Performance of Urban Stream Restoration Projects in Portland, Oregon. River Res. Applic 31: 755–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2769

  35. 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(3):856–890. https://doi.org/10.1577/M06-169.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. SHTV (2012) Plan Metropolitano de Ordenamiento Territorial. http://www.quito.gob.ec/documents/rendicion_cuentas/AZC/Articulacion_politicas_publicas/PLAN_ORDENAMIENTO_TERRITORIAL2012.pdf. Website accessed on 2017/01/27

  37. Skidmore P, Beechie T, Pess G, Castro J, Cluer B, Thorne C, Chen R (2012) Developing, designing, and implementing restoration projects. In: Roni P, Beechie T (eds) Stream and watershed restoration. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com, pp 215–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118406618.ch7/summary

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Smith RF, Hawley RJ, Neale MW, Vietz GJ, Diaz-Pascacio E, Herrmann J, Lovell AC, Prescott C, Rios-Touma B, Smith B, Utz R (2016) Urban stream renovation: incorporating societal objectives to achieve ecological improvements. Freshwater Science 35(1):364–379. https://doi.org/10.1086/685096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Smucker NJ, Detenbeck NE (2014) Meta-analysis of lost ecosystem attributes in urban streams and the effectiveness of Out-of-Channel management practices. Restor Ecol 22(6):741–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tucci C, Goldenfum J, Parkinson J (2009) Integrated urban water management: humid tropics: UNESCO-IHP, 1st ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton

  41. UNICEF (2015) Progress on sanitation and drinking water: 2015 update and MDG assessment. UNICEF, New York

  42. UNSD (2016) UNDATA website. United Nations statistics division (UNSD). Website accessed on 2016/03/31

  43. Vazquez V (2002) Convenio de Cooperación entre la Corporación de Salud. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mrGuaSCJmM...da/legal/i/2002-asoc.coop.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

  44. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277(5325):494–499. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.494

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Walsh CJ (2000) Urban impacts on the ecology of receiving waters: a framework for assessment, conservation and restoration. Hydrobiologia 431(2–3):107–114. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004029715627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Ladson AR (2005) Stream restoration in urban catchments through redesigning stormwater systems: looking to the catchment to save the stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 24(3):690–705. https://doi.org/10.1899/04-020.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Woolsey S, Capelli F, Gonser T, Hoehn HM, Junker B, Paetzold A, Roulier C, Schweizer S, Tiegs S, Tockner K, Weber C, Peter A (2007) A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshw Biol 52(4):752–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01740.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Architect Susana Jácome and City Council Luisa Maldonado for their personal communications and comments that greatly improved the manuscript. We also thank Kelly Janes, International Watershed Partners, for her useful comments and help with editing the manuscript. BRT had the support of UDLA project AMB.BRT.17.01

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blanca Ríos-Touma.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 20002 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

da Cruz e Sousa, R., Ríos-Touma, B. Stream restoration in Andean cities: learning from contrasting restoration approaches. Urban Ecosyst 21, 281–290 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-017-0714-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Community involvement
  • Decision-making
  • Environmental restoration
  • Minga
  • Streams
  • Quito
  • Ecuador